I agree on that, but league strength has its importance in the formula, your example is not valid for a simple reason, Atletico is not in PL, if it was the case I will take the 2 leg confrontations instead of a season because statistically as you explained is the best, knowing game circumstances can judge a game at times comparing to 38 games where luck is less taken into consideration.
But here again, i repeat myself i would rather compete with London teams of last year over a season knowing their form rather than Atletico over 2 games and here is my example.

I would rather try to win University league of Basketball rather than face Cleveland in a playoff...

I agree on that, but league strength has its importance in the formula, your example is not valid for a simple reason, Atletico is not in PL, if it was the case I will take the 2 leg confrontations instead of a season because statistically as you explained is the best, knowing game circumstances can judge a game at times comparing to 38 games where luck is less taken into consideration.
But here again, i repeat myself i would rather compete with London teams of last year over a season knowing their form rather than Atletico over 2 games and here is my example.

I would rather try to win University league of Basketball rather than face Cleveland in a playoff...

And anyone has the right to disagree with this, even trolls who should be banned like Joze

They treated me as a fool 4 years ago for predictions that turned out to be the actual reality, Im not a PL hater as people think...

So you won 517 euros nice for you. I won my bike from a high bet too, difference is I dont call myself Football guru when my delusion has reached to a whole new level.

So you won 517 euros nice for you. I won my bike from a high bet too, difference is I dont call myself Football guru when my delusion has reached to a whole new level.

@Gonzi You are a puppy mate. You bark and you are cute that is all.

You gave an example out of topic and a lesson of statistics that's not what I call winning an argument...

I would say Leicester would rather have a 2 leg game against a big English club rather than compete over the season, and that is logical we both agree.
But what you seem to miss understand is that I'm talking about completely other thing for 2 reasons :
Even Barca or Real rather prefer to compete for a season against Atletico rather than a 2 legged games, let alone Leicester.
Secondly, i would rather race athletes of my level whole year than Usain Bolt over à competition...

Anyway, i see many stupid claims in my eyes and I don't see whole league fans jumping that way on them...

@joze wait a little, Im looking to mods reaction toward you since your little friend chelsea8 asked them for banning me and got it, I won't respond you till I see if they do the same, or not...

Interesting. Let me give you a step-by-step through my reasoning, since you seem to misunderstand how dead this discussion is.

You stated:

Yeah but knocking on Atletico is a bigger achievement than being first of last year PL

Your reasoning being that Spurs and Arsenal are not as significant of an opposition than Spurs, which I can understand.

Knocking Atletico over 2 legs are different story another level of achievement, Im not comparing 38 games to 2, Im comparing the dificulty and I believe there is no match.

Again, I can somewhat understand this. I'm not attempting to argue that Atleti are worse than teams you would face in an EPL season, such as Sunderland. However, I disagreed with it based on the following premise:

teams win the CL and not their domestic league all the time. Using your reasoning, if winning the league was easier, the team that wins the CL would ALWAYS have won their domestic league as well. This is obviously false, and the majority of the CL winners over the last decade (especially the English ones) did not win their domestic league in the same season.

This reasoning makes sense to me. When Real beat Atleti in 2013-14, they had lost the league to Atleti that same season. If winning the league was indeed easier, then logic dictates that Atleti would've won the final. They didn't. Added on to this is that exactly half of the CL winners since 2010 have not won their domestic league in the same season suggests that this is not a statistical outlier. (Chelsea, and Real twice). Hell, Chelsea finished 6th that year.

You responded with this:

And yes cup teams and league teams aren't made the same, but if i have to choose competing with Spurs over a season or playing two games vs the most dangerous cup team in Europe ( 2 finals in 3 years ) i would take the 38 games race.

This does make sense if we're talking about a team that's better than Atleti. Leicester, as we both agreed, is not that team. A team that is better than Atleti and Spurs/Arsenal does not need to worry about form, because they know they're better. The average in the data favors them. But Leicester isn't that good and everyone knows that. That's why they're sitting in 15th right now. Burnley is three spots higher than them. To say the average does not favor Leicester is a total understatement.

I outlined this thought here:

If you honestly believe that Leicester is a worse side than Atleti (which I think we can agree on) then things like luck and form will average out over a league season. As any researcher worth their math will tell you, the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the data. But you can have an outlier. In fact, it is a statistical probability to have an outlier. And maybe, just maybe, this tie will be Leicester's outlier. Based on math, reason, and logic alone, a 2-legged tie is MUCH easier to win for a weaker team than a 38-game league season.

