Why are we so negative?

[wiw]

What would you all have said if Rafa had gone for it and we lost?

[Sarb]

What would you all have said if Rafa had gone for it and we lost?

If we had gone for it we would not have lost

[rudedog]

If we had gone for it we would not have lost

you can't say that for sure - we went for it against Spurs and lost.

[red g]

Hull are only an unknown, sunderland did great first year they came up as have a few others, they will go down next year.

Rafa explained the reasons he didnt put keane on and i am sure none of you analyze the game and opponents strengths and weaknesses as much as Rafa.....although i think he does make the simple difficult sometimes

[wiw]

If we had gone for it we would not have lost

Answer the question

[Craig_H]

What a strange thing to say. The sole function of the league table is to indicate who the best teams are in relation to each other (within the league itself). This season and up to this point, Hull have been the 6th best team in the league.

So the table isn't lying Craig

The table is meaningless at this stage, nothing gets awarded and rightly so, because until the table represents a result of all games being played and all things being equal, it's flawed.

Bolton and Wigan have topped the PL table, when were either of them ever the best side in england?

[Craig_H]

i think hulls current position is reflective of their genuine genuine level. look at who they've played so far this season. to be 6th or 7th is an achievement for any side. they deserve to be where they are. i think they've genuinely taken a great leap forward and, as long as they remain tactically astute and a solid team, they are a mid table premiership team.

the fact is we are playing them in the midst of this current genuine level. and thats the whole point. you don't plan for a game in december based on the oppositions form the previous season do you. its all about the previous month or so which means hull at a tricky tie and they can score goals. which means more caution than if we were playing blackburn.

looking at the form guide; hull and fulham have both drawn 4 of their last 6 whilst west ham have drawn 3. they are practically draw specialists. that could have something to do with it as well possibly?

Contradiction there mate. Either their current position is a genuine reflection of their ability, or they're a mid table premiership team. Which is it?

[Craig_H]

What would you all have said if Rafa had gone for it and we lost?

I'd have been philosophical about it, as i was for the WHU and Stoke games, where we did the right things but it didnt go our way.

I've always said, if we do the right things and it doesnt happen for us, we cant complain.

you can't say that for sure - we went for it against Spurs and lost.

And we went for it against Wigan and Boro, and won.

Usually when the better team goes for the win, their class will tell, especially at home. Not always sure, but i'm willing to play the percentages.

[barnes10]

Contradiction there mate. Either their current position is a genuine reflection of their ability, or they're a mid table premiership team. Which is it?

the second bit you highlighted i was meaning that as long as they don't change their approach, i really don't expect them to plummet and get relegated in season 2 like many promoted teams. i think they'll settle at mid table. they've impressed me more than any other promoted team that i can think of over recent years. Sunderland with reid was similar but Hull i think pip them.

although i could argue that 25 points is the middle point between top and bottom. they've got 27 which is close to the middle of the table points wise... ;-)

[Craig_H]

They're doing brilliantly, for sure. I remember Reading though, brilliant first season and according to the table that 'doesnt lie', they were something like the 8th best team in the land. Then they got relegated the following year.

Ipswich too, '5th best team in england' according to the table, then got relegated.

How can the 5th best team in the land finish in the bottom 3 a year later?

I think the table tells you who's been performing well etc.

For example, Hull are currently the 6th best PERFORMING team in the land. They aint the 6th best team though, whatever the table says.

If they were, nobody would say they're doing brilliantly, or that they're punching above their weight, because if they were the 6th best team, 6th is where they should be.

Everyone's lauding them because they're nowhere near the 6th best team in england, but they've performed well above their actual standard and are reaping the rewards.

[rudedog]

They're doing brilliantly, for sure. I remember Reading though, brilliant first season and according to the table that 'doesnt lie', they were something like the 8th best team in the land. Then they got relegated the following year.

Ipswich too, '5th best team in england' according to the table, then got relegated.

How can the 5th best team in the land finish in the bottom 3 a year later?

I really don't know what you're trying to say here - I would say that if you finish 5th, you were the 5th best team in the league for that season. Just because you were crap the season after wouldn't change that.

If you have some other measure for league performance other than league position then I'm all ears.

[rudedog]

The table is meaningless at this stage, nothing gets awarded and rightly so, because until the table represents a result of all games being played and all things being equal, it's flawed.

Bolton and Wigan have topped the PL table, when were either of them ever the best side in england?

yeah, the table is meaningless - it tells us nothing

[Craig_H]

I really don't know what you're trying to say here - I would say that if you finish 5th, you were the 5th best team in the league for that season. Just because you were crap the season after wouldn't change that.

If you have some other measure for league performance other than league position then I'm all ears.

Crux of the issue. The league isnt finished.

yeah, the table is meaningless - it tells us nothing

They handing out trophies mate? After 17 games, it means little.

[rudedog]

Crux of the issue. The league isnt finished.

That was in direct response of your example which specifically mentioned Reading and Ipswich's finishing positions in relation to their failures the following season. Go back and read your posts again mate.

"Originally Posted by Craig_H View Post
They're doing brilliantly, for sure. I remember Reading though, brilliant first season and according to the table that 'doesnt lie', they were something like the 8th best team in the land. Then they got relegated the following year.

Ipswich too, '5th best team in england' according to the table, then got relegated.

How can the 5th best team in the land finish in the bottom 3 a year later?"

They handing out trophies mate? After 17 games, it means little.

Its far from meaningless, it tells us who has the best league performance after 17 games. After 38 games it will tell us who has had the best league performance over the season.

[red g]

[QUOTE=Craig_H;1232320]Crux of the issue. The league isnt finished.

interesting......i am sure you would be one of the first to complain if we were 10pts behind now? i am sure some would argue with you that the league isn finished which i am sure you would rebuke.

After 17 games we are top of the league which means we are the most consistent team in the premiership this season and by your reckoning the best performing team in the land. Carry on i say Rafa, as long as he gets more things right than wrong i wont complain.