Mourinho: I expected 'Los Blancos' to be "higher up" in the Spanish league at this point in the season

Real Madrid winning La Liga in 11/12 is up there with Chelsea winning the CL though as far as flukes go.

Good wind up.

The_Badger wrote:

eelir wrote:

The_Badger wrote:
But winning the domestic league is much harder than the Champion's League. Mourinho failed to adapt his team to accommodate a talent like Ronaldo that's why they weren't as successful under him as they should have been.

 Which universe are you talking about?  

The universe where clubs like Liverpool can win it and get to another final having not won their domestic league title in 25 years. The one where Chelsea can win it and finish fifth in the league table 25 points behind the champion.

You think winning a competition where you play 13 games, is comparable to one where you have to play 38?   

I won't say it is harder dude. There is a reason that no team has retained the champions league. In the league, you can afford slip ups but the best team usually wins as errors can rectify themselves over 38 games. With the champions league, especially towards the last 4, the gap between the top teams is usually so minuscule that the smallest error, whether in the game or with preparation can see the better team go out. The champions league doesn't allow for error. The Chelsea vs Bayern and Barcelona games is the perfect example of that.

The "errors", as you put, it are other teams slipping up.

The_Badger wrote:

eelir wrote:

The_Badger wrote:
But winning the domestic league is much harder than the Champion's League. Mourinho failed to adapt his team to accommodate a talent like Ronaldo that's why they weren't as successful under him as they should have been.

 Which universe are you talking about?  

The universe where clubs like Liverpool can win it and get to another final having not won their domestic league title in 25 years. The one where Chelsea can win it and finish fifth in the league table 25 points behind the champion.

You think winning a competition where you play 13 games, is comparable to one where you have to play 38?   

You logic is wrong. In any order there is an exception once in a while. You are cherry picking the data to prove your point. Let't take a larger sample which will tell the real story. Since Liverpool won the first CL (correct me if i got the data wrong) 1977 they won 5 CL, but they won 9 leagues, not to mention 9 others before those. So, I guess it is easier to win the League duhh.

The logic is fine. We're talking about the Champion's League, not the European Cup.

The CL is far more hard to win than the EC.

Then if CL is harder they should have won EC even more. So you are contradicting yourself. LOL

Beside, that is not even the point of this. The point is they have more Leagues than any of "easier" cups.

They have won the EC more than they have the CL.

Are you new to football?

Bearing in mind, just to clarify, we're talking modern day. My comment was referring to bygone eras. I'm talking today - La Liga and The Premier League are more difficult to win then the Champion's League.

The_Badger wrote:They have won the EC more than they have the CL.

Are you new to football?

Bearing in mind, just to clarify, we're talking modern day. My comment was referring to bygone eras. I'm talking today - La Liga and The Premier League are more difficult to win then the Champion's League.

I am not new in football. Let me brake it out for you.

In statistics and data analysis (I have a PhD in Information Visualization) choosing a wrong data sample can lead to wrong results. In any data sample there can be exceptions, or what some would call it a outliers. You are evoking a CL win and no league wins for Liverpool for a part of the data (not complete). I simply call this an outlier in the data. Now if the EC is easier than CL, it means based on your hypothesis that they should have won it (EC) much more than their domestic league. Now here is the problem with your approach. They did not. What this means that league is easier to win then EC. Now since EC is harder to win than league, it means the CL is even harder to win then league.

If you cant understand this, i propose you go back to high school and pay attention more closely to the lectures and books.

I'll quote my post again because despite your claims of having some PhD in a joke subject, you seem to completely overlooked the explanation I offered to quantity my earlier statement.

I'm talking today - La Liga and The Premier League are more difficult to win then the Champion's League.

If you disagree, that's fine, the issue is subjective and I have no desire to change your opinion.

I've explained why I believe this, you've waffled on about some utterly irrelevant stats from a time that is completely irrelevant.

If you cant understand this, i propose you go back to high school and pay attention more closely to the lectures and books.

And if you cannot differentiate between "brake" and "break", then you're in no position to be advising people to go back to school.

Oh then lets take other teams in said league.

How many Leagues and CL have Manu U, Chelasea, and RM won? Again you are basing your statements on a cherry picked sample.

The_Badger wrote:I'll quote my post again because despite your claims of having some PhD in a joke subject, you seem to completely overlooked the explanation I offered to quantity my earlier statement.

You calling it a joke before even trying to know what it is just proves my point that you should go back and hit the high-school books.

eelir wrote:Oh then lets take other teams in said league.

How many Leagues and CL have Manu U, Chelasea, and RM won? Again you are basing your statements on a cherry picked sample.

I am basing my statement on the fact I believe in present day football, both La Liga and The Premier League are more difficult to win than the Champion's League. I base it upon the amount of games played, structure and quality of opposition.

By all means disagree with me. You and your PhD in line graphs and pie charts, and ramblings about football in the 70s, won't make me change my opinion.

eelir wrote:

The_Badger wrote:I'll quote my post again because despite your claims of having some PhD in a joke subject, you seem to completely overlooked the explanation I offered to quantity my earlier statement.

You calling it a joke before even trying to know what it is just proves my point that you should go back and hit the high-school books.

And you should learn the difference between "brake" and "break" before offering advice on education.

Break and brake can be a typo. Also, english is my third language in my personal ranking. I am writing in a forum, not a research paper. Lines and graphs are Data Visualization, I do something different, which I would be glad to lecture you about, but not here, as this is a forum.

