Here's what you could have won!

[DuncDisorderly]

But only the We :heart: Hoof Brigade cling to the absurd, discredited notion that the two are mutually exclusive, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's no debate about style in Brighton or Soton but in S2 the FreeHoofers continue to bare their chests.

I am not stating that success and stylish football are mutually exclusive at all. Thats your false and often repeated interprettation, not mine.

I am simply stating what I feel to be the completely bleeding obvious (ad nauseum), that playing silky football is great, but winning is actually the most important thing.

I accept your Brighton example, but I offer Donny and if we look a little higher, Arsenal, that playing with style is not necessarily the essence of a golden ticket to success...

 

[Fiery Blade]

Can't believe some of the rubbish being spouted on here!
Yes, Wilson has got them playing far better football, perhaps part of the reason is that the opposition this year is not that good?
When your'e getting beat week in week out as per last season, confidence is low, luck tends not to go your way etc etc
If Wilson had been installed last January, would he have been any better than Adams - Perhaps yes perhaps no who can tell!!!
Last Tuesday we got our arse smacked by Huddersfield, any different from a similar match last year v Scunthorpe No exactly the same
The reason United are where they is partly down to championship players playing against Division One teams
O'Driscoll having problems because of lack of resource no Billy Sharp no goals - look how Leon Clarke has transformed Chesterfield in the last few games
The truth is -Wilson must get promotion this season whilst there still is a semblance of a team left - Quinn, Evans, and Co will be gone perhaps in January
Lets make sure that we are at the top so that McCabe can sniff promotion and perhaps keep the team together - But then again he sold Beattie in similar circumstances in the Championship!!!

 

[Ollessendro]

[

Didn't we finally nail the whole style vs substance debate a few weeks ago in favour of substance..? Maybe you and Mic ought to get together for the Donny vs Pigs game at the Keepmoat. You can admire Doncaster's many and lasting achievements while Mic marvels at the loyalty of the travelling support. (They're very good, you know...)

Oh Ollie! You are a card. Since when did fifth from bottom 'look fine' apart from after the last match of the season. The clubs season was fecked before Micky got here. No doubt he's ruining Port Vale again as we speak. Poor old Alehouse, eh? (P9 Pts 14, 8th, btw...).

Anyway, got to go. I fancy a lager...

There is nothing fine about being 5th from bottom (Unless the league you're in only has 10 teams). Adams was a shit manager, but we were in the shit before he even started.

This is more like it. Just like old times

There you go Dunc trying to defend the indefensible. 6 months away from the forum because of this factor and still (with all that thinking time) you cannot muster a decent argument. Reason being is that ale house Micky is officially the worst manager in the history of SUFC!

I am really happy for Adams. He has dropped to the 4th division and is pulling up trees (wow - 8th) and completely makes up for his reocrd of P25 W4 D5 L 16 (the worst for any SUFC manager).

As Pinchy quite eloquently points out style and success go hand in hand. Of course you and the rest of the we :heart: hoof brigade will point out the anomolies Stoke and Arsenal. Forgetting the Invincibles and Wengers other two title winning teams that has style and achieved success. Oh and also the fact that Stoke can play football and have some decent players.

Perhaps we would have a 100% unbeaten record under SOD? You can't help having a pop at little old Donny Rovers though can you Sitters. I'd still swap their division for ours currently as they managed not to get relegated last season. Amazes me what great insightful people are on this board, after the event. Heres betting their wage bill never touched ours and they still managed to get Billy Sharp to score goals for them. Something none of our hump it merchants could never quite manage to do unfortunately. They stayed in a division they never really expected to be in for a couple of seasons longer than they thought they would and then it seems they ran out of steam.

All that said, McCabe seems (so far) to have the right man in Wilson. But don't let that stop the gloatathon from those who clearly "know best".

100% agree with Ollies post above. Its like a different bloke has taken control of his computer since he realised that we didn't need to sign 48 players in 2 weeks.

Oh and Brownie, where were you on the DW appointment?

http://www.s24su.com/forum/showthread.php?23397-Glad-i-didn-t-renew-as-yet

Welcome to the dark side my friend!? (can't find the drink icon so see pic below )

 

[JJ Sefton]

But only the We :heart: Hoof Brigade...

There isnt such a thing outside of the heads of one or two posters.

 

[Darren]

There is nothing fine about being 5th from bottom (Unless the league you're in only has 10 teams). Adams was a shit manager, but we were in the shit before he even started.

No we weren't. I have posted this about 23 times, but extrapolating Speed's records over the season we would have ended up with 54 points and relatively comfortable safety. We were toying with the shit but were most definitely not in it.

It took Adams to plunge us into the scatalogical abyss.

 

[sitwell]

Perhaps we would have a 100% unbeaten record under SOD? You can't help having a pop at little old Donny Rovers though can you Sitters. I'd still swap their division for ours currently as they managed not to get relegated last season. Amazes me what great insightful people are on this board, after the event. Heres betting their wage bill never touched ours and they still managed to get Billy Sharp to score goals for them. Something none of our hump it merchants could never quite manage to do unfortunately. They stayed in a division they never really expected to be in for a couple of seasons longer than they thought they would and then it seems they ran out of steam.

All that said, McCabe seems (so far) to have the right man in Wilson. But don't let that stop the gloatathon from those who clearly "know best".

100% agree with Ollies post above. Its like a different bloke has taken control of his computer since he realised that we didn't need to sign 48 players in 2 weeks.

Oh and Brownie, where were you on the DW appointment?

http://www.s24su.com/forum/showthread.php?23397-Glad-i-didn-t-renew-as-yet

Hardly 'after the event' am I ,I've been saying for a season and a half that O'driscoll and Donny will drop like a stone. He is as bad as Blackwell in that there is no plan B and cannot adapt to different styles or circumstances.

 

[Micalijo]

Wow - fancy predicting that Donny might struggle to compete in the Championship. That really is an incredibly brave prediction. I wish I knew as much about football as you Sitters.

 

[Pinchy]

I am not stating that success and stylish football are mutually exclusive at all. Thats your false and often repeated interprettation, not mine.

I am simply stating what I feel to be the completely bleeding obvious (ad nauseum), that playing silky football is great, but winning is actually the most important thing.

I accept your Brighton example, but I offer Donny and if we look a little higher, Arsenal, that playing with style is not necessarily the essence of a golden ticket to success...

Oh to have the same abject failure as Arsenal!

Let's take your major premise to an analagous situation [Prudes and kids look away]:

Having Sex is great but achieving mutual orgasm is better:

Is the superior objective best achieved by skilful technique, well practiced teamwork, great touch and instant ball control or will aimless humping, banging it as far up the field as it will go as soon as you possibly can (and even lumping it over your own shoulder) do the job equally well?

Are you Casanova or Bill from Barnsley?

 

[JohnDenver]

