Here's what you could have won!

[bricktop]

That's a matter of opinion. My spellchecker's a fuck of a sight better, I know that much. Yours is like a three-legged pit pony juggling a Walnut Whip, an alligator and a pink blancmange. On a unicycle.

The grammar needs work too. That's like a penguin doing a crossword. In Greek, with a purple crayon. On a rollercoaster. Pissed.




Told you. Like a lesbian on stilts, armed only with a copy of The Beano and a toffee apple. Last Thursday.

The sites Internet hardman has spoken

 

[shorehamview]

The sites Internet hardman has spoken

I'm not the site's hardman. I'm not the sites mardy bugger either though.

It's a joke with Olle. He tends to get most of them. Your operation was obviously a success though.

The one where they surgically removed your sense of humour. And your full stop button.

 

[judge]

No that's me

 

[bricktop]

I'm not the site's hardman. I'm not the sites mardy bugger either though.

It's a joke with Olle. He tends to get most of them. Your operation was obviously a success though.

The one where they surgically removed your sense of humour. And your full stop button.

You remind me of the person who laughs out loud at his own jokes, you also remind me of the person that likes his own status updates on Facebook.

 

[Darren]

This is the point where we fell down last time. What represents good and bad is subjective and could differ. That said I asm sure most would agree on a definition of a good football team and who is better than others etc. It depends on how you regard the league table (again potentially subjective). Ultimately the objective of the game is to score more than your opponent. However you have more chance of doing that if have more shots on target, contorl possession, defend well etc. Then factors such as team spirit, manager, talented players come into it. If you are die hard then you will believe that a team gets what they deserve at the end of the game. I do not. My point is that luck, randomness and external factors play a role. Teams can lose games they did not deserve to lose. You can hit the bar 18 times, have 3 goals disallowed, have 6 dodgy penalties given against you etc. These will not even themselves out of the season. The league tabkle 'lying' is an expression that say that it contains randomness and does not factor these external things in.



Well I'll look forward to you enlightening me on Sat-di alco. But you are right. Look at Stoke! And Wimbeldon. The crazy gang hoofed their way to winning the FA cup and beat the beautiful passing side of Liverpool in the grand finale.



My brain cells are working fine. The need for you to get personal just shows you are either losing the argument or cannot exprerss yourself properly in a normal debate. Which one is it Darren?

He did the league table in January 2010 (not at the beginning of the season) which is something you continually failed to realise. Hence if you want to come back with stats for the 2nd half of the season (and preferably the first half of last season) then let's carry this on. Looking at the whole of 2009/2010 is not correct becuase he did the stats half way through.

Do you forget what you write? This is what you said:

"(all that lager has killed too many brain cells)"

And I merely picked up on it.

As for the general point, Ipswich's record from Jan 10 was

P23 W8 D8 L7 pts 32

And United's last 23 games had the record

P23 W9 D6 L8 pts 33.

So there we have it, we had a slightly better record than Ipswich in the 2nd half of the season and, of course, there was that 3-0 tonking. Whichever way you look at it United were a better team than Ipswich in 09-10.

 

[shorehamview]

You remind me of the person who laughs out loud at his own jokes, you also remind me of the person that likes his own status updates on Facebook.

I can't help who I remind you of, any more than you can't help it if you remind them of the little boy sat in the corner of the room eating his bogies as he gently soils himself.

Nice to see you found your . button though. Anything else small and insignificant you've temporarily lost? The plot, maybe?

 

[bricktop]

Wouldn't say its the plot i've lost.

Just having half an hour having a bit of internet time before i get on with other tasks. I've got better things to do all day than spend all day living up to a false intenet persona. Just out of interest i bet that you wouldn't say half the stuff that you say on here to someone in person?

As for pointing out a missing full stop. I enjoy it when people pick up on a small, but insignificent error in punctuation as it shows that they have not comeback to what was written in the first place.

Anyway, i'm bored.

