The All-Encompassing Playoffs-in-Soccer Thread

Fans in England (and anywhere else) can prioritize what trophy they like. Never said otherwise.

 

Sure when I lived in the UK rugby union and rugby league didn't have playoffs, cricket didn't have playoffs, field hockey didn't have playoffs, football didn't have promotion playoffs.

It's relevant because fans seem to be accepting that it's a valid way to crown champions, watching the games on TV and showing up in large numbers.

I do agree that the best team is usually the one that won most games over the course of a season but there are other methods to crown champions.

 

Fans in England like their team to win the FA Cup, they like them to win the Champions League, unfortunately though you cannot be sure that the best team in England wins the FA Cup or that the best team in Europe wins the Champions League (and I say that as a Chelsea supporter that celebrated winning it in 2012 when Chelsea were not even the best team in England let alone Europe!). You CAN be sure though that the best team in England will win the Premier League.

 

I already stated that playoff have 'their place' hell we even have them in the promotion races (BUT notice NOT the top two.............this is for the obvious reason), fact is though a substantially inferior team can and sometimes does beat a superior team in 'one off' matches, sometimes even over two legs - but it is impossible for an inferior team to get the better of a superior team over a course of a 38 game season where everybody plays everybody home and away. If Manchester City win the league with 98 points and are then forced to play Southampton in a 'play-off' only to lose the game (despite outshooting Southampton 32 shots to 1 (like Italy v N. Macadonia for example)) then it would simply make a mockery of the league.

 

I’m sure the FA Cup winner is the best team in that competition if they win according to the rules.

 

No they are NOT (necessarily) 'the best team in that competition' but there again the FA Cup winners are NOT crowned as the best team in England, they are crowned winners of a knockout competition. In fact for some the beauty of the FA Cup is that it gives teams a 'punchers chance' at silverware, the Premier League determines the best team in England.

 

You're just reflecting the dominant hierarchy of importance the culture has led to. Which is fine. If the consensus is that the Premier League winner is "the best," that's what it is. Just like in the U.S. the culture goes with MLS Cup over the Supporters Shield or the Open Cup, and the Stanley Cup over the Presidents trophy.

What I'm saying is that the winners of whatever competition are perfectly valid. The FA Cup winner is the FA Cup winner, no more, no less. Presumably that trophy is supposed to carry importance in its own right. That's how I view it as an outsider who likes English soccer.

 

Yes in the main I agree. It is impossible to ascertain the best team in the whole of Europe with the current set-up, to do that you need a 'proper' European Super League with a pyramid of divisions, something that fans in Europe don't want to see (we like to have our domestic championships), of course I loved to see Chelsea win the Champions League but I can clearly see that winning it does not/did not prove Chelsea to be the 'best team in Europe' (particularly in 2012 when they finished 10th in the Premier League), doesn't make winning it less pleasing. However we do know that the Premier League winners WILL be the best team in England, putting an un-necessary play-off at the end of it all would just turn the whole season into a 'mockery'. Like I said play-offs DO have their place (for various reasons) but that place is most definitely NOT to decide the Domestic English Champions (among other places).

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I enjoy both European single table style leagues and play-off type leagues like MLS. I'm sure travel was the origin of playoffs in North America, but it's continuation in professional leagues is mostly cultural. An example is Major League Baseball; the Mets and the Yankees; both from New York, are not in the same division! In the NFL; Dallas is the same division as the New York Giants and Philadelphia, but not paired with Houston. Divisions in North American pro sport are largely a cultural phenomenon.

Also, European Soccer has play-offs - the Champions League. Chelsea are defending Euro champions, but if they were Europe's best club last season is debatable.

 

No, they don't play everybody home and away. They only play Premier League clubs. I'm quite aware that the Premier League sits atop the other English Leagues. Yes, based on the prior season's results the league(s) make up is determined. Though, in said season the Prem Champion doesn't play every team in England (as you've stated more than once now, that they do) so it is open ... now sure, folks aren't going to claim Fulham are better than City this season BUT BUT BUT, without playing each other room for doubt exists in any given season as to whether the Premier League champion is better than the Football League champion ...

and AGAIN, the incorrect comparison with the FA Cup.

and AGAIN, the incorrect comparison with the FA Cup.