You were talking about Liverpool in last 20-25 years, modern football? Here some recent data so you can get your hypothesis tested. I think having more teams in the analysis than just picking the ones you like creates better image about which is harder:

EPL Since 1992-93 (modern EPL inception)

Manchester United: 13 EPL, 2 CL
Chelsea: 3 EPL, 1 CL
Arsenal: 3 EPL, 0 CL


La Liga (since 1992-93):

RM: 7 LL, 3 CL
Barca: 10 LL, 3 CL
Valencia: 2 LL, 0 CL

Take care little troll!

eelir wrote:

La Liga (since 1992-93):

RM: 7 LL, 3 CL
Barca: 10 LL, 3 CL

Dominating Real Madrid since football is relevant.

Continue with your dispute.

No, I wasn't talking about Liverpool in the last 20-25 years at all. You've presumed that, which is probably why you are getting upset and using unnecessary and utterly irrelevant info.

Also, if you're of the opinion that a competition is more difficult to win the less it has been won, do you therefore think the League Cup is more difficult than the PL seeing as Man Utd only have four to their 20 league titles.

Oh, and whilst we're here? How many European Cups do Nottingham Forest have and how many league titles do they have?

Put it in a nice little picture if you want.  

And here is a link to a nice debate about this if you care to read.

http://debatewise.org/debates/294-winning-the-champions-league-is-better-than-winning-the-premier-league/

And again you are cherry picking the data. It does not matter what you think. I provided you with historical and recent data. All points out it is easier to win leagues than CL. And all you are picking is outliers.

Now we can discuss why do outliers pop up in CL, and the reason is that CL is shorter competition where small mistakes can cost a lot, therefore sometimes teams like Chelsea win it. This also goes along my saying about data, smaller sample more noise in the data. Shorter (different type of challenge) produces more noise. While league is longer competition and usually better teams win it. In that sense, yeah, league is tougher, as it is longer and so one, and you are less likely to win it by chance (as outlier). But CL is harder to get and the data proves both of my sayings. You can agree to close your eyes and look at biased data samples, that does not change the fact you are wrong.

EDIT:
Wiki is not a 100% reliable source, but this article can serve well for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

eelir wrote:And again you are cherry picking the data. It does not matter what you think. I provided you with historical and recent data. All points out it is easier to win leagues than CL. And all you are picking is outliers.

And it is exactly what you are doing.

Now we can discuss why do outliers pop up in CL, and the reason is that CL is shorter competition where small mistakes can cost a lot, therefore sometimes teams like Chelsea win it. This also goes along my saying about data, smaller sample more noise in the data. Shorter (different type of challenge) produces more noise. While league is longer competition and usually better teams win it. In that sense, yeah, league is tougher, as it is longer and so one, and you are less likely to win it by chance (as outlier). But CL is harder to get and the data proves both of my sayings. You can agree to close your eyes and look at biased data samples, that does not change the fact you are wrong.

EDIT:
Wiki is not a 100% reliable source, but this article can serve well for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

Except it doesn't as you've conveniently ignored what I posted, and conveniently ignored the question I posed about the League Cup stats. However, as English is not your first language and your "claimed" PhD in a joke subject is of absolutely no relevance here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, please go learn the difference between "brake" and "break".

The_Badger wrote:

And it is exactly what you are doing.

Nope i am adding much more data to your analysis that confirm your data are outliers. For every case you found I gave you 3 that prove otherwise, with numbers .

The_Badger wrote:
Except it doesn't as you've conveniently ignored what I posted, and conveniently ignored the question I posed about the League Cup stats. However, as English is not your first language and your "claimed" PhD in a joke subject is of absolutely no relevance here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, please go learn the difference between "brake" and "break".

Is this the best you can do? Trip over my typo and call InfoVis a joke subject? Pathetic troll attempt.

Look, I'm really not sure what this has to do with the thread topic and I feel it's probably gone in more circles than Vettel doing doughnuts.

You've ignored what I've posted and made ridiculous presumptions, cherry-picked "data" when it's convenient and dodged around any that contradicts your argument.

I'm not sure there is any point continuing this now.

I ignored the league cup assumption as it is something totally different. Teams do not want to win it as they want to win CL and league therefore it cannot be compared as such. You on the other hand cherry picked Nothingham Forest and Liverpool out of 10 other cases that prove you wrong to make a point. So i guess with 2 cases against 10 (i can provide 4 more really fast in addition to 6 i gave you earlier) makes you right?

Also due to your inability to justify your claim, you started insulting my field of work (just shows your ignorance) and your strongest case in this debate seamed to be my typo, which you repeated several times.

That about sums it up!

Anywaaaaaaaaaaaay! Do you actually have an opinion on the topic you'd like to share?

Yes i do. Mou is just trolling and along the way wants to make his meager achievements appear bigger in the public eye.

Eelir you should know better then to debate with the badger.

The_Badger wrote:I'll quote my post again because despite your claims of having some PhD in a joke subject, you seem to completely overlooked the explanation I offered to quantity my earlier statement.

And if you cannot differentiate between "brake" and "break", then you're in no position to be advising people to go back to school.

If you can't use proper grammer, then you're in no position to give uneducated views on high level education.

In fact don't give your views at all, on any subject. The forum will be of higher quality without trolls like you.