Goodbye

 

[shorehamview]

Wouldn't say its the plot i've lost.

Just having half an hour having a bit of internet time before i get on with other tasks. I've got better things to do all day than spend all day living up to a false intenet persona. Just out of interest i bet that you wouldn't say half the stuff that you say on here to someone in person?

There are more than a few members on here who know me. They know that I've never been afraid to say something to someone's face that I've said on here. As I've pointed out before, I drink in the Golden Lion before matches. Ask the crew in the corner to the left of the door who I am.

I'll happily discuss anything I can remember with anyone. I'll happily call anyone I meet exactly what I call them on here. Most of it's pub-style banter with no offence meant, taken or given. Having said that I've only had one infraction for abusive language on here, and I'd happily call that person a fucking prick to their face.

I'd happily have a chat with anyone from this forum. Those who know me know that there is nothing I won't hold back. If you want a chat, and to call me anything you like, I'll be either in the Golden Lion or outside smoking cigars before matches. Most of the time I'll be drinking fizzy pop, as most of the time I drive.

I'm easy to spot. I'm not afraid and hiding behind a keyboard. What have I got to be afraid of? Might someone offer physical violence? They're more than welcome to attempt it, they may well even leather the shit out of me, but they almost certainly will get arrested for it, so what have I got to be afraid of? This isn't a suggestion that you are a man of violence by the way, far from it, it's just pointing out that I'm not afraid of saying to someone's face what I say through the internet.

I like the way people suggest that everyone hides behind a keyboard. Well, I have made no secret of where I'll be before every match.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The sites Internet hardman has spoken

From a bloke who frequently posts about his wish to see people blown up by terrorists I find that a little rich.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

There are more than a few members on here who know me. They know that I've never been afraid to say something to someone's face that I've said on here. As I've pointed out before, I drink in the Golden Lion before matches. Ask the crew in the corner to the left of the door who I am.

I'll happily discuss anything I can remember with anyone. I'll happily call anyone I meet exactly what I call them on here. Most of it's pub-style banter with no offence meant, taken or given. Having said that I've only had one infraction for abusive language on here, and I'd happily call that person a fucking prick to their face.

I'd happily have a chat with anyone from this forum. Those who know me know that there is nothing I won't hold back. If you want a chat, and to call me anything you like, I'll be either in the Golden Lion or outside smoking cigars before matches. Most of the time I'll be drinking fizzy pop, as most of the time I drive.

I'm easy to spot. I'm not afraid and hiding behind a keyboard. What have I got to be afraid of? Might someone offer physical violence? They're more than welcome to attempt it, they may well even leather the shit out of me, but they almost certainly will get arrested for it, so what have I got to be afraid of? This isn't a suggestion that you are a man of violence by the way, far from it, it's just pointing out that I'm not afraid of saying to someone's face what I say through the internet.

I like the way people suggest that everyone hides behind a keyboard. Well, I have made no secret of where I'll be before every match.

Once met never forgot! And he called me a lanky, southern, blouse wearing toss-pot or some such term of endearment the last time I saw him. Just treat it all as banter, Brownie. He's a Gokalike wankpuddle anyway!

 

[shorehamview]

Once met never forgot! And he called me a lanky, southern, blouse wearing toss-pot or some such term of endearment the last time I saw him. Just treat it all as banter, Brownie. He's a Gokalike wankpuddle anyway!

Shandy panted fannyboy, or something like that.

 

[Pinchy]

For what it's worth, I always enjoy reading SV contributions. We always disagree and sometimes exchange tongue in cheek abuse [they can't touch you for it] but I find him amusing rather than malicious. Anyone that makes me laugh is OK by me. Up to now that's Eric Morecambe, SV and Monty.

On the other hand, I believe Brownie drinks real ale.

RAPFA abstains.

 

[Nick Jansky]

I've met a few people off here, and one or two have been very different to their forum persona. I can safely say that SV is not one of those, he's exactly the same in the Golden Lion as he is on here.