So we've well established that NO, you DO NOT grasp the fundamental understanding of the season/playoff relationship.

I point to '98-'99 Arsenal again. Lost the title by 1 point to a ManU team that they drew 1-1 and beat 3-0. They were only 1 behind on GD, let in 20 less goals, and their only losses came by 1 goal.

You can very easily argue, say, and believe they were better than ManU that year.

 

Rugby League had oversized playoffs in the 60's (maybe before as well?) and early 70's until it introduced... pro/rel. This is an example of my point that oversized playoffs and lack of pro/rel really are linked.

Rugby Union didn't even have a league back then. Everything was a purportedly amateur "friendly".

Last season the cricket County Championship had a somewhat complex split season rather than playoffs per se.

 

Over the course of 38 or 42 matches the team with the most points is usually the best team. But correlation is not causation. There have definitely been occasions when the best team hasn't got the most points.

Brian Clough's titles at Derby and Forest are examples. In fact Forest were actually a much better team the following season. Arsenal's title in 1988/89 is another. Those teams got the most points under the system that was in place.

But that's me being subjective.

 

Yes but the Premier League clubs are the best 20 clubs in the country, after 100+ years of pro/rel we know that for a fact! Its the pro/rel that means we can be sure. Therefore the FACT is that the team that finishes top of the Premier League IS the best team in England, however we all know that the best team in England rarely wins the FA Cup, we also know that Italy is a better team than most of the teams that will be contesting the finals later this year. Making the Premier League champions play 'one off' games after the season to determine the best team in England is nonsensical, it would make a mockery of nine months of matches.

Arsenal in 98/99 were close to being the best team in England but obviously Utd that year were better because Utd amassed more points playing the same amount of games against the same teams as Arsenal. The fact that Arsenal beat United in one game just goes to prove my point further.

 

The best team in any country also appears to vary based on 2 or 3 points for a win, goal average, goal difference or goals scored. Jimmy Hill wanted to bring in bonus points for goals. Cricket and rugby both have bonus points for scoring.

 

Well as with any sport you can only play to the rules, if they awarded points for corners you would probably see teams tactics change to suit.

 

Shades of old US Leagues!

 

Ugh, the old USISL. I still hate Fernando Marcos.

 

Hill was a director of a Coventry City and a co-owner of Detroit Express, as well as the face of football on ITV and later the BBC.

He got some of his wackiest ideas from the US.

On the plus side he was largely responsible for the end of the maximum wage and 3 rather than 2 points for a win.

Frustrated that he couldn't put sponsors names on shirts he designed Coventry's shirts to incorporate the logo of their sponsor. This got them a TV ban.

The league quickly relented the TV companies has to deal with it.

Also, his brother Graham and nephew Damon were Formula 1 world champions.

 

This is the same kind of meaningless extrapolation as the “If MLS had pro/rel team x, who had the worst regular season record, would have been relegated last season”. The reality is we can’t make such judgments as we don’t know how teams would have performed if the rules were different.

 

What is the USISL?

 

Except that's not true. Part of the reason for pro/rel is that there's MORE clubs at a certain level than there's room for. I mean if the best clubs are already in the Prem then what's the need for pro/rel?

For instance, I'd say Fulham is better than Norwich and potentially Burnley and Watford this season.

I've already illustrated, with facts and stats, how this isn't necessarily true. Sure, that's how they're regarded but FACTUALLY it isn't necessarily so every year

[/quote]however we all know that the best team in England rarely wins the FA Cup[/quote]

AGAIN you show you don't have the fundamental understanding of the season/playoff relationship

Not based on results on the field of play

Some people feel your way, some don't ... Though, it'd certainly be quite helpful in the example I gave:

Oh look, you said exactly what I said you would.

The fact that Arsenal dominated ManU flies in the face of your point, it doesn't help it in any way.

