He will be played at some point or he wouldn't be in the squad. Just not necessarily ahead of Crooks, Matazo, Alzate or Slater
Hang on a minute. I'm not having that. Syd chose to use 6 and 10 games. Fair enough. I then simply posted an alternative of the last 3 games for contrast and discussion. FFS, I even actually wrote "Over the last 3, and I fully realise it's 'only' 3, our form has "fallen off a cliff" and "multiple teams around us" are picking up (more)... points...". And added "We aren't doomed, but we are in deep, deep trouble, and we aren't showing signs of getting out of it." Then it turns into a pile on claiming I know nothing about statistics, that l'm a pathalogical doom & gloom merchant, I have reached conclusions, suffer from inherent bias, that using the last 3 games is 'ridiculous'! (why? didn't they actually happen!!) etc etc. You honestly couldn't make it up!! There aren't half some ****wits on here who seem incapable of actually reading what someone posts (or otherwise 1 or 2 who just like to go out of their way to have an argument)!!!
I 'chose' to use 6 and 10 games as those are the two versions of form to examine - short and long form. Most football apps you'll find use those two sample sizes (some use 5 games, some use 6) as one provides a more immediate sense of how teams are performing (I believe that was your argument for dismissing 10 games) and 10 games shows how teams have performed over half the season to contextualise and 'smooth' out any blips. No app uses 2 or 3 game form lines as that's going to be erratic and volatile due to fixture difficulty, lucky moments, and even just simply influenced by home/away fixtures. The fact you're so insistent on looking at 3 games as if I'M the one ignoring it to suit MY agenda, rather than literally the reverse and it's you trying to find the only sample that suits your agenda is hilarious. No one is ignoring the last 3 games, in fact you might be surprised to learn that the last 3 games are a subset of both the last 6 and last 10 games and therefore are indeed taken into account. How did you put it? I think suits best here.
**** me! I have no problem with you choosing 10 and 6 ffs. I even said 'fair enough'. Can't you read? I simply said "now look at the last 3". You then asked me the question "why on earth would I look at the last 3?". I suggested "because it doesn't suit your narrative, or your belief?" and posited that the last 3 are actually more relevant than the last 10. I haven't "insisted" that anyone looks at the last 3. You can suit yourself. Now stop making **** up yet again, and please stop being such an argumentative thick twat. Thanks.
For someone who takes such issue - supposedly - with people being argumentative, you sure do enjoy playing the man and getting personal rather than discussing the issue or topic. You also began this discussion with me, I just made a general post contributing to the topic of discussion. So much like a few others on here, if you have such an issue with me 'starting' arguments, then a tip might be not to start them with me! I said you're insistent, not that you insisted, those words have different meanings. You keep pushing people to look at the last three, I never said you said that was the only sample size to use. For someone who complains others don't read their posts, why don't you read mine properly? I asked why would I look at the last 3 in isolation in a discussion about form because looking at three fixtures in isolation gives no indication of form! You can play 3 games in 7 days in this league. It tells no one anything and using it to try to have an informed discussion about our form or chances of staying up is a fool's errand. I understand you're still busy trying to find a single example of you putting your hands up and admitting you were wrong about something, but in the meantime if that's too tricky for you, why don't you look up some manners and understand that you can have a heated discussion about a difference of footballing views without insulting the other person directly. I manage to avoid doing that with you despite the stream of abuse I receive back, so it would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy.
Oh yea You think your sherlock holmes And becasue i used one of verns silly sayings You think you cracked the code and im vern
I wondered what they were on about with that, I can't believe anyone thinks you're him just because you mocked him with one of his sayings. It's a bit like MO thinking Oozkan is an AI. Said it to be funny but now actually believes it.
Some prefer the tribute acts versions, Night **** and All Night ****ers. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Serious questions Syd. Quotes from your own post. Do you ever wonder why this is the case? Do you ever stop and think about it? Why do you think the advice often given is "just ignore him"? There's a reason, are you just too dense to realise?
Another pop at me, can't resist it can you? If you think that I'm so difficult to speak with, then why do you engage? Why do you think it is that there's plenty of civil conversations that I have on here, but the minute you wade in and start throwing insults around it goes this way? Have a read back, the posts are all there. Who got personal first? Who got abusive first? Who stuck to the topic at hand?
