So something 14,000,000-1 is similar to Watford's situation? Is this what you are saying? Yet you say I don't understand probability........it's quite funny giving you all this rope to hang yourself with.....and you're so very obliging.
I'm trying to find out where your limit is. Clearly you don't think it's a blanket rule - the lottery example would clearly be an irrational action and you seem to agree with that. Yet 1500-1 over three weeks of football is acceptable proof of a real and present danger? I can't work out where you draw your line - that's what I'm saying. Anyway we'll leave it there. Thread sinking.
Thread sinking thanks to all your efforts. Well done. You hide behind odds, like a kid with his comfort blanket. No actual reality to it at all, but it is a comfort to you. I bet you don't believe Leicester won the league last season do you? With odds of 5000-1 it just could not have happened.
Gents, take it outside. Whatever you were originally arguing about has been lost. You're now arguing about what each other was arguing about when you where arguing about what you had previously been arguing about. Neither of you can remember what you were arguing about and so are just keeping the argument going in case one of you manages to finally bring it back around again, but it's way, way off course now
Yes agreed. And apologies. I didn't realise it was the match thread - I thought it was that bonkers relegation one.
Imagine a zoo HB 1, and the season is the time spent in the zoo. The relegation zone is the time spent in the lion's enclosure and all of the teams are fighting to push each other in. We have never really been close to that enclosure until now. Hull and Swansea have been in it almost all season, running away from the lions. I think we could say that Hull and Swansea have been in danger while we have not because the lions can't eat us when we're not in the enclosure. If Swansea get out of the enclosure they will still have been in danger from being eaten. Now imagine boat, HB 1, and the season is the time spent in the boat. The relegation zone is the time spent in the icy waters and not on the boat. The teams in the water are in danger of drowning; the teams at the edge of the boat are in danger of falling in. We have never been in the water. We have only been on the edge with 2 games left.
Problem with your analogy is that there are no lions in the cage or water around the boat until two games' time. That is the only time that falling out the boat or going in the cage matters. To Labour your awful analogies.
Or.. The lions mauled us in the cup. The black cats no longer have a boat (on their badge) The Swans are all at sea.. and now we have to look out for the Tigers and hope the Eagles can swoop! Ok that's enough of that
I'm agree, they were terrible. I'm just trying to present the information in a more imaginative way rather than labouring the same point. I am also starting to agree with many that Walter isn't up to it, mainly because of his insistence on playing 3 at the back when we seem to play better with a back 4; however, the performance against Everton wasn't so bad!
It wasn't, but was it enough, as a highlight amongst the recent dross? Is a piece of sweet corn really that appetizing out of a bum log? Even during the 99 and 06 season's we had plenty of games where we lost narrowly and defended ok. I still think that, like the Everton game, losing had an air of inevitability about it.
" Is a piece of sweet corn really that appetizing out of a bum log?" I just blew coffee out through my nose reading that. Thanks
When we play three at the back and lose it's always blamed on the system. When we play 4 at the back it's usually blamed on poor performances or something else. I think the phenomenon also occurs with analysis on zonal marking by the media. They never seem to consider that the system might be fine, but the players made a mistake. I'm not saying this applies to us, maybe three at the back is the wrong system. However, I'm a football pleb and would be interested in someone actually discussing why it doesn't work for us? Are Holebas and Janmaat not good enough as wingbacks? Do we need faster center backs? Anything to change the topic to actual football tactics.
"Are Holebas and Janmaat not good enough as wingbacks? Do we need faster center backs?" The comparison with Arsenal's Bellerin and Monreal yesterday was stark. If ours go forward they end up on the touchline or occasionally cutting infield, whereas Bellerin or Monreal end up in the box almost level with the back stick, acting as provider of a cutback, a target for a chipped cross, or mopping up anything half cleared or overhit. The Arsenal guys are also confident that someone has covered their wing of course, whereas ours can only be confident of that if Doucoure is behind them.
Poder is right. Our back 3 is really a back 5 and we invite pressure. To play the system properly we need some faster centre backs and a ball playing centre back (or at least someone who can vaguely pass to our own players) I loved 3 5 2 in the championship but it hasn't worked for us in this league
Do you think if Kabasele stayed fit for whole season we would have done better with 3 at the back? I see what you're saying about the wing backs playing too deep. Is this a product of them being too slow, or lacking the confidence to get forward because either we lose possession, or the midfield don't cover properly?
I think the wings backs are too deep because of our lack of pace and because we can't retain the ball. I really don't think the problem is with the wing backs - Bellerin wouldn't look much better than Holebas or Janmaat if he played for us. If Chelsea play their full strength team on Monday we'll see how Walter wants 3 at the back to work. Unfortunately we don't have Chelsea's quality.
No point of having wing backs if you don't bother having any attacking plan. Which we don't. At all. Hope the other team slip up and we nick a goal. Then defend forever. If we don't score, defend forever. If they score, defend forever and say we deserved a draw.
No point having wing backs if you also confine wide-midfielders to the touchline so leaving acres of space in the middle for Barclay, Redmond, Clucas and Uncle Tom Cobley to roam around in. I think Holebas and Janmaat are OK wingbacks, but the coaching from a team supposedly expert in 3-5-2 is appalling.
No point trying to attack when you've got to rely on Deeney and Okaka up front. We'd be better off sticking Niang and Success up front.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Blistering pace, great engine the ability to put an early ball in and defensive savvy. Tough players to find but they are out there.
