- Jun 15, 2007
City's 98 points is a result of many factors outside of what happens on the pitch. Even just restricting it to what happens in the 90 minutes this assessment of 'control' is intangible.That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.
The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.
When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.
I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..
City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.
We could have the opposition with the ball in our defensive third and be in considerable more control than City in possession on the halfway line. I rarely felt the game was getting away from us last year such was the control we exerted even in tight games.
I didn't get the same sense from City more often than us. If anything I felt they looked more vulnerable.
Just as an aside, I think our first XI is better than theirs.