RAWK goes into Meltdown 2010/2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol: I'm a bit embarrassed by some of you here.

2005 win was definitely something unexpected, but well deserved. You don't come back from a 3-0 deficit at halftime and win in usual matches, let alone the Champions League finals. And the route they had to take there wasn't the hardest for sure, but definitely wasn't the easiest either. They may not have taken the most honest and proper route with their diving and cheating, but then again it was a well deserved silverware, probably their last good one for a long time.
 
alastair said:
So yeh, basically things fell for them, and made their victory in '05 perhaps a little bit more attainable than it would be ordinarily, but I wouldn't go as far to say they got lucky.
Click to expand...

I think the argument of most United fans would be that things did indeed fall for them - aka they got lucky. What's more baffling/amusing is how Benitez became a "success" in most Liverpool fans eyes after a victory made possible only by a failure in the league that let them rest for months and then get to a final in which Milan got into such a comfortable lead they fell asleep. Gerrard really did do something special that night and Rafa lived off it for 5 years.
 
alastair said:
It's hearsay - Gerrard and Carragher apparently moaned a lot about Benitez doing hours of tactical training a day - ie, sitting indoors with a DVD of the opposing team. No quotes though, obviously.
Click to expand...

Don't know anything about that.

But if Gerrard was moaning, he should be careful what he wishes for. He's wished himself into mid-table obscurity as it stands.
 
alastair said:
Yeh, I sort of agree with you, in the sense that there was no way they were the best side in Europe at the time of their victory. We almost did a very similar thing - in '06 we were by no means the second best side in Europe, yet we got to the final.

But that's where I differentiate between things falling for you a tad, and luck. Liverpool had no sort of league campaign that year, and consequently could rest players in the league in preparation for their big European games. That is how it fell for them, but I wouldn't call that luck as such.

So yeh, basically things fell for them, and made their victory in '05 perhaps a little bit more attainable than it would be ordinarily, but I wouldn't go as far to say they got lucky.
Click to expand...

Well that's just semantics really. Some people would say things falling for you is luck.

I don't like the whole luck arguments either. But I realise you need a shit-load to go your way if you're going to a win a tournament where you're nowhere near the best side.

Saying that, Liverpool were a pretty solid outfit, almost custom-made for cup competitions. In the league where the requirement is to go out and force the win they weren't much cop, but in Europe where the requirement is simply not to lose, they were a different kettle of fish. Houllier had also left a side experienced in winning cup competitions before.

It suited them to be the small team, against opponents expected to take the game to them, rather than vice versa. It's a common theme in Benitez's reign - he did brilliantly when Liverpool were the small team, but was repeatedly found wanting when they were expected to be the big team.
 
alastair said:
Oh my god - how many times are people going to argue that Benitez fluked the European Cup win? It's the most ridiculous argument in the history of the internet.
Click to expand...

It's not that ridiculous at all. It's just silly to level the accusation at Liverpool but not at anyone else.

It's very rare for any side to win the European CUp with out a large degree of fluke/luck.

Inter were extremely lucky on occasions last year. United were extrememly lucky on occasions in 2008. Even a Barcelona side which was miles better than any other team on the planet, needed a ridiculous amount of luck to get through the semis.

There's usually a core of teams who are good enough to reach the knockout stages and then hold their own, but once it gets to that stage it's as much about luck or close call one off incidents as it is anything else

That's why no side ever manages to retain it, no matter how good they are. It's also why Sam's "Rafa achieved in one year what Fergie achieved in 15" argument is retarded.
 
noodlehair said:
It's also why Sam's "Rafa achieved in one year what Fergie achieved in 15" argument is retarded.
Click to expand...

Good lord.

Of all the "retarded" arguments in this thread alone, you choose that one?

It was clearly in jest as Benitez is not in the same management vacuum as Ferguson.

That said, I did find that 2005 CL win funny for the reason I pointed out..
 
