Punk Blade
Active Member
You make some really compelling arguments on this subject.Another one for the burgeoning collection.
Can anyone translate?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
You make some really compelling arguments on this subject.Another one for the burgeoning collection.
You make some really compelling arguments on this subject.
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.
rather than say 'straw man'
silly pictures
"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.
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."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.
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).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?
At last we can agree to disagree on something."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 think you've cracked it there, that's a pretty good summary.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!
Don't pretend that I have fabricated this original premise (or any other point)
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.
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.
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.
Very sorry if I've misunderstood, misinterpreted or misrepresented anything there.If you want to argue that more than goals count
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?