Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Last season, we were the most shit team in a set of about 10 really shit teams.
Yet, if you expressed that opinion you were accused: of not being a true supporter; of being unkind to the players/manager(s); of wanting Cardiff City to fail.
This season, we are doing really well, in a bunch of about half a dozen teams who are doing well. The other teams in L1 have been poor in many respects.
Yet, if you expressed that opinion you are accused: of not being a true supporter; of being unkind to the players/manager(s); of wanting Cardiff City to fail.
It seems no-one is allowed to have an opinion other than: Cardiff City is the greatest team the world has ever seen, and playing in a really tough division.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garth Blue
Like you did last season? Surely a competitive league is where the difference between top and bottom is less. Anybody can beat anybody. Several posters in this thread have suggested a marked difference in quality between to and bottom.
He's back...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about last season. Indeed, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with any of this post. It makes no sense to me.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
You judge it by the evidence you see with your own eyes (or at least I do). It's no more complicated than that really.
So far this season, the quality of the actual football in most of the League One games I've watched has been poor. The defending is generally erratic, the majority of teams seem to surrender possession very easily, a lot of the finishing is weak and a number of teams have seemed to offer very little in the final third. Also, most of the teams appear far less physical and direct than I'd expected. No doubt I'm biased to a degree as I've been watching Championship or Premier League football for so long, but while I expected a significant drop in the overall standard of play, I've been surprised by just how weak a lot of the team seem to be.
Are you sure you're not confusing the notion of a weak league with a competitive one?
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
From my POV my question about evidential poor Vs strong leagues has been answered and I won't feel the need to question anyone about it in future. Having said that you've now raised an interesting point about weak/strong vs competitive but I'm going to leave that well alone.
Enjoy your football.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
YouÂ’ve posed a question that canÂ’t be answered unless someone is prepared to trawl through thousands of posts from years gone by. IÂ’m not prepared to do that and I doubt you are. But what I will say is that any time anybody dares to suggest that an EFL division is weak, others will offer counter arguments (of sorts), as has happened in this very thread.
Well, I've been posting on here for over a quarter of a century now and if we leave aside the two Premier League seasons, I can't recall anyone ever saying what a great quality league we're in this season. My memory has never been infallible though and so, you never know, maybe someone has said that or similar. In fact, it may have been said on more than one occasion, but I'd be astonished is it has been said on more than five occasions. On the other hand, I'd say I've been posting on here for twenty five seasons where we've been in the EFL and, by a very., very conservative estimate, I'd say that twenty of those have seen a poster on here saying the standard of the league this year is crap.
I could write an awful lot on this because, using the Championship as an example, you've got a league that very rarely does thrashings, I don't find the football hugely entertaining, yet, week in, week our, games are very competitive with little in games in terms of both the scoreline and difference between the teams. It has a reputation for dramatic finishes and the comment that anyone can beat anyone in the league seems more approriate in the Championship than many other leagues which have the same claim made about them. Because people find it so hard to define what makes a league a strong one, I'd say it's hard to argue that it's a strong league year in, year out, but I think it's a compelling league most seasons even if the entertainment value in terms of good quality football is not overly high.
Two seasons ago, a deeply flawed City team finished in the top half of the division and were genuinely considered as Play Off possibles for about two thirds of the campaign. All of this in a season where we were being told that the standard at the top was so much better than the previous season and what happened, the three promoted teams lauded so much while they were in. the second tier, came straight back down with barely a whimper of protest - the truth was that Neil Warnock's unheralded team of 18/19 had made a much better fist of the Premier League than Ipswich, Leicester and Southampton did last season.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
The terms we use to describe a division as weak, strong, good quality, mediocre, poor quality, etc, are all subjective. It's just opinions at the end of the day.
So, what are your views on what we've seen so far of League One? Would you regard the football being played by most of the teams at this level as being of a decent standard? Leaving City's form and style of play out of the equation, has anything about League One surprised you or is the quality of the division pretty much as you expected?
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
The terms we use to describe a division as weak, strong, good quality, mediocre, poor quality, etc, are all subjective. It's just opinions at the end of the day.
So, what are your views on what we've seen so far of League One? Would you regard the football being played by most of the teams at this level as being of a decent standard? Leaving City's form and style of play out of the equation, has anything about League One surprised you or is the quality of the division pretty much as you expected?
