This getting ridiculous is one thing on which we can agree. Your quote there was only written by you some time after you made the originally ludicrous comment "the one thing we do know as regards our CBs is that Hanley is not EPL quality". You now seem to be trying to weasel your way out of it, but suggesting all along you were pointing to ample evidence and warranted conclusions. The proof, should you wish to see it, is on page 37 of this thread.
I have never seen a so called "fan" of any club try to demonstrate how incompetent the entire set up of their chosen club is. From Farke to the tea person all woefully inept. I'm sure Robbie would be there at Delia's House on Christmas day telling her the gravy is too thick and that she should have cooked a goose instead of a turky. 23 games 47 points on the board top of the league but the xGa isn't as good as 2 seasons ago so let's all **** the bed.
I'm not "trying to weasel out of anything" Rob. To repeat: the one thing we do know as regards our CBs is that Hanley is not EPL quality. If you don't think we know it, fine, that's your opinion.
Actually Duncan, I did try Delia's recipe for lemon cake the other day; my wife's is much better. By the way, try looking at comments in context.
I've had enough of this. I, for one, do not think that Hanley "is not good enough for the PL" and neither do I necessarily think he is. It depends on what the other 10 players would be doing and that is unknown. I'll come back to this thread when it returns to a meaningful discussion.
Actually, **** it, I’m stuck at home. You wrote “we” and have done again. Be honest with yourself and change it to what you mean: “the one thing I, robbieBB, am absolutely convinced I do know as regards our CBs is that Hanley is not EPL quality and I will not listen to any argument to the contrary.”
Your xGA maths might say one thing but the black and white facts are that we've conceded fewer goals this season than we did in 18/19. The first 23 league games of 18/19 and our current 23 league games to date this season look like this: 18/19 we had conceded 26 goals 20/21 we have conceded 20 goals
Exactly so HMQC. So one obvious question is: how come we are conceding fewer goals this season compared to two seasons ago, despite giving opposition teams more chances? The MFW article which prompted this debate suggests two possible answers: " ........ either wasteful opposition or outstanding goalkeeping". Both have undoubtedly played a part, with plenty of examples in the 23 matches. Another factor, not mentioned by MFW, is better set piece defending. However, focussing on lower GA diverts attention from the question of why we are conceding so many chances in the first place. We are, after all, supposed to have improved defensively this season: conceding more chances than we did two seasons ago doesn't exactly square with that. Being top of the league courtesy of poor opposition finishing, isn't something to be particularly sanguine about is it?
Is it their poor finishing or are we restricting teams to harder shots or from further out etc? I can only trust your xGA numbers and I assume the higher number can only mean these are shots that teams should be converting, but that reinforces for me that our team as a whole is operating more effectively as a defensive unit restricting these shots than two years ago. case in point, fewer goals conceded. Anyway i don't wish to get ejected to the Stats thread
Ah yes, the stats thread. As though stats have nothing to do with "real" football! Re. opposition chances, on Saturday for example, Barnsley spurned two good chances, Helik's failure to convert the cross late on being the best. Fairly typical of "opposition wastefulness" this season.
Well Duncan, you are wrong. Would you like me to send you the recipe? By the way, you don't seem to have the hang of the Ignore button. You keep saying you've put me on Ignore, but then keep answering my posts. Dearie me! I suppose if I were to write "We now know that the new variant Sars-Cov-2 virus is up to 70% more transmissible than the original", I would be castigated because someone insists on ignoring the evidence and denies that he for one knows it? There is a perfectly familiar use of the phrase "We know" in which it is equivalent to "It is known". That's the sense in which I used it.
The difference is, quite obviously, that many many people agree (including scientists) that the new variant is up to 70% more transmissible than the original. And even then scientists are much more careful and emphasise that it's based on evidence. Whereas, by stark contrast, you appear - based on my reasoned assessment of all the evidence before me - to be the only person in the entire world arrogant enough to claim that you know for an incontrovertible fact that Hanley is not good enough for the Premier League. Even with evidence largely on your side, that ignores several experts who have chosen to play Hanley in the Premier League (albeit admittedly I am aware you are certain you are better at Farke's job than Farke). So that's a bad parallel example from you in your desperate attempt to maintain that you did not mistype. Next?
Sorry, this has got beyond ridiculous. robbieBB, you are floundering in your own sea of righteous ignorance. The more you post your righteous diatribes the more posters you alienate. By the way, I have never attacked any poster so strongly, and I hope I never have to so ever again, but this stupidity can no longer be allowed to be posted.
RobbieBB has never eaten a lemon cake cooked by Delia with Delia's hand and engredients he simply claims to have tried an attempt at recreating one that his wife cooked . There's no coming back from this you are wrong and I'm right .
1. I did not mistype. I have told you exactly what the original statement meant; at no time have I attempted to pretend it meant anything else. All that happened is that you attached a meaning to what I said which it didn't have. 2. You now admit that "evidence is largely" on my side. Thank you. And as counter-evidence you say "several experts" have chosen to play Hanley in the Premier League. Who exactly, and in what circumstances did they play him? In point of fact, the "several" turn out to be three, Allardyce and his assistant/successor Steve Kean at Blackburn (2010--12), who clearly saw potential in the young Hanley; and DF last season. Under Benitez, over a complete Premier League season, Hanley, then aged 25, never appeared once. So in fact, the only manager to have played Hanley in the Premier League since his youthful days at Blackburn, is DF last season, when the policy was to make do with what we had, rather than buy quality where it was needed. Furthermore, silence speaks loudly. In an age when Premier league clubs commit great sums to talent spotting and EPL quality CBs are a sought after commodity, Grant Hanley's name has been conspicuous by its absence from even rumoured interest, never mind anything more serious. The truth is, the world of EPL football has long since made its judgement, whatever a handful of us City supporters might think.