 

[alcoblade]

We always disagree and sometimes exchange tongue in cheek abuse [they can't touch you for it] .

Why does Linz keep banning me for it then?



UTB

 

[raul]

I've met a few people off here, and one or two have been very different to their forum persona. I can safely say that SV is not one of those, he's exactly the same in the Golden Lion as he is on here.

I think that's the worry tbh......

 

[shorehamview]

I think that's the worry tbh......

I was getting slagged for hiding behind my keyboard, and not having the balls to say something to someone's face. I've said where I can be found on matchdays, so short of actually putting my name, address, shoe size, inside leg and favourite pop group on here what do you want me to do?

I'm not out to piss people off, but I seem to have attracted Brownie's attention because of a flippant comment about lazy firemen. If he's going to get mardy about other people's comments and posts then perhaps the internet isn't for him. Or indeed any other medium of communication beyond tasting the differing flavours of glazing varieties.

 

[Ollessendro]

All getting a bit silly now. SV's similie's are slightly better than his previous metaphors mind.

Do you forget what you write? This is what you said:

"(all that lager has killed too many brain cells)"

And I merely picked up on it.

As for the general point, Ipswich's record from Jan 10 was

P23 W8 D8 L7 pts 32

And United's last 23 games had the record

P23 W9 D6 L8 pts 33.

So there we have it, we had a slightly better record than Ipswich in the 2nd half of the season and, of course, there was that 3-0 tonking. Whichever way you look at it United were a better team than Ipswich in 09-10.

You avoid the main part of the argument (though I think we di it to death in the past) and focus on something small. Even then you completely miss the point (despite me stating a hundred times) and state the stats that beneft your argement. How about the first half of last season?

 

[Darren]

All getting a bit silly now. SV's similie's are slightly better than his previous metaphors mind.



You avoid the main part of the argument (though I think we di it to death in the past) and focus on something small. Even then you completely miss the point (despite me stating a hundred times) and state the stats that beneft your argement. How about the first half of last season?

What are you on about? Your mate asserted in 2009-10 (not 2010-11 or any other season) that Ipswich were a better team than United. I said the league table and our 3-0 beating of them showed otherwise. You then said words to the effect of "ah., my mate only meant they were better than United in the 2nd half of the season". I then showed you evidence that Ipswich had a worse record than United in the second half of the season. What on earth does the first half of 2010-11 have to do with the argument?

Is it not blindingly obvious that in 2009-10 United were better than Ipswich and in 2010-11 Ipswich were better than United? As shown by the respective league tables and the results between the clubs in the two seasons (United 4 points in 09-10, Ipswich 6 points in 10-11). Are you really arguing against that?

 

[Ollessendro]

What are you on about? Your mate asserted in 2009-10 (not 2010-11 or any other season) that Ipswich were a better team than United. I said the league table and our 3-0 beating of them showed otherwise. You then said words to the effect of "ah., my mate only meant they were better than United in the 2nd half of the season". I then showed you evidence that Ipswich had a worse record than United in the second half of the season. What on earth does the first half of 2010-11 have to do with the argument?

Is it not blindingly obvious that in 2009-10 United were better than Ipswich and in 2010-11 Ipswich were better than United? As shown by the respective league tables and the results between the clubs in the two seasons (United 4 points in 09-10, Ipswich 6 points in 10-11). Are you really arguing against that?

Geez. Half way through the season I asserted that Ipswich were better than United. In January 2010 this statement was made. Hence looking backwards (as you keep doing) shows nothing. We looked at the 2nd half of the season and over the 23 games were were roughly the same. United got a fluke result, but the season was over and it showed nothing. Ipswich (playing for nothing) equalled United's record in 2010 despite us going for the play offs. What I am suggesting is that we extend the timeline and look at the first half of 2010/2011. That would mean we have results for the whole of 2010. We can then look at the full year of performance from when my friend suggested Ipswich were better than United.

