faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862 
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 18, 2014 13:03:18 GMT
English not your strongest subject then. You mean the poor teams that just beat FGR. Talk me through it then - if we hadn't scored in the last minute of the game what would the score have been? I mean the sh1te side that I saw us play against on Tuesday night. Oh god this again. Look, there's an element of luck in all games. Sneaking a win, or getting a lucky win if you like, is when you've been battered by the other team but still win. If that's not the case, so if the 2 teams have been vaguely even or where your team has been the better side, is not a lucky win. Timings are irrelevant. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Sept 18, 2014 13:52:26 GMT
Talk me through it then - if we hadn't scored in the last minute of the game what would the score have been? I mean the sh1te side that I saw us play against on Tuesday night. Oh god this again. Look, there's an element of luck in all games. Sneaking a win, or getting a lucky win if you like, is when you've been battered by the other team but still win. If that's not the case, so if the 2 teams have been vaguely even or where your team has been the better side, is not a lucky win. Timings are irrelevant. Definitive. I don't agree but definitive. Alwaysgas brought it up, take it up with him. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 18, 2014 14:20:50 GMT
Oh god this again. Look, there's an element of luck in all games. Sneaking a win, or getting a lucky win if you like, is when you've been battered by the other team but still win. If that's not the case, so if the 2 teams have been vaguely even or where your team has been the better side, is not a lucky win. Timings are irrelevant. Definitive. I don't agree but definitive. Alwaysgas brought it up, take it up with him. You don't get out of an argument that easily! I'm interested in why you don't agree, I may be looking at things incorrectly. To give an example, if one side has 90% possession, 30 shots on target that all hit a defender's rear end, and the other side have none, then the former side score in the 91st minute - you would consider that they were lucky to win, more so than the normal amount of luck that you need to win? If the latter side had scored in the 50th minute instead, you would not consider that lucky? Not necessarily the case of course that you do of course, as you may have more than one definition of a lucky win, but still. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Sept 18, 2014 16:35:50 GMT
Definitive. I don't agree but definitive. Alwaysgas brought it up, take it up with him. You don't get out of an argument that easily! I'm interested in why you don't agree, I may be looking at things incorrectly. To give an example, if one side has 90% possession, 30 shots on target that all hit a defender's rear end, and the other side have none, then the former side score in the 91st minute - you would consider that they were lucky to win, more so than the normal amount of luck that you need to win? If the latter side had scored in the 50th minute instead, you would not consider that lucky? Not necessarily the case of course that you do of course, as you may have more than one definition of a lucky win, but still. For context: on the Darrell Clarke thread Bamber said: "The problem is that as soon as we sneak another late goal and win a game the happy clappers all come out as if everything in the world is just fine and dandy. It's not. " GasHeadGaz responded: "1. We didn't sneak a win". Firstly neither Bamber nor I contested we snuck the win Bamber said "sneak another late goal". But if we are discussing the correct definition of sneaking a win - I don't think my contention really brings luck into it. I didn't say we were lucky to get the win I said our win was reliant upon the last minute goal - which is irrefutable since the scoreline would otherwise have been 2 - 2. Chewbacca later in the thread jokes that 1 - 1 until the last minute is a better position to be in than 12 - 0 up with four minutes to go because you can still throw a 12 goal lead away with 4 minutes left but at 1 -1 you can win it with the last kick of the game - of course that's an absurd prospect which sort of proves what I'm saying. If sneaking a win is not determined by the time the goal is scored in the game why do we have en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergie_Time in our modern footballing vocabulary? |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 18, 2014 21:14:34 GMT
You don't get out of an argument that easily! I'm interested in why you don't agree, I may be looking at things incorrectly. To give an example, if one side has 90% possession, 30 shots on target that all hit a defender's rear end, and the other side have none, then the former side score in the 91st minute - you would consider that they were lucky to win, more so than the normal amount of luck that you need to win? If the latter side had scored in the 50th minute instead, you would not consider that lucky? Not necessarily the case of course that you do of course, as you may have more than one definition of a lucky win, but still. For context: on the Darrell Clarke thread Bamber said: "The problem is that as soon as we sneak another late goal and win a game the happy clappers all come out as if everything in the world is just fine and dandy. It's not. " GasHeadGaz responded: "1. We didn't sneak a win". Firstly neither Bamber nor I contested we snuck the win Bamber said "sneak another late goal". But if we are discussing the correct definition of sneaking a win - I don't think my contention really brings luck into it. I didn't say we were lucky to get the win I said our win was reliant upon the last minute goal - which is irrefutable since the scoreline would otherwise have been 2 - 2. Chewbacca later in the thread jokes that 1 - 1 until the last minute is a better position to be in than 12 - 0 up with four minutes to go because you can still throw a 12 goal lead away with 4 minutes left but at 1 -1 you can win it with the last kick of the game - of course that's an absurd prospect which sort of proves what I'm saying. If sneaking a win is not determined by the time the goal is scored in the game why do we have en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergie_Time in our modern footballing vocabulary? Some good points, but surely 'sneak' implies the taking of something that isn't warranted or due? Fergie time, by my understanding anyway, refers to man u's habit of not being the best team until the final stages of the game,vwhen suddenly there would be lots of injury time out of no where. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 14:44:14 GMT
Referring back to the reduction in budget,when you look at the alleged wages being paid to some of the departed players ie Clarkson 3K Harrold 2.5K Otoole 3.5K to name just a few,that is close to half a million per year.If the perceived wage bill for last season was 2.5million then just releasing those 3 saved 20%,plus this season Smith has gone for a 6 figure fee,and he wasnt on peanuts then add the wages for the other 9 released at the seasons end,the savings were in all probability more than the budget cut
|
|