 

IF and it is IF Fulham are 'better' than Norwich then thanks to pro/rel they will get a chance to prove it next year!! That's the point! It means that teams that become 'good' (lets try and remember here that football teams evolve and DON'T have the same team for 100 years) get a chance to climb to the place their talents 'belong'! And not by winning ONE OFF games! After 100 years of fluidity you cannot argue that the clubs are where their current abilities mean them to be!

As for Arsenal 'dominated' Man U I ask in what way exactly? Man U scored 80 goals to Arsenals 59! United lost 3 games to Arsenal's 4! How is that Arsenal 'dominating' exactly!? As for the game between the two then that only goes to prove my point further in that ANY team whether Grimsby Town or Man City can have either a 'bad' or a 'good' game which is why sometimes inferior teams beat superior teams, however inferior teams NEVER get the better of superior teams over a course of matches ie the Premier League. Which is why the best team in England will ALWAYS win the Premier League but the best team in England usually DOESN'T (sometimes does) win the FA Cup. Which is why a 'play-off' would turn the Premier League competition into a mockery.

 

Only if Norwich stay in the Prem, which we know itsn't happening soooooo how then? They won't play each other.

Remind me how Brentford got in the Prem again ....

By not losing to them and beating them by a combined scoreline of 4-1 for the season. The LITERALLY dominated ManU.

Arsenal gave up 17 goals to ManUs 37!

Arsenal's combined loss GD = 4 (all by one goal)
ManU's combined loss GD = 6 (3 goal, 2 goal, and one goal)

I showed you how they dominated ManU, which is what I stated.

Well, according to YOU ... Arsenal were inferior, BUT BUT BUT they clearly and in dominating fashion got the better of ManU in 98-99.

Soooooooooo get your story straight

AGAIN the incorrect comparison with the FA Cup and lacking of the fundamental understanding of the season/playoff relationship.

and hard to claim the best team in England when you don't play all the teams!!!!!! Which, btw .... is a quite common poo poo set upon MLS/American sporting structures. If it's true for us, then it's true for everyone.

 

IF and its still an IF Norwich get relegated and IF and its still an IF Fulham get promoted then we can safely say that BOTH would deserve to be where they will be, whatever Arsenal did with regards to goals scored, goals conceded, wins, losses, draws, tackles made, corners, posts hit, shots taken with the left foot, saves, or anything else fact is they and Man Utd KNEW what they had to do to win points and Manchester United DID IT BETTER, we can argue about who takes the 'best corners' if you like but ulitmately United were the best team in England that year no argument. They also won the cup I believe - one of those few years when the best team in England also happens to win the FA Cup too.

As for Brentford they benefited from Championship playoffs I believe? And like I said before the ONLY way the English fan accepted this was by insisting that the top two get promoted automatically through a season's performance, if after winning the league Norwich were denied promotion by the sixth best team in the Championship it would also have made a complete mockery of the whole season.

 

Norwich have been relegated for quite a while now. Fulham are promoted at this point. Though the whole "deserve" thing has nothing to do with what I was speaking about. THIS SEASON there's a very large argument for Fulham being a better footballing squad than Norwich and even Burnley or Watford ... hell, even Leeds or Everton given the last 6 weeks.

You say the Prem winner is the best team in England because they beat the best 19 teams in England over the season ... to which I say, that's not necessarily true.

Whatever Arsenal did (and quite a bit of it they did better than ManU to include results in their two matches against ManU) matters to the point of who was the better team. That year, there absolutely is an argument as to which side was better. That's the entire point ... Yes, ManU won the title but you can easily and very legitimately say that Arsenal were a better team.

You're tossing literally everything aside and saying - "they got more points so they're the best/better" BUT BUT BUT that's one singular measure! You toss that aside for the Cup competitions. So you just selectively apply things to fit your opinion ... Wigan knew what they had to do to win the cup, mind you, and did it better ...

Yup, the playoffs ... yet you said that clubs get to their level NOT based on one off matches. Yet, each year that's EXACTLY how one of the Prem clubs gets there (and other clubs in other leagues).

So how is it NOT a mockery if the 3rd place team doesn't win the promotion playoffs? It's the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE at play.