Having lost to them twice, no doubt as far as Bruce is concerned, the lesson learned is for City to line up even more in their shell.
Last edited:
If Burnley & Brighton draw one of next two ...
- Thread starter tigermaul
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Having lost to them twice, no doubt as far as Bruce is concerned, the lesson learned is for City to line up even more in their shell.
Which I haven't disagreed with. All I've said is what they have to do at a minimum.I give up. You look at things upside down and most of us look at things the right way around!
If two of the three teams above us each lose their remaining games, then we have no need to win all of our games.
Simples.
Many Derby fans consider the two games against us as freak results where their team put in a nigh perfect performance that has not been seen before or since. They don't play as well as that very often. Maybe the outcome against them will not as certain as many seem to think.
Meyler didnt play either time against Derby. Going to be a piece of piss for us when we play them next time.
No need to avoid Derby or anyone else. If the players have anything about them, they will relish the opportunity of putting the record straight against the Rams
According to Steve Bruce "We've got ourselves in the play-offs"
We'll still lose.
We'll still lose.
Yes well maybe part of the trouble is that there are one or two players who don't have enough of the right stuff.
Stranger thinks might happen ?
You must log in or register to see media
You must log in or register to see media
Bloody Hell Sydney. Why do you always do this ?
Your post (post #5) didn't mention a minimum. People question your logic and several posts later you add a crucial word.
This happens every time with you, which often leads to long drawn out back-and-forth debates/discussions, in which somehow you always introduce another factor/tangent to try to prove a point you never actually ever made clear. Get a ****ing grip and save us all some time. It's becoming tedious, and I for one will not bother discussing anything with you and your loose approach.
Perhaps because minimum is bloody implied? I don't 'do this' every time, some people just enjoy being pedantic as all hell and dragging stupid things out. Like the member/pass holder debacle when it was clear to all and sundry that since I said 'existing members' that I clearly bloody meant pass holders.
Saying that all we need is for Burnley AND Brighton to drop 5 points clearly suggests that's the minimum. if they drop more than 5 points of course that's still going to help us, a two year old can see that. To suggest that I say one thing initially then subtly change it later especially in this case is utterly moronic.
In the post you quoted I was responding to someone saying "Yes but if the two sides drop ALL their points, that helps too!" Well. Yes. If we need them to drop 5 points, them dropping 9 points will also help. It really added nothing nor did it conflict with anything I'd initially said.
Maybe these sorts of discussions wouldn't go on endlessly if people didn't alter the topic being argued halfway along the way. Saying that we should all push in the same direction as a team required me to provide evidence of the players being bothered by booing which became a debate about the style of play which became a debate about whether or not players are affected by booing. It's honestly ridiculous.
Last edited:
Here's my initial post. We need them to both drop 5 points for us to make second. For that to happen they need to lose one and draw one of their remaining games. If they lose more than that of course that bloody well helps as well. I can't actually believe it's being debated that I in anyway suggested that if they drop more than 5 points it doesn't help us.
I'm sure you'll refuse to reply to this @tigerscanada but honestly mate, if you're going to jump in and have a pot shot at me about something entirely fictitious at least have the balls to make a proper case for it.
Last edited:
In what way can it be an implied minimum if you do not qualify it by stating in your original post that a) we have to win all our remaining 4 games and especially b) end up with a better goal difference than both Burnley & Brighton to make that post have any value ? Point b) is a very important minimum for us to get an automatic promotion place and just stating the other 2 teams need a W1D1L1 set does not clarify anything.
It might have been clearer if you'd said if the other teams above us get 5 points we'd be screwed.
If minimum is implied I'd suggest everyone on here knows that so what was the point in your post anyway.
We're all bloody mind-readers on here you might think. In fact 2-year old mind-readers.
What on Earth are you on about. You really are being a pedant now. If I said to you, at 0-0 in a game, "We need a goal here to win" would you turn back and say "What are you on about! We need 3! What happens if they score 2??" Of course not. It's apparent that when I say "We need a goal" we're going on the assumption that the other side doesn't turn around and score 10. Saying "We need them to drop 5 points" is quite clearly assuming everything else goes our way. I don't think it was a stretch to think that people would make that assumption. Since the maximum points we can get are 88, we can only afford for them to register another 4 points.
Yes I didn't spell everything out because I didn't think I was posting a message that would be read by children, instead read by people who actually had a clue. Mr Hatem then made some comment about Aussie Rules that showed he in fact did not have a clue.
Having someone then turn around and say "but if they drop 9 it's better for us!" just highlights the idiocy of this whole argument. Dropping 9 is of course bloody better than dropping 5 for our rivals, it really doesn't need to be stated. We need one goal to win the match, but of course if we go out and score 3 goals that's even better.
Last I'll say on it because I'm really getting fed up with the pedants on here picking apart posts for meanings that aren't there, and then accusing me of being the one to drag arguments out.
Are you one of those fish which can be caught by hand, because you don't half bite easy.
I'm a two year old by the way.
Yeah I'm a very fed up fish.
You're a very advanced 2 year old! Parents must be proud.
Because there are more permutations of results (and scores) for the 4 teams who could possibly end up in 2nd place, excluding Boro of course, your original post re Burnley and Brighton (W1 D1 L1) results scenarios is meaningless.
Is that better, pedantic or a 2-year old's fantasy ?.
OK mate. You're right I'm wrong. Saying that we need them to drop 5 points for us to be a chance of second was clearly a stupid thing to say.
I wouldn't think you're wrong or stupid saying that at all had you qualified it with "at a minimum" in the first place. That's all.
Edit: actually you know what, it's really not worth it. You carry on arguing all you want