 

[Houso]

Ha, Olle getting a good pwning from Daz.

Merked son.

 

[JJ Sefton]

What I am suggesting is that we extend the timeline and look at the first half of 2010/2011. That would mean we have results for the whole of 2010. We can then look at the full year of performance from when my friend suggested Ipswich were better than United.

And if we stretch the period back to 1913 Austria-Hungary should have a seat on the Security Council.

 

[Darren]

Geez. Half way through the season I asserted that Ipswich were better than United. In January 2010 this statement was made. Hence looking backwards (as you keep doing) shows nothing. We looked at the 2nd half of the season and over the 23 games were were roughly the same. United got a fluke result, but the season was over and it showed nothing. Ipswich (playing for nothing) equalled United's record in 2010 despite us going for the play offs. What I am suggesting is that we extend the timeline and look at the first half of 2010/2011. That would mean we have results for the whole of 2010. We can then look at the full year of performance from when my friend suggested Ipswich were better than United.

As I recall it your mate was suggesting that, as Ipswich, on his definition, were better than United in Jan 2010, they would finish above United THAT SEASON. He was wrong wasn't he?

Oh and Ipswich were not "playing for nothing". They were in relegation trouble for much of the season. I also like it how any results that don't fit your argument are "flukes". Was Ipswich's 3-0 win over United last season also a fluke?

And using 2010-11 to prove your mate's point about 2009-10 won't wash. Just looking at United, they were very different teams: the following players played in 09-10 and not 10-11 -

Kenny
France
Naysmith
Kilgallon
Reid (K)
Cotterill
Bennett
Harper
Stewart
Howard
Seip
Davies
Bunn
Little
Geary
Treacey
Ikeme
Connolly
Kallio
Fortune
Walker
Camara

And the following player in 10-11 and not in 09-10

Jordan
Ertl
Britton
Doyle
Bogdanovic
Calve
Vokes
Tonne
Mattock
Lowry
Kozluk
Collins
Reid(A)
McAllister
Long
Baath
De Laet
Philliskirk
Wright
Parrino
Slew
Harriott
Bent
Riise
Maguire
Kennedy

and the following played both seasons:

Montgomery
Morgan
Nosworthy
Henderson
Evans
Yeates
Williamson
Taylor
Cresswell
Ward
Bartley
Simonsen
Quinn
Lowton

So our of 36 payers who played in 09-10, only 14 (i.e less than40%) played the following season. Can you seriously argue that the 10-11 team was the same as the 09-10 teams?

 

[diplomat]

I think the point Olle is making is that a statistical statement was made in January and the 12 month period from January to January was the basis of said table.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

Having said that I have a feeling we were about the same in the first half of that season - we went particularly bad after Christmas

 

[Darren]

I think the point Olle is making is that a statistical statement was made in January and the 12 month period from January to January was the basis of said table.

I don't think he did say that and it wouldn't make any sense to do so given that, following the close season, teams are usually radically different.

 

[Ollessendro]

Ha, Olle getting a good pwning from Daz.

Merked son.

Wishful thinking I am afraid Houso. Still bitter from being on the losing end of many debates with myself you look for a forum member with more intelect to give me a good 'pwning'.

I think the point Olle is making is that a statistical statement was made in January and the 12 month period from January to January was the basis of said table.

Indeed. I am glad it someone else. I've said it enough time.

As I recall it your mate was suggesting that, as Ipswich, on his definition, were better than United in Jan 2010, they would finish above United THAT SEASON. He was wrong wasn't he?

Oh and Ipswich were not "playing for nothing". They were in relegation trouble for much of the season. I also like it how any results that don't fit your argument are "flukes". Was Ipswich's 3-0 win over United last season also a fluke?

