But realising the kids will be heartbroken you also have to decide on a replacement and time the two events to coincide as near as possible which brings me back to my post 108. Most of us so called ' inners' accept that CH is living on borrowed time unless things improve but surely you must accept the dangers of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is semantics. You're still using the word differently, unless by your line above you genuinely believe it would not be a "bad thing" for the club if we were to go down. But I'll take my cue from everyone else and let this one lie! I genuinely believe that the five or six points listed above virtually everyone on the board agrees with.
On balance I think it would be better for us to stay up. But I don't regard relegation as the disaster some people clearly view it as. I think the speed of our elevation to the PL has been a real handicap for us, and fighting for survival has been detrimental to our development. That's one reason why I think CH deserves whole-hearted support, not constant sniping.
I don't profess to have the brain power of you two, but I think the main issue of the use of the word mistake is that it implies that you've deliberately got yourself relegated! After all, mistakes are avoidable aren't they?
Glad you agree with me! The rest of your post is what I mean - we're just arguing over the minutiae! We're all fundamentally on the same page - we want Norwich to do well.
Goal difference is really only an issue on the last day of the season, so I agree it is a concern, but we shouldn't get too het up about it just right now, other than to minimise damage (which to be fair we have done - since the Liverpool match, half the season ago, we are only -4). With their games in hand, for example, we could really do with Man City beating Sunderland by 4+ goals and Everton beating Palace by 2+ goals. Then our goal difference won't look quite so bad!
Ok let's play stats. Goal difference isn't a measure of how well your defence is performing its a rather convoluted measure of Attacking performance and defensive performance. The only thing is shows is that we concede more than we score: - Our goals conceded isn't that high, 39, 4 more than average (which is 35) - However we have only scored 19 which is 16 below the average (which is also 35, obviously). This demonstrates that our problem is not so much defensively as it is attacking. If you look at just the bottom 10 it becomes more interesting, the average conceded in the bottom 10 in 39, so were bang average in out mini league as it were however the average scored is 25 so were still short of goals even when compared to our rivals. There is also the consideration that 16 of our conceded goals were in three games (Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal) yes, in those games we capitulated but its not a indication of systemically poor defence and weather 1-0 or 7-0 the huber of points allocated is the same. This means that in our other 23 games we've an average of exactly once per game, plus 9 of those games were clean sheets (a measure that is exclusively about the defensive performance). So I feel that in general we are not terrible at the back, we just aren't scoring the goals, which was my original point.
You ignore something very important Bath -- this board is all about opinions and no opinion is better than any other.
If it is, it isn't, and if it isn't it is! Welcome to the logical paradoxes sub-group longsight (the other two members so far being Rob and myself).
Ah maybe i did, but i really hate that phrase. In general people's opinions are not equal, everyone is entitled to have and opinion but that don't mean they should be given equal weight, a doctor's opinion of what is wrong with me should be given infinitely more weight than mine and then a mechanics opinion on how to fix my car would have mire weight than the doctors. Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be backed up with a good argument from a position of knowledge. It is also true that there are fact that you can't have an opinion about but people seems to think that its their right to have one and be listened to, The BBC is regularly guilty of "bias towards balance" bringing in opposing arguments that should be getting air time just to make sure they show "all sides of the story" The phrase "well that my opinion and its worth as much as yours" I alway feel is the last vestige of somebody who failed to make a well rounded argument and normally indicate that the opinion is not worth listening to. Btw I'm not really talking about people on here because I consider people on here to generally be well informed and articulate (try Facebook or the Pinkun for some terrible opinions) Also Robbie I was aware that you were being facetious but its a small rant i've been meaning to have for a while, definitely not directed at you.