It's worse than I expected and we are better than I expected, although I never thought that we would struggle, I had us down as 5th in the prediction thread, and I do think that we will go up this season.
I'm a bit surprised by this thread because if people can't judge the level of play in league 1, then surely they can judge the quality of player and what those players can or can't do at crucial moments in a game, after all, we have all been watching the game for many years.
From what I have seen there are a large chunk of players at this level who can't play, struggle to make good decisions, need an extra touch (That's a big one) need longer on the ball and generally lack quality. Whether it's worse or better than last season, I have absolutely no idea, But it's my opinion that the standard outside the top three or four is very poor.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
You clearly have a short memory. Or you're a simpleton. But you're not a simpleton.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garth Blue
You clearly have a short memory. Or you're a simpleton. But you're not a simpleton.
What are you talking about? Spell it out. That can’t be too difficult for you surely?
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garth Blue
You clearly have a short memory. Or you're a simpleton. But you're not a simpleton.
Don't know if that's for me, although I do have a short memory and I clearly admit that I can be a bit of a simpleton on times, can't we all ..
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
What are you talking about? Spell it out. That can’t be too difficult for you surely?
Last season you said that the Championship was weak. To support your case you said that no teams were running away with the league and that teams at the bottom were often beating teams at the top (Or words to that effect. Like you I don't have the time to trawl though comments to find the exact words). I said that teams from the bottom beating teams at the top were evidence of a competitive league not a weak league. Yesterday, you made the same point. I'm glad you've now recogonised the weakness in your original argument.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Garth Blue
Last season you said that the Championship was weak. To support your case you said that no teams were running away with the league and that teams at the bottom were often beating teams at the top (Or words to that effect. Like you I don't have the time to trawl though comments to find the exact words).
:hehe: :hehe: :hehe:
No I didn't.
Champions Leeds lost just four times all season. The only team anywhere near the bottom who beat Leeds was Portsmouth, who finished 16th. Meanwhile, Burnley lost just twice - to Sunderland, who finished 4th, and Millwall, who finished 8th. They ran away with the league. Both sides accumulated 100 points.
I don't know where you've dreamed this nonsense up from. Last season, I stated on a number of occasions I believed the Championship lacked quality. Leeds were comfortably the stand-out team in terms of ability, while Burnley and Sheffield United were miles clear of the rest in terms of results without either of them ever looking brilliant. Meanwhile, the rest of the division was bang average at best. With the exception of the top three sides, the rest of the division was competitive, as it often is, but the football was not of a high standard in my opinion. Championship games were often a poor spectacle.
I think we may have found the problem with your perception of my posts and this message board in general. It appears you're not very good at understanding plain English.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
You judge it by the evidence you see with your own eyes (or at least I do). It's no more complicated than that really.
So far this season, the quality of the actual football in most of the League One games I've watched has been poor. The defending is generally erratic, the majority of teams seem to surrender possession very easily, a lot of the finishing is weak and a number of teams have seemed to offer very little in the final third. Also, most of the teams appear far less physical and direct than I'd expected. No doubt I'm biased to a degree as I've been watching Championship or Premier League football for so long, but while I expected a significant drop in the overall standard of play, I've been surprised by just how weak a lot of the team seem to be.
Are you sure you're not confusing the notion of a weak league with a competitive one?
Yes, but could that be because you are seeing a strong possession-based Championship team way above our opposition, making the League one teams seem weaker?
A lot of teams look scared to try and outplay us and are just parking the bus, against other teams they may look a better standard.
We beat a Premier League team the other week quite easily, yes, they changed the team, but still had many £10million and £15 million players playing, and we changed five or so.
My view is it is weaker but it's not bad, we are the right team in the right league with the right Manager for a complete rebuild and it's working out very well for us, for a change.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
North Cardiff Blue
Yes, but could that be because you are seeing a strong possession-based Championship team way above our opposition, making the League one teams seem weaker?
I wasn’t talking exclusively about games involving City. And also, on the few occasions sides have been better than City, they haven’t looked very good either. Bradford looked pretty decent, but other than them the standard has appeared pretty grim to me.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
The terms we use to describe a division as weak, strong, good quality, mediocre, poor quality, etc, are all subjective. It's just opinions at the end of the day.