Essentially, it is possible for a weaker team to beat a stronger one. Leicester may only win against Atleti/Spurs/Arsenal once out of every 7-10 times. In a 38-game season, this is made clear. But in a two-legged tie, you can have the magical outlier. Since you're a betting man, this can be explained quite easily by betting odds. What are Burnley's odds to beat City in a head-to-head over their two games this season? Now what is Burnley's odds to win the entire league? Which odds are better?

I don't have to explain this, you understand it.

I agree on that, but league strength has its importance in the formula, your example is not valid for a simple reason, Atletico is not in PL, if it was the case I will take the 2 leg confrontations instead of a season because statistically as you explained is the best, knowing game circumstances can judge a game at times comparing to 38 games where luck is less taken into consideration.
But here again, i repeat myself i would rather compete with London teams of last year over a season knowing their form rather than Atletico over 2 games and here is my example.

I understand what you're saying about league strength. And I'm telling you that league strength averages out over the season, that is quite literally the point of a league season. If Leicester ends the season on top, then they were the strongest team, on average, over that season. The odds of that, were, obviously, astronomical. And it happened.

Anyone can win a tie. Anyone can get lucky, anyone can find their form for a single game. Otherwise teams like Bayern/Juve/Real/Barca/German NATL would never lose.

TL:DR

Point 1

If we use your reasoning, if the league finish is indeed easier, then Leciester should beat Atleti handily, because they already defeated a team who is doing better than Atleti in the league.

Point 2

Essentially, it is possible for a weaker team to beat a stronger one. Leicester may only win against Atleti/Spurs/Arsenal once out of every 7-10 times. In a 38-game season, this is made clear. But in a two-legged tie, you can have the magical outlier. Since you're a betting man, this can be explained quite easily by betting odds. What are Burnley's odds to beat City in a head-to-head over their two games this season? Now what is Burnley's odds to win the entire league? Which odds are better?

If you can overturn those, I'll agree with you. I don't think you can. I don't think anyone can.

Interesting. Let me give you a step-by-step through my reasoning, since you seem to misunderstand how dead this discussion is.

You stated:

Yeah but knocking on Atletico is a bigger achievement than being first of last year PL

Your reasoning being that Spurs and Arsenal are not as significant of an opposition than Spurs, which I can understand.

Knocking Atletico over 2 legs are different story another level of achievement, Im not comparing 38 games to 2, Im comparing the dificulty and I believe there is no match.

Again, I can somewhat understand this. I'm not attempting to argue that Atleti are worse than teams you would face in an EPL season, such as Sunderland. However, I disagreed with it based on the following premise:

teams win the CL and not their domestic league all the time. Using your reasoning, if winning the league was easier, the team that wins the CL would ALWAYS have won their domestic league as well. This is obviously false, and the majority of the CL winners over the last decade (especially the English ones) did not win their domestic league in the same season.

This reasoning makes sense to me. When Real beat Atleti in 2013-14, they had lost the league to Atleti that same season. If winning the league was indeed easier, then logic dictates that Atleti would've won the final. They didn't. Added on to this is that exactly half of the CL winners since 2010 have not won their domestic league in the same season suggests that this is not a statistical outlier. (Chelsea, and Real twice). Hell, Chelsea finished 6th that year.

You responded with this:

And yes cup teams and league teams aren't made the same, but if i have to choose competing with Spurs over a season or playing two games vs the most dangerous cup team in Europe ( 2 finals in 3 years ) i would take the 38 games race.

This does make sense if we're talking about a team that's better than Atleti. Leicester, as we both agreed, is not that team. A team that is better than Atleti and Spurs/Arsenal does not need to worry about form, because they know they're better. The average in the data favors them. But Leicester isn't that good and everyone knows that. That's why they're sitting in 15th right now. Burnley is three spots higher than them. To say the average does not favor Leicester is a total understatement.

I outlined this thought here:

If you honestly believe that Leicester is a worse side than Atleti (which I think we can agree on) then things like luck and form will average out over a league season. As any researcher worth their math will tell you, the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the data. But you can have an outlier. In fact, it is a statistical probability to have an outlier. And maybe, just maybe, this tie will be Leicester's outlier. Based on math, reason, and logic alone, a 2-legged tie is MUCH easier to win for a weaker team than a 38-game league season.

