Are they title contenders?

Are they title contenders?

...

In theory, yes
In reality absolutely no

why does everybody hate spurs?

lads, it's tottenham

They're joos.

They're local rivals of both Chelsea and Arsenal, who are extremely popular, especially online.

Arselel or Liverslip are better title contenders than these lot. Spurs look like they can win the title but don't let that fool you, they are a team full of professional bottle jobs.

put on pressure contender

>literally known as a Jewish club
Lmoa how can Tottenham and Ajax fans even support their kosher teams.

No.

They play way conservatively ; there is no passion.

only in their own minds

'No.'

Thats my reaSon

Not a chance. Even with their meme tiny stadium that made it easier for them to press, they were only the 2nd-best team in the league. This year they're 4th-best, and when you take into account that they're shit at Wembley it's more like 5th or 6th-best. I'd be surprised if they finish in the top 4, let alone have a shot at the title.

>They play way conservatively
They play with an extremely high line, press 24/7, and are constantly taking shots from long range. They're not very good but I don't think you can accuse them of being conservative.

They'll put on the pressure

>They play way conservatively ; there is no passion.
That's how you win a title. It's not the team that smashes out 5-0 wins against the top teams, it's the team that consistently scrapes out 1-0 wins against Stoke that deserves the title.

Everton can realistically win the league

I really fucking wish they were

chelsea are the favorites
man city and united a distant 2nd and 3rd
spurs will be lucky to crack top 4

No, and it's all because their faggot jew owner doesn't want to contend for the title.
No signings, no depth. They've basically kept the same squad for two or three seasons now but without Walker, thinking it will win them the league without new players coming in, and that's pretty stupid.

>Aurier will win us the league la

>chelsea are the favorites
Loses against Burnley

>We'll win the league! This is our year lads!

because all the pundits brown nose them even though they've won diddly squat

>1 loss
>they cannot possibly win the league now

Every team is a title contender as long they have mathematical chances of winning it.

Against fucking Burnley, and they drew a game against Arsenal in which Arsenal were actually the better team. The football I've seen so far from Chelsea is quite poor, and from what I've seen so far Liverpool have a better chance of winning the title. But of course I could say things like "oh the season has only just started" but then could I use that to justify saying Huddersfield are favourites to win the title? They've only lost once against West Ham.

chelsea are going to win the league not because they play the best football, they are going to win league because they play bad football the least amount of the time. winning titles is about being the least flawed team, not about being the team with the highest peak, that would go to man city this year it seems. but city is too inconsistent and too flawed defensively to take down a title. last year spurs scored the most goals and allowed the fewest. yet they were still off the pace by 7 points. why? because despite playing the best football for good stretches, they had too many problems.

chelsea have the qualities to win the prem but not the qualities to do well in a relatively short tournament like the champions league. in the champions league you need to be really good and a little lucky. cheslea aren't really good and no amount of luck can overcome that. chelsea will be out played and tactically out maneuvered against the best teams in europe. chelsea's theoretical peak isn't as high as the peaks of real, barca, juve, city, psg, and bayern.

i've heard the premier league being described as a marathon. i'd take a step further and say it's a really long obstacle course. you can have the most stamina, be the strongest, the fastest, the most skilled, but if you can't avoid the traps, you'll never finish first.
i'm not a chelsea fan and in fact i don't support any european club. i'm just telling it how i see it.

Because your garbage englelsh commentators wank the fuck out of them and overrated system babbies like Kane and "muh top u23 midfielder in da world" Alli when they do fuck all, as well as try to diminish Tottenshit into some small club and excuse their incompetence to win anything despite having a better squad than all but the top 2-3 in the Premier league.

There are plenty of flaws in Chelsea right now. They have played bad football and shown no signs of improving.

City on the other hand were indeed defensively flawed last season, and they have for the most part fixed this issue by signing some fantastic full backs. This has been proven on the pitch with consistent easy wins.

You're absolutely right about the prem being a marathon, but City have trained a hell of a lot more for it and have ironed out their flaws. However, Chelsea are stumbling and showing off their flaws very early on. Doesn't look like they're going to fix them in a while to the point where they are most likely to finish top 4, but the title is a lot to ask.

i'd say the biggest flaws for city are they are very thin in defensive midfield, their center backs don't have enough talent or speed to support the aggressively attacking style that pep wants. scoring goals by nature isn't guaranteed so there will be periods will they just wont be scoring and they will have to find another way to win games without scoring bags of goals. most title winning teams are able to put together long strings of 1-0 wins. city can't do that.
the fundamental theory behind pep's style is: "we score goals and have lots of possession. if we do that well enough it doesn't matter how bad our defense is because the other team wont have enough time and possession to score as many as us." it's a good theory. it makes for some exciting games and it usually works more often than it fails. but its not a good enough long term strategy for dropping the fewest amount of points.