So, what are your views on what we've seen so far of League One? Would you regard the football being played by most of the teams at this level as being of a decent standard? Leaving City's form and style of play out of the equation, has anything about League One surprised you or is the quality of the division pretty much as you expected?
I was impressed by Bolton for forty five minutes at Stockport early in the season and thought Huddersfield v Stevenage was poor quality stuff, but, apart from that, I’ve not seen much else, so I can only base my opinion on our matches, so here’s my opinion on what I thought of our opponents.
Peterborough- not surprised to see them as low as they are in the table. Peterborough teams are usually high scoring, this one is nothing like that - think they’re going down.
Port Vale - better than us, stronger and more confident, but couldn’t finish.
Rotherham - worst side we’ve played, had nothing to offer going forward.i think they need to sack their manager pretty quick.
Wimbledon- think the four promoted teams have been a good advert for League 2 and, although I thought we deserved to win, I was impressed by Wimbledon.
Luton - they could feel hard done by in a way, but, in terms of quality f football, we were clearly the better team.
Plymouth - was impressed by them while it was 0-0, but they fell apart in the second half and we could have scored six.
Stockport - physical, well organized (until the 97th minute!). Should have beaten us.
Bradford - surprised me, but, more importantly, surprised our team. Deserved to win, but I thought Bradford were out on their feet in the closing minutes - I genuinely think we could have got a draw if we’d scored a few minutes earlier.
Wigan - thought they’d give us a tougher game. As I said in my blog piece, I can’t remember the last time we were so comfortable in an away game.
When I saw our pre season game at QPR, I thought we could be very good at this level and, if I’m surprised by anything, it’s how often we manage to produce form like that practice match in our league encounters. The opposition teams have not surprised me too much, they’re much like I expected based on previous seasons spent at this level.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
I wasn’t talking exclusively about games involving City. And also, on the few occasions sides have been better than City, they haven’t looked very good either. Bradford looked pretty decent, but other than them the standard has appeared pretty grim to me.
This is the best year for us to be here. There's no Sunderland, Ipswich, Birmingham, Derby, Leicester etc, not even a Wrexham. There's no standout sides (other than ourselves).
We should absolutely walk this division and it will be embarrassing if we don't.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
The terms we use to describe a division as weak, strong, good quality, mediocre, poor quality, etc, are all subjective. It's just opinions at the end of the day.
So, what are your views on what we've seen so far of League One? Would you regard the football being played by most of the teams at this level as being of a decent standard? Leaving City's form and style of play out of the equation, has anything about League One surprised you or is the quality of the division pretty much as you expected?
We were a poor Championship side for 4/5 years which may well give the impression the division was stronger than it was, and similarly the converse applies this season, but were this team to have played 9 games in the Championship this season I doubt we would have picked up many points. The overall strength and physicality is greater in the Championship and then more so still in the PL. Watching some of the Newcastle v Arsenal game I was struck just how physical it was compared to the Championship.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
I wasn’t talking exclusively about games involving City. And also, on the few occasions sides have been better than City, they haven’t looked very good either. Bradford looked pretty decent, but other than them the standard has appeared pretty grim to me.
What other games in League One are you watching regularly to judge the standard?
I thought you said in an earlier reply you don't watch it?
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pedro de la Rosa
This is the best year for us to be here. There's no Sunderland, Ipswich, Birmingham, Derby, Leicester etc, not even a Wrexham. There's no standout sides (other than ourselves).
We should absolutely walk this division and it will be embarrassing if we don't.
We are the Sunderland, Birmingham, and Ipswich.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
On the other hand we're not the Luton who got some plaudits while in the Premier a season and a bit ago (do they still get parachute money this year?) or the Plymouth who finished last season like a steam train. We are the team who were shit last season and didn't spend any money on transfers at the beginning of this. I think we have got the biggest ground though.
Re: FT: WIGAN ATHLETIC 0 - 2 CARDIFF CITY. Match thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PaulWent76
On the other hand we're not the Luton who got some plaudits while in the Premier a season and a bit ago (do they still get parachute money this year?) or the Plymouth who finished last season like a steam train. We are the team who were shit last season and didn't spend any money on transfers at the beginning of this. I think we have got the biggest ground though.
I think Luton have been given about 47 million this season