Sam.G said:
Good lord.

Of all the "retarded" arguments in this thread alone, you choose that one?

It was clearly in jest as Benitez is not in the same management vacuum as Ferguson.

That said, I did find that 2005 CL win funny for the reason I pointed out..
Click to expand...

I don't have time to pick apart everything in this amazingly spastic thread...no one does, but Alastair's trying to claim that luck doesn't exist, for feck sake. Why is he always so wrong about everything?

I don't go along with the idea that Liverpool didn't deserve to win the CL in 2005...they deserved it as much as anyone else, but it's ludicrous to say you can't deserve something and not still be incredibly lucky at the same time.

United deserved to win the treble in 99, but some of the luck involved there bordered on scientific impossibility.
 
Kraftwerker]I don't like the whole luck arguments either. [/QUOTE] I don't understand this point said:
I don't have time to pick apart everything in this amazingly spastic thread...no one does, but Alastair's trying to claim that luck doesn't exist, for feck sake. Why is he always so wrong about everything?

I don't go along with the idea that Liverpool didn't deserve to win the CL in 2005...they deserved it as much as anyone else, but it's ludicrous to say you can't deserve something and not still be incredibly lucky at the same time.

United deserved to win the treble in 99, but some of the luck involved there bordered on scientific impossibility.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This guy understands it, and he can barely work a toothbrush.
 
noodlehair said:
I don't have time to pick apart everything in this amazingly spastic thread...no one does, but Alastair's trying to claim that luck doesn't exist, for feck sake. Why is he always so wrong about everything?
Click to expand...

Agree re the thread.

Don't agree re Alastair.
 
Plechazunga said:
I don't understand this point, and I hear it a lot. Why would it be that luck existed in all areas of life, but not in football? What is it that's keeping the exigencies of the world outside the turnstiles?

Is what's bothering you the notion that if you admit luck into football, you're taking away the players' capacity to influence the course of the game with skill, determination etc? Because that doesn't follow.

Defining it very simplistically, luck is everything that happens that's outside the players' control. If the ball bobbles bizarrely just as the striker's about to hit it, that's bad luck: he can't be held responsible for it. Obviously some strikers will respond to that by feeling sorry for themselves, while others will channel their frustration into effort and maybe get a chance to make up for it. That's not luck.

If you genuinely don't think luck plays any part in football, then you're reduced to arguing that, say, it was Liverpool's own fault that they had a goal scored against them by a beach-ball last year. Which may be a funny POV, but is a bit harsh... they were obviously unlucky.
Click to expand...

It's the concept of luck being distributed unevenly that doesn't make sense.
 
Plechazunga said:
I don't understand this point, and I hear it a lot. Why would it be that luck existed in all areas of life, but not in football? What is it that's keeping the exigencies of the world outside the turnstiles?

Is what's bothering you the notion that if you admit luck into football, you're taking away the players' capacity to influence the course of the game with skill, determination etc? Because that doesn't follow.

Defining it very simplistically, luck is everything that happens that's outside the players' control. If the ball bobbles bizarrely just as the striker's about to hit it, that's bad luck: he can't be held responsible for it. Obviously some strikers will respond to that by feeling sorry for themselves, while others will channel their frustration into effort and maybe get a chance to make up for it. That's not luck.

If you genuinely don't think luck plays any part in football, then you're reduced to arguing that, say, it was Liverpool's own fault that they had a goal scored against them by a beach-ball last year. Which may be a funny POV, but is a bit harsh... they were obviously unlucky.
Click to expand...

The reason I don't like luck arguments is because luck is so hard to define (though you've had a good bash at it just there). I'm not arguing that teams only win things because of their own skill and ability - far from it.
 
noodlehair said:
I don't go along with the idea that Liverpool didn't deserve to win the CL in 2005...they deserved it as much as anyone else, but it's ludicrous to say you can't deserve something and not still be incredibly lucky at the same time.