Essentially, it is possible for a weaker team to beat a stronger one. Leicester may only win against Atleti/Spurs/Arsenal once out of every 7-10 times. In a 38-game season, this is made clear. But in a two-legged tie, you can have the magical outlier. Since you're a betting man, this can be explained quite easily by betting odds. What are Burnley's odds to beat City in a head-to-head over their two games this season? Now what is Burnley's odds to win the entire league? Which odds are better?

I don't have to explain this, you understand it.

I agree on that, but league strength has its importance in the formula, your example is not valid for a simple reason, Atletico is not in PL, if it was the case I will take the 2 leg confrontations instead of a season because statistically as you explained is the best, knowing game circumstances can judge a game at times comparing to 38 games where luck is less taken into consideration.
But here again, i repeat myself i would rather compete with London teams of last year over a season knowing their form rather than Atletico over 2 games and here is my example.

I understand what you're saying about league strength. And I'm telling you that league strength averages out over the season, that is quite literally the point of a league season. If Leicester ends the season on top, then they were the strongest team, on average, over that season. The odds of that, were, obviously, astronomical. And it happened.

Anyone can win a tie. Anyone can get lucky, anyone can find their form for a single game. Otherwise teams like Bayern/Juve/Real/Barca/German NATL would never lose.

TL:DR

Point 1

If we use your reasoning, if the league finish is indeed easier, then Leciester should beat Atleti handily, because they already defeated a team who is doing better than Atleti in the league.

Point 2

Essentially, it is possible for a weaker team to beat a stronger one. Leicester may only win against Atleti/Spurs/Arsenal once out of every 7-10 times. In a 38-game season, this is made clear. But in a two-legged tie, you can have the magical outlier. Since you're a betting man, this can be explained quite easily by betting odds. What are Burnley's odds to beat City in a head-to-head over their two games this season? Now what is Burnley's odds to win the entire league? Which odds are better?

If you can overturn those, I'll agree with you. I don't think you can. I don't think anyone can.

If we use your reasoning, if the league finish is indeed easier, then Leciester should beat Atleti handily, because they already defeated a team who is doing better than Atleti in the league.

That's flawed logic.They don't play in the same league first of all. Second, just because they kicked out Sevilla doesn't mean Atletico is an easier opponent because they are lower in their own domestic league compared to Sevilla, it can't be compared because it's a whole different competition with a different format and number of teams.

Stop using logic fallacy. If you want, comapre the head to head results of Sevilla vs Atletico Madrid and then Sevilla vs City.

I think Atletico Madrid beat Sevilla at least once in La Liga.

If we use your reasoning, if the league finish is indeed easier, then Leciester should beat Atleti handily, because they already defeated a team who is doing better than Atleti in the league.

That's flawed logic.They don't play in the same league first of all. Second, just because they kicked out Sevilla doesn't mean Atletico is an easier opponent because they are lower in their own domestic league compared to Sevilla, it can't be compared because it's a whole different competition with a different format and number of teams.

Stop using logic fallacy. If you want, compare the head to head results of Sevilla vs Atletico Madrid and then Sevilla vs City.

I think Atletico Madrid beat Sevilla at least once in La Liga.

@Golazo

It's tiki's reasoning. The point of it being wrong was instrumental to my entire argument. I'm saying that it's harder to win a league title than to advance past a single knockout opponent.

If I'm right, it has to be wrong. Thanks for embellishing the argument though.

@tiki: i just want to correct myself here, I didnt ban you in chelsea8 request, I was about to ban both Chelsea8 and Joze for trolling and then got in some argument with Joze, thats what Chelsea8 was talking about then he brought you up. But thats it.

I agree with every point SunFlash said in response to @tiki's argument.

@tiki: i understand your point of view, more or less of what you are saying and the comparison. But i simply think its very wrong in a big picture.

Beside all point @SunFlash has said: this is what I normally thing.

• A round in CL or a cup can mean different for teams and miracle/surprise can happen a lot lot lot easier than a league of season long. A team can be motivated, has a moment of godess anf play out of the blue geniously beat up another team.
• to win a league you need long, short term tactic, luck, all kind of thing.
• same with winning a competition. And CL is more pretigous than the rest.

Now, why Leceister winning a league is so special, ok, the top teams helped them by being sucky, but thats just a small part of it. It happends every years with some teams, but this time Leicester took it woth both hand whild none of the other team could.

Beating Atl or Barca or Real, would be extremely sensational for such a team, history made even, no doubt, but saying its bigger than winning EPL is utter crazy and delusional. I must say.