|
|
Post by dai on Sept 27, 2022 13:57:48 GMT
If you want to talk about 'factual' stuff. We are the worst place team in League A, we were not good enough to stay in League A, we have been relegated to League B. So our standard is League B. We may qualify for league A again next year, but that doesn't mean we're League A standard. The rankings are a joke and have been for years. The rankings have changed in recent years and teams tend to move up and down less. That means if you have sustained success you will be near the top, if you have sustained failure you'll be near the bottom, and if you're inconsistent you'll be in the middle pack. We're near the top for a reason! Well, if we could apply that consistency to League A, and maintain a League A status for a few years, only then I think we could label ourselves League A standard. But we haven't. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves labelling us as League A based on one campaign, that was poor. Like someone else mentioned, we're probably between B and A, but we've spent more seasons in League B thus far, so that's another reason for my reasoning. Anyway, I'm fed up of writing League A now. |
|
|
|
Post by iot on Sept 27, 2022 14:16:58 GMT
Yes, it ignores a lot of other facts such as the amount of squad withdrawals and the circumstances of the Ukraine game, but fair enough. Even so, with four relegation spots from League A, that makes us about 13th-16th and therefore very well placed to go back up to League A at the next opportunity. I see us as sort of the Fulham of international, European football. We're towards to bottom end of League A, and will go between the top two leagues, but hopefully eventually (like Fulham this season) we'll learn to be more competitive and stay up for a campaign or two. This has been the norm for probably 5/6 years now. We rarely field a consistent strong starting 11, and odds are that won't change for the foreseeable future. Another factor in my labelling of us as League B. I would also argue to be in League A you need world class players, even 1 (like Poland. And let's be honest, do we actually have world class players at the moment? Can you consider Bale as world class anymore? I don't think so. 'This has been the norm for probably 5/6 years now. We rarely field a consistent strong starting 11, and odds are that won't change for the foreseeable future. Another factor in my labelling of us as League B.' I don't think that's accurate. Can't be bothered to look through the teamsheets, but we've had more than less our first team available for the whole WC campaign (including playoffs), at the Euros and that campaign. Sure we've had Ramsey out for spells, Bale has missed a game or two (though not many), but I would say we've almost always had 8 or 9 of our first xi available. This was different, as I said we've 5 or 6 out for almost every game and 8 or 9 in some. It certainly wasn't like that in the last NL campaign. I can only think of Belarus away where we had a horrendous injury record. Other than that, and ome or two Coleman games, you'd have to go back to the Toshack era for the last time we've been missing so many first team players. 'I would also argue to be in League A you need world class players, even 1 (like Poland.' Nah, there's no requirement to have a WC player to be one of the top 16 in Europe, as shown by what we've already achieved. I would say even the likes of Denmark, who are on another level and firmly wedded in the elite, don't have world class players. We may have a different definition of world class, and it's completely subjective obviously, but I would say the likes of Eriksen doesn't meet that billing |
|