And using 2010-11 to prove your mate's point about 2009-10 won't wash. Just looking at United, they were very different teams: the following players played in 09-10 and not 10-11 -

Kenny
France
Naysmith
Kilgallon
Reid (K)
Cotterill
Bennett
Harper
Stewart
Howard
Seip
Davies
Bunn
Little
Geary
Treacey
Ikeme
Connolly
Kallio
Fortune
Walker
Camara

And the following player in 10-11 and not in 09-10

Jordan
Ertl
Britton
Doyle
Bogdanovic
Calve
Vokes
Tonne
Mattock
Lowry
Kozluk
Collins
Reid(A)
McAllister
Long
Baath
De Laet
Philliskirk
Wright
Parrino
Slew
Harriott
Bent
Riise
Maguire
Kennedy

and the following played both seasons:

Montgomery
Morgan
Nosworthy
Henderson
Evans
Yeates
Williamson
Taylor
Cresswell
Ward
Bartley
Simonsen
Quinn
Lowton

So our of 36 payers who played in 09-10, only 14 (i.e less than40%) played the following season. Can you seriously argue that the 10-11 team was the same as the 09-10 teams?

Irrelevant I am afraid Darren. You should know better than that. How about the players used from Jan - May in 2010 (i.e. the second half of the 2009/2010 season) and then the players used in the first half of the 2010/2011 season (from August to December 2010). That would be the fair comparison to make judging on the (correct) criteria based on when my friend made the statement.

 

[Houso]

Wishful thinking I am afraid Houso. Still bitter from being on the losing end of many debates with myself you look for a forum member with more intelect to give me a good 'pwning'.

Ha, nail on head Olle.

(Sadly I don't think we've had any debates before as my fingers are usually unusable due to a full body cringe whenever I read your posts. One day we may be able to engage one another in debate, y'never know.)

 

[JJ Sefton]

Irrelevant I am afraid Darren. You should know better than that. How about the players used from Jan - May in 2010 (i.e. the second half of the 2009/2010 season) and then the players used in the first half of the 2010/2011 season (from August to December 2010). That would be the fair comparison to make judging on the (correct) criteria based on when my friend made the statement.

So when your mate made his predictions in January 2010 he was factoring in players we hadnt signed yet?

Ive heard dafter things, but not many.

 

[judge]

if there is one thing worse than someone thick as shit it's a thick as shit know it all

 

[Darren]

Wishful thinking I am afraid Houso. Still bitter from being on the losing end of many debates with myself you look for a forum member with more intelect to give me a good 'pwning'.



Indeed. I am glad it someone else. I've said it enough time.



Irrelevant I am afraid Darren. You should know better than that. How about the players used from Jan - May in 2010 (i.e. the second half of the 2009/2010 season) and then the players used in the first half of the 2010/2011 season (from August to December 2010). That would be the fair comparison to make judging on the (correct) criteria based on when my friend made the statement.

What WB said, but just to humour you - players who played in the calender year 2010:

2009-10 only 13
2010-11 only 11
both seasons 14

So efefctively half the squad changed between the two seasons. Are you still maintaining they were the same teams?

 

[Ollessendro]

if there is one thing worse than someone thick as shit it's a thick as shit know it all

I like people are self depricating. You are one of my favourite posters judgey (even if you are a bit of a potty mouth).

What WB said, but just to humour you - players who played in the calender year 2010:

2009-10 only 13
2010-11 only 11
both seasons 14

So efefctively half the squad changed between the two seasons. Are you still maintaining they were the same teams?

Geez this is getting dull. There was little difference between United and Ipswich in the 2nd half of the season in 2009/2010. My mate rated Ipswich as better than us and the league table did not show that. The initial stats (games played, won drawn and lost) suggest that we were pretty similar (from January onwards - please don't come back to me looking a figures from before that). So this comes back to the age old argument. Randomness. Ipswich did not play to their full potential, had some bad injuries, had some bad luck and had some poor refereeing decisions given against them. These are not taken into consideration in the stats I mentioned andof course not in the league table. So we move back to square one.