There are quite a few people talking about "over-achivement." It's not a phrase I like much because it's trotted out too easily when a side is doing better than the writer expected -- almost as a way of excusing their mis-predicting how that side would do, perhaps because that is preferable to admitting we got it wrong. But also (perhaps in our case) as a way of protecting against a drop in form -- the old "something's bound to go wrong sooner or later -- don't wish for too much you'll just end up being disappointed!" way of thinking so familar to we West Ham fans!
For example, throughout last season many people were describing Liverpool as overachieving, they carried on doing it almost right until the end of the season. Now I'm not being holier than thou, because there was no way on God's Earth I thought they would do so well. But come May last year, all of us who thought that way were quite simply proved wrong.
I've also disliked the way so many journos, pundits, folk like us in forums, have consistently talked about Southampton, insinuating they were too high, it was just a lucky run, they've only played crap sides etc. Pretty much the definition of "over-achieving." After more than half a season, are they still over-achieving?
I guess what I'm blathering on about is that if one achieves something, it's a bit rich for somebody else to say "you were lucky there, you don't really deserve that." Isn't that what we are doing if we describe our team as over-achieving? Perhaps I'm simply not being objective enough, but I think it's quite objective to say that after half the season we are RIGHTLY above Liverpool, Swansea, Newcastle and Stoke; we are above them because we have played better than them. Yet I see not a few people predicting that we will finish the season behind some or all of them. Well all I can say to that is, if we do than we will have surely UNDER-achieved over the next 4 months.
Last edited by bullyhammer
on Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.