By how many points will Chelsea win the league this season?

[pc4th]

By how many points will Chelsea win the league this season? I'm predicting over 14 points.

Just throwing these two predictions in there. Chelsea might win it by over 20 points. Unbelievable. That's almost 7 games right there.

Projected league table based on current points per game

1. Chelsea 105
2. Liverpool 82
3. United 81
4. Spurs 72
5. Arsenal 65
6. Bolton 64
7. Wigan 62
8. Blackburn 57
9. City 51
10. Charlton 50
11. Newcastle 49
12. West Ham 47
13. Villa 45
14. Fulham 42
15. Boro 42
16. Everton 42
17. WBA 34
18. Portsmouth 31
19. Birmingham 30
20. Sunderland 11

OR this prediction by Slabber

So (((season points/games)+(last six points/games))/2)*(remaining games)+(current points)

1. Chelsea 107
2. Liverpool 87
3. United 83
4. Spurs 75
5. Bolton 62
6. Blackburn 62
7. Arsenal 61
8. Wigan 61
9. Newcastle 49
10. Villa 48
11. Charlton 47
12. City 45
13. West Ham 42
14. Fulham 42
15. Everton 41
16. Boro 36
17. WBA 35
18. Birmingham 34
19. Portsmouth 34
20. Sunderland 10

[sendorange]

I like Slabber's prediction.

[Toon³]

I like Slabber's prediction.

Me too. 9th! I'll take it.

[Colm]

Around 10 i reckon.

[Toon³]

Around 10 i reckon.

Come on Colm, you won't mess it up that badly.

[mshankb]

I predict 8.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Who cares about an aberration like them?

[Clan]

Who cares about an aberration like them?

Was it better when United were running away with titles?

A better question would be, how many points ahead of Man U will Liverpool finish?

[nicephoras]

No more than 10. Not because it'll be close, but because we'll empty our bench for the meaningless games after we've clinched it, while the second and third placed teams fight it out for the automatic qualification spot.

[nicephoras]

Who cares about an aberration like them?

Who cares about Tampa Bay United?

[superdave]

Was it better when United were running away with titles?

Yes, because ManU generated their own cash, ergo, there were limits on their dynasty.

The only limit on Chelsea's dynasty is whether or not Roman gets arrested.

[Clan]

Yes, because ManU generated their own cash, ergo, there were limits on their dynasty.

The only limit on Chelsea's dynasty is whether or not Roman gets arrested.

No Dave, it's not that simple.

[jimi hendrix]

I like Slabber's prediction.
yeah me too:D . but i think pompey will stay up

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Other teams had a chance to win and the league was a lot closer before Roman came along. Hell, do you remember 94/95, 97/98 and 98/99 when the league was won by a single point? Other sides were close in numerous other seasons. That is why I refered to Chelsea as an aberration. It is frankly unrealistic for other Premiership clubs to compete and that has helped to kill the league for the fans. It is predictable and boring. Thank God for surprise packages like Wigan.

[Toon³]

Other teams had a chance to win and the league was a lot closer before Roman came along. Helll, do you remember 94/95, 97/98 and 98/99 when the league was won by a single point? Other sides were close in numerous other seasons. That is why I refered to Chelsea as an aberration. It is frankly unrealistic for other Premiership clubs to compete and that has helped to kill the league for the fans. It is predictable and boring. Thank God for surprise packages like Wigan.

Exactly, whenever people complain that the league has become boreing because one team always wins the league people come out with the arguement that wasn't it boreing when Man U won all of their titles? Well no frankly it wasn't Newcastle push Man U to the limit and should have won atleast one title and Arsenal and Blackburn pushed Man U over many years. They may have won the title but atleast it was entertaining and had different teams competeing, now its just a race for the CL places.

[nicephoras]

Yes, because ManU generated their own cash, ergo, there were limits on their dynasty.

The only limit on Inter Milan and Real Madrid's dynasty is whether or not Moratti/Perez gets arrested.

Fixed to demonstrate lack of understanding about the game.

[nicephoras]

Exactly, whenever people complain that the league has become boreing because one team always wins the league people come out with the arguement that wasn't it boreing when Man U won all of their titles? Well no frankly it wasn't Newcastle push Man U to the limit and should have won atleast one title and Arsenal and Blackburn pushed Man U over many years. They may have won the title but atleast it was entertaining and had different teams competeing, now its just a race for the CL places.

Over the 6 years before Roman, I believe only once have both ManUtd and Arsenal not fished in a combination of 1 and 2.
Excitement!

[nicephoras]

It is frankly unrealistic for other Premiership clubs to compete and that has helped to kill the league for the fans.

This coming from the club that is the prime example, progenitor and proponent of the "more money, more advertising, more money" culture of football over the past 10 seasons. But, the moment they're no longer able to spend 32M for a defender, its Chelsea who have killed the league.
Now I know what the creator of the word "lacunae" was thinking of.

[Stud83]

Over the 6 years before Roman, I believe only once have both ManUtd and Arsenal not fished in a combination of 1 and 2.
Excitement!

But then again, how many big-name transfers has MU completed over the decade when they dominated? Most of the main players came from the youth team, and MU never had a bench even remotely close to the bench Chelsea has, being able to rotate players in and out without sacrificing quality. I doubt MU ever had a double-point digit lead in January, and only once managed to surpass 90 point mark, which Chelsea should have no problems surpassing second year in a row. And besides 99-00 season, which MU won by 20 or so points (still would've lost to Chelsea of last season by 4 points), most of the title races were very close, decided very late in the season.

[nicephoras]

But then again, how many big-name transfers has MU completed over the decade when they dominated?

Are you serious? OK:
1. Veron
2. Barthez
3. Ruud
4. Cronaldo(big enough)
5. Rio
6. Roy Keane
7. Jaap Stam
8. Rooney, etc.
Remember, despite Chelsea's purchases, ManUtd still own the record for most expensive purchase at every position in England. (Barthez, Rio, Veron and Ruud.)

Most of the main players came from the youth team,

Abjectly false. United had one great class of 4 players but the current club (in which Giggs no longer commands a starting place) features exactly two/three homegrown starters. And that entirely depends on formations, as Fletcher is not an automatic choice, and really, its between Scholes/Fletcher, since Smith is needed as a DM. The current ManUtd squad is just as mercenary as Chelsea's or Arsenal. That once there was a great class and that a few fringe players are subs doesn't change that.

and MU never had a bench even remotely close to the bench Chelsea has, being able to rotate players in and out without sacrificing quality.

This is a myth. Last season Chelsea did very little rotating. Of the top 15 players for Arsenal, Chelse and ManUtd, Chelsea's actually played the highest percentage of minutes. Also, keep in mind that in the glory days of ManUtd, their bench players commanded starting places for England. If that's not depth, what is?

I doubt MU ever had a double-point digit lead in January,

I believe you are wrong regarding that.

and only once managed to surpass 90 point mark, which Chelsea should have no problems surpassing second year in a row.

We've raised the bar, yes.

And besides 99-00 season, which MU won by 20 or so points (still would've lost to Chelsea of last season by 4 points), most of the title races were very close, decided very late in the season.

And yet, oddly enough, they were mostly won by ManUtd.