United deserved to win the treble in 99, but some of the luck involved there bordered on scientific impossibility.
Click to expand...

I don't really care if we 'deserved' to win in '05 or not. The fact is we did. Luckily or not, it doesn't really matter. I'm happy either way.
 
noodlehair said:
I don't have time to pick apart everything in this amazingly spastic thread...no one does, but Alastair's trying to claim that luck doesn't exist, for feck sake. Why is he always so wrong about everything?

I don't go along with the idea that Liverpool didn't deserve to win the CL in 2005...they deserved it as much as anyone else, but it's ludicrous to say you can't deserve something and not still be incredibly lucky at the same time.

United deserved to win the treble in 99, but some of the luck involved there bordered on scientific impossibility.
Click to expand...


I never said luck didn't exist, all I'm saying is that it did not make a greater effect on the champions league in 2005 than it did in any other year. That's the point. Liverpool did not get lucky in how most people seem to define it. I would define luck as poor refereeing going in your favour, or perhaps another team having an injury crisis before the game. That's luck. I don't think what happened to Liverpool was luck at all.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Over the course of a season there hundreds of random incidents that could go down as good or bad luck. These will be evenly distributed amongst all the teams because they are, by their nature, random.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you're on the "Liverpool's victory in 2005 wasn't down to luck/flukiness" side then?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Over the course of a season there hundreds of random incidents that could go down as good or bad luck. These will be evenly distributed amongst all the teams because they are, by their nature, random.
Click to expand...

As you tend towards an infinite number of games then luck would even out. Is the sample size of 38 games in a single season big enough to distribute all luck evenly? No, of course not. That's half the fun.
 
alastair said:
I never said luck didn't exist, all I'm saying is that it did not make a greater effect on the champions league in 2005 than it did in any other year. That's the point. Liverpool did not get lucky in how most people seem to define it. I would define luck as poor refereeing going in your favour, or perhaps another team having an injury crisis before the game. That's luck. I don't think what happened to Liverpool was luck at all.
Click to expand...

Er....

article-1087477-02A4D50A0000044D-236_468x286.jpg
 
alastair said:
I never said luck didn't exist
Click to expand...

alastair said:
There's no luck in football, as long as the referee hasn't made a shite decision or something.
Click to expand...

:confused: Can you clarify what you're saying? If Arsenal absolutely batter the crap out of a side, and have 50 shots, but it's one of those days when nothing will go in, and then the other side go up the field and score a comically deflected goal, is it wrong to say that you were unlucky to lose? Aside from admitting that you bear some responsibility, need to be more clinical etc.
 
Plechazunga said:
:confused: Can you clarify what you're saying? If Arsenal absolutely batter the crap out of a side, and have 50 shots, but it's one of those days when nothing will go in, and then the other side go up the field and score a comically deflected goal, is it wrong to say that you were unlucky to lose? Aside from admitting that you bear some responsibility, need to be more clinical etc.
Click to expand...

We haven't been remotely unlucky in that case. The point of football is to score goals - if we haven't scored because our strikers have been terrible on the day, that isn't bad luck, it's poor play.

Luck, for me, is when one side gets an advantage through some unforseen event upon which they had no impact, like a refereeing decision or something. Or an injury crisis on the other team. Coming back from 3-0 down to win a game isn't luck. If that makes any sense.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Over the course of a season there hundreds of random incidents that could go down as good or bad luck. These will be evenly distributed amongst all the teams because they are, by their nature, random.
Click to expand...

What Mike said. If I toss a coin 38 times, am I guaranteed to get 19 heads and 19 tails?

Even over the course of a century, never mind a season, luck will not even out completely. We had an entire, wonderful side killed in a plane crash. I'm not sure even Red Mike Riley's combined decisions have evened that out.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
As you tend towards an infinite number of games then luck would even out. Is the sample size of 38 games in a single season big enough to distribute all luck evenly? No, of course not. That's half the fun.
Click to expand...

