Negative Nigel - Really? Some Evidence

[Punk Blade]

Another one for the burgeoning collection.

You make some really compelling arguments on this subject.

Can anyone translate?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

You make some really compelling arguments on this subject.

How would you know? You don't read any of them.

You just make your own up, attribute them elsewhere, and then deliver a knockdown counter.

(This DIY approach to argumentation is often called a Straw Man or an Aunt Sally.)

 

[Punk Blade]

I'm leaving out the longer posts for everyone's sanity, but trying to pick out the main thread of 'play badly/win' vs 'play well/lose'

It's almost meaningless to generalise from one game but in terms of long term prospects it is at least arguable that it is better to play well and lose than play badly and win.

Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies. Playing well and losing is how you get relegated.

Straw man. This weakens your case considerably. If I wished, similarly, to argue that the sun came out at night that would also weaken my case.

This destroys it.

In the long term it's better to play well than play badly.

You said better to play well and lose than play badly and win (yes, yes, in the long term). I disagree. I say it's better to win, full stop.

I'll just restate that if you win one game jammily that doesn't bode well for the future no matter how many points that one game gets you.

The actual point being contested was that three points is all that counts. I don't think it is for reasons stated repeatedly. I think I'll leave it at that.

We need good results to take us to the playoffs and then good results to take us up. Playing well and losing is of no use to us right now

Like I said I can't restate my case any more clearly. If you persist in misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting it there's not much point continuing.

I just saw us not play (certainly not defend) well enough to deserve a win, but take three crucial points nonetheless. Do you stand by your assertion that it would have been preferable, for our long term prospects, to have performed better and lost points tonight?

It's ok if you believe in it, we're all entitled to an opinion, but if you stand by it try to substantiate it rather than say 'straw man' and post silly pictures

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

rather than say 'straw man'

You're the one making the Straw Man "arguments" - it's almost an MO. Five or six in this thread at least. It seems you now want to have made those "arguments" but not to have been called out on it. Not sure that is a reasonable position.

silly pictures

Silly pictures for silly "arguments", it's only fair.

If we play like we did last night against Oldham, Yeovil etc how many would we win?
If we play like Donny did last night against Oldham, Yeovil etc how many would we win?

Which is preferable?

OTOH, we played well enough against Scunthorpe away (and others) that 4 wins in 5, including a 4-0, wasn't that much of a surprise.

"Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies." This always strikes me as a lazy cliche churned out by pundits on autopilot. If you think it's a substantial point then fair enough. We disagree.

 

[Guesty]

"Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies." This always strikes me as a lazy cliche churned out by pundits on autopilot. If you think it's a substantial point then fair enough. We disagree.

I guess the trick is to get away with winning with occasional bad performances. No-one wins trophies by playing badly all the time! Ferguson's Manchester United made a habit of grinding out wins when under-performing, although it could be argued that the very ability to grind is showing talent and therefore it cannot be classed as a bad performance. I don't know. Either way, most of the time they genuinely played very well.

The problem you have is when a team, like us early in the season, appears to blunder its way to a series of tight wins with unconvincing performances. No team can rely solely on 1-0 wins, the margins for error are too small and if you genuinely are playing poorly you'll be found out sooner or later. Rather, scrappy 1-0s should be the back up when the marvelous, free-flowing football has temporarily deserted you!

 

[Punk Blade]

You're the one making the Straw Man "arguments" - it's almost an MO. Five or six in this thread at least. It seems you now want to have made those "arguments" but not to have been called out on it. Not sure that is a reasonable position.

The whole debate stems from this: "it is at least arguable that it is better to play well and lose than play badly and win."

I disagreed, and over a number of posts explained a number of reasons why. You repeatedly retorted with 'straw man', accusing me of constructing fake arguments so I can knock them down. I disagree with your quote above and have argued my case for disagreeing with it. Don't pretend that I have fabricated this original premise (or any other point) in an attempt to make me look foolish. If you don't want to argue the point then you are under no obligation to do so, but why not just leave it, or just say you disagree? I don't mind when my point is ignored, but having someone repeatedly reply to your arguments just to indicate that they are being completely dismissive of them without offering anything in return is rather frustrating and not remotely constructive.

I was genuinely interested in your views on the bulk of post 153 but you were too busy counting your straw men by this point.

If we play like we did last night against Oldham, Yeovil etc how many would we win?
If we play like Donny did last night against Oldham, Yeovil etc how many would we win?

Which is preferable?

Playing like Donny last night should result in more games won than playing like we did, and I would prefer to play like Donny did (or 'well', if you prefer).

However, this wasn't the point. You have stated that playing well over a long period is better than playing badly, as if this is some kind of genius insight, but the debate was about taking an individual game and saying whether better to play badly and win, or play badly and lose.

Last night was a good example of 'play badly and win' vs 'play well and lose'. You previously indicated a preference for playing well and losing over playing badly and winning in an individual match. Without categorically stating otherwise (your response to me wondering what your position on the topic would have been last night was, unsurprisingly, 'straw man'), it appears you would rather have been in Donny's position last night. I expect you would be in a minority on that, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

"Playing badly and winning is how you win trophies." This always strikes me as a lazy cliche churned out by pundits on autopilot. If you think it's a substantial point then fair enough. We disagree.

At last we can agree to disagree on something.

I guess the trick is to get away with winning with occasional bad performances. No-one wins trophies by playing badly all the time! Ferguson's Manchester United made a habit of grinding out wins when under-performing, although it could be argued that the very ability to grind is showing talent and therefore it cannot be classed as a bad performance. I don't know. Either way, most of the time they genuinely played very well.

The problem you have is when a team, like us early in the season, appears to blunder its way to a series of tight wins with unconvincing performances. No team can rely solely on 1-0 wins, the margins for error are too small and if you genuinely are playing poorly you'll be found out sooner or later. Rather, scrappy 1-0s should be the back up when the marvelous, free-flowing football has temporarily deserted you!

I think you've cracked it there, that's a pretty good summary.

Very interesting point that having the ability to grind out a positive result from a poor performance is arguably not actually a bad performance. The best and most successful sides certainly know how to manage a game to their advantage even when individually and/or collectively off form.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Don't pretend that I have fabricated this original premise (or any other point)

"Fabricating the original premise"? Well that, for me at least, was this:

And I strongly disagree that the only stat that count is goals. That's just simplistic: you can create a hatful of chances, not finish them off and lose, or draw 0-0, or you can scrape a jammy 1-0 with a dodgy penalty. One bodes well for long term prospects, the other doesn't.

You've stated it as sthg else which I think appears later in the thread. Is this "fabrication"? Who knows?

The substantial point is contained in the quote and, for me, it still stands.

And here is what might reasonably be construed as fabricating another point.

If you want to argue that more than goals count (and give up now, it's a fact backed up by the laws of the game) you've picked a poor argument there.

There are many other examples, including, unsurprisingly, a couple (at least) in the post above.

You can have the last word.

 

[Blade for Sale]

If we replicate the average goals scored for the last 15 games until the end of the season we will hit 97 goals in all comps which ain't too shabby!

 

[Jon Bon]

Classic bantz. LOL.

 

[Punk Blade]

And I strongly disagree that the only stat that count is goals.

I am contesting the point that goals scored is the only statistic that counts.

If you want to argue that more than goals count

Very sorry if I've misunderstood, misinterpreted or misrepresented anything there.

Arguing about arguing is a big waste of time. Hope you enjoyed the game last night.

UTB