Uh oh.....Tottenham scored in the 40th minute...1-0 now.
- Thread starter Kbee3
- Start date
I don't think you understand London culture. There is no way Chelsea would throw this game. They'd do anything possible to prevent Spuds from titling. If anything, Chelsea would tank the final game vs Leicester to gift them the title.
Say what? They're up 8 points on Tottenham. Even with a "W" for The Spurs they're up 5 points with 2 games to go. That's HUGE my friend.
Leicester would still have a 5 point lead with 2 games to play - it would take an epic collapse for them not to win the title. The Chelsea v Tottenham game is very nasty - a lot of emotion and there will be some more yellows (and maybe reds). One interesting tidbit - Leicester's last game is at Chelsea (the current champion). Chelsea should be keen to not let LC win the title on their grounds. That would be a great last day of games if it mattered.
Not into soccer,but every Rutgers fan has to root for the Queens Park Rangers---http://fanchants.co.uk/football-songs/queens_park_rangers-chants/come-you-rs/
Yep. In October the season was already two months in and Leicester was off to a hot start. Obviously most expected them to falter, hence the 22-1 odds at that time.
That makes even more sense. By December the odds were certainly down to that level.
I will say this I watched the UM/LC game yesterday morning in Spanish didn"t understand a word said but the game was very exciting. Usually cannot get into soccer unless world cup
As a Tottenham supporter, watching the team sometimes feels like watching Rutgers Football. They give you enough to think you're going to win and then let it go late in the game. I think the announcers said Chelsea were something like 0-1-30 in the Premier League when either losing by 2 or down 2-0 at half. They also said that no team in Premier League history has drew/lost more games when winning 2-0 at half, than Tottenham.
I know it was a London derby but I was pretty disappointed in how dirty some of the Spurs players got. I mean, if you make me feel bad for Diego Costa, then you're doing something wrong. In any event.. WHAT A SEASON! Hope we can hold on to second.
I know it was a London derby but I was pretty disappointed in how dirty some of the Spurs players got. I mean, if you make me feel bad for Diego Costa, then you're doing something wrong. In any event.. WHAT A SEASON! Hope we can hold on to second.
Was thinking about a good equivalent for Leicester and I think the best I can come up with is Butler making the Finals two years in a row (with the difference being Butler not winning vs. Leicester winning the title). Any one-off game isn't equivalent in my mind as anything can happen on a given day, but I think Butler is a good comp for a variety of reasons.
1. Technically Butler competes on a level playing field with the Duke and Kentucky's of the world...can recruit any high school player, all 'student-athletes', same rules, etc. The difference, of course, is that anyone on Butler's roster would presumably not be recruited by the bigger schools as they were a Horizon League team at that point, and Kentucky and Duke compete and invest at a different level than the Butler's and George Mason's of the world. Likewise, it is doubtful that the big clubs (Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchesters, Madrid, Barcelona, Munich, etc.) would have wanted anyone on Leicester's roster, which is filled with journeymen and relatively unremarkable talent.
2. Both required some consistent level of success and a consistent string of upsets. You don't make the finals two years in a row without beating teams with more resources along the way, and they somehow managed to do it. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day, but to win week after week and to keep winning when the pressure amps up later in the season, is very impressive.
To me, Butler making the finals was a relatively equivalent and improbable achievement.
1. Technically Butler competes on a level playing field with the Duke and Kentucky's of the world...can recruit any high school player, all 'student-athletes', same rules, etc. The difference, of course, is that anyone on Butler's roster would presumably not be recruited by the bigger schools as they were a Horizon League team at that point, and Kentucky and Duke compete and invest at a different level than the Butler's and George Mason's of the world. Likewise, it is doubtful that the big clubs (Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchesters, Madrid, Barcelona, Munich, etc.) would have wanted anyone on Leicester's roster, which is filled with journeymen and relatively unremarkable talent.
2. Both required some consistent level of success and a consistent string of upsets. You don't make the finals two years in a row without beating teams with more resources along the way, and they somehow managed to do it. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day, but to win week after week and to keep winning when the pressure amps up later in the season, is very impressive.
To me, Butler making the finals was a relatively equivalent and improbable achievement.
Last edited:
Scott Shannon on CBS 101.1 this morning said it was the equivalent of Rutgers winning the B1G. To which Joe Nolan responded immediately to our defense.
All in good fun as Scott Shannon is the Fatso to Joe Nolan's Carlin.
But the important part was the mention/reminder of Rutgers in the B1G.
All in good fun as Scott Shannon is the Fatso to Joe Nolan's Carlin.
But the important part was the mention/reminder of Rutgers in the B1G.
Similar threads