I've no idea exactly how many games it would take but I'd be surprised if 38 games wasn't enough for a fairly even distribution. Cup competitions are different though. There's much fewer games in that sample.
 
alastair said:
Do you think the penalty Rooney got against Arsenal last year was a penalty? Because Gerrard's incident had more contact than that.
Click to expand...

If you're in any way in doubt about the Rooney incident, which is fair enough, then it's retarded to say Gerrard's was 100% a penalty.

There's a massive grey area in both, and if anything, Gerrard's was a much worse dive. He wasn't avoiding contact, he was just swan-diving to con the referee.
 
This thread hurts my brains. Is the existence of 'luck' actually really being discussed?

It's a metaphysical concept, really. Obviously luck exists as a concept which can positively or negatively affect a situation, Drogba hitting the post, lucky for us unlucky for them.

Easy.
 
alastair said:
We haven't been remotely unlucky in that case. The point of football is to score goals - if we haven't scored because our strikers have been terrible on the day, that isn't bad luck, it's poor play.
Click to expand...

I didn't say your strikers were terrible. Your strikers are brilliant, it's just one of those days when it keeps coming off the post and rolling across the goal line and won't go in. If the same game was played 100 times you win 99 of them, on average 3-0. I'm not absolving you of all blame on that occasion, but you're also unlucky.

Luck, for me, is when one side gets an advantage through some unforseen event upon which they had no impact, like a refereeing decision or something. Or an injury crisis on the other team. Coming back from 3-0 down to win a game isn't luck. If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Istanbul was a great achievement, but if you played that half again a hundred times, they'd lose most of them, despite Gerrard and team spirit and never say die and everything. It took a perfect storm of events, including refereeing decisions and very unlikely goal-line misses. They were both plucky and lucky.

It's not a partisan thing. We were lucky as feck against Bayern. With all our spirit and will to win going up for that corner, we lose the game from that position 95 times out of a hundred.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I've no idea exactly how many games it would take but I'd be surprised if 38 games wasn't enough for a fairly even distribution. Cup competitions are different though. There's much fewer games in that sample.
Click to expand...

I look at it differently to that. Let's take La Liga this season, clearly Barca are comfortably the best team and if you repeated the league 1000 times they would win it maybe 800 times. If we just happen to be in a universe where it's one of those 200 times where they don't win, then I'd say they were unlucky.
 
Plechazunga said:
I didn't say your strikers were terrible. Your strikers are brilliant, it's just one of those days when it keeps coming off the post and rolling across the goal line and won't go in. If the same game was played 100 times you win 99 of them, on average 3-0. I'm not absolving you of all blame on that occasion, but you're also unlucky.



Istanbul was a great achievement, but if you played that half again a hundred times, they'd lose most of them, despite Gerrard and team spirit and never say die and everything. It took a perfect storm of events, including refereeing decisions and very unlikely goal-line misses. They were both plucky and lucky.

It's not a partisan thing. We were lucky as feck against Bayern. With all our spirit and will to win going up for that corner, we lose the game 95 times out of a hundred.
Click to expand...


Well fair enough. I just simply don't agree at all. If the striker is hitting the post, he's missed the target. Why hasn't he shot just inside the post and scored? Poor finishing, if you ask me.

I agree that Liverpool's victory was unlikely, but it wasn't luck that Shevchenko missed that golden chance - it was purely poor play. I don't see how it's luck in the slightest.
 
Why are people confusing probability with luck? If you use probability as a measurement for what you coin 'luck' you're accepting the term of luck by placing it in science, which somewhat fecks it up.
 
AdZzUtd said:
Why are people confusing probability with luck? If you use probability as a measurement for what you coin 'luck' you're accepting the term of luck by placing it in science, which somewhat fecks it up.
Click to expand...

Weren't you just moaning about this thread being confusing? Because that post has pwopa baffled me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.