Please explain this for me......................

[USAF]

Thank you teacher. Munro would be proud of you.

[Mosiah]

It's a compulsive disorder. I may need help.

[Karl]

How can someone say that a team that looses a game is better than the winning team???

The ULTIMATE GOAL of any team in football/soccer, or any sport, is to WIN. The player selections, formations and game plan/tactical plan is to give the team the best opportunity to WIN. In its basic form, to achieve this you convert your chances or most of them & prevent the opposition from converting theirs.....The team that LOOSES failed to achieve their ULTIMATE GOAL, so how can the loosing team be considered the BETTER team???

***As a coach once said in a press conference, "You play the game to WIN. Nothing else matters."

Parties speaking at cross purposes.
- One speaking in terms of the immediate result of match just concluded.

- The other is looking at possible results over number of matches in close proximity to each other - say,

If the teams met 4 times in next 2 months, based on manner of play in the just concluded match, it is possible that of the teams being discussed, the loser would prevail more often.

[Karl]

Tilla - Jamaica was better than Japan in '98. No question. Try a nex' example u hear 'fore me start treat yu like yu name X!! Nah...jes' jokin' ... dat could neva happen!

Well if you think the 'continuous missing of goals' by Japan meant we were better on the day as we took our chances...then you and Tilla talking at cross purposes

[Islandman]

I think you are confusing "better on the day" with "better, period"

If you win game one of a best of 7 series and then lose the next 4 were you the better team 2 weeks before or just better on that day?

[USAF]

If you FAIL to EXECUTE (converting your chances) & LOSE I cannot call you the BETTER TEAM........PERIOD......No IFs, ANDs or BUTs.
Regardless how dominant & skillful the team is, what is needed & expected is a WIN, so if you LOSE you're not the BETTER TEAM.

[Assasin]

So even if you hit the post 10 to 20 times, or the ref thief the game the better team can't lose?

[Islandman]

Doesn't make any sense to me, but if that is your definition of better.

For me being the better team is not equivalent to playing the better game 50 times out 50. Even sports greatest teams of their era lose a few games now and then. Form is temporary, class is permanent.

[USAF]

Is the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE to score goals or hit the post???

[Willi]

We scored 3 times and they robbed us one! I was at that match.

[Paul Marin]

Is the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE to score goals or hit the post???

USAF, if one team plays another 10 times, winning 9 games out of 10, which is the better team? Another example, if one team (A) plays 5 opponents and beats them 5 times, another team (B) plays a different but equally talented 5 teams and loses 5 times, is team B better than team A if they beat them in one match? Better "on the day" is not the same as "better" overall. You only need to look at the long list of FA CUP upsets to see real live examples where lower league teams upset first division teams. If they were "better", they would be in higher leagues...but no one will take away them being "better on the day".

[Karl]

We scored 3 times and they robbed us one! I was at that match.

I have the video and must have watched it at least 20 times - (conservative number as I wish not to mislead!). Have even made posts on this site - (Guess would be as recent as within the last 12 months) - on viewing.

[Islandman]

According to USAF's logic, if 2 teams play 10 times and one team wins 9 straight then loses the last one, then the team that won the last match is the better team at that point in time.

Makes no sense really, and I think USAF knows it.

[USAF]

Obviously you have NO clue what I'm saying, so ask. Don't ASSUME.
You & others have chosen to use hypothetical situations/instances to prove your point - What if they play 10 times &.......; What if the referee makes bad calls; etc.

What I've said is straight forward - When 2 teams play, I cannot consider the team that FAILS to EXECUTE (convert their chance/chances) & LOSE to be the BETTER TEAM, regardless if they dominated position & created more scoring chances.

[Paul Marin]

Obviously you have NO clue what I'm saying, so ask. Don't ASSUME.
You & others have chosen to use hypothetical situations/instances to prove your point - What if they play 10 times &.......; What if the referee makes bad calls; etc.

What I've said is straight forward - When 2 teams play, I cannot consider the team that FAILS to EXECUTE (convert their chance/chances) & LOSE to be the BETTER TEAM, regardless if they dominated position & created more scoring chances.

Okay - hypothetically then, which do you consider the better team if two teams play 10 times and the team losing 9 prior times wins in the last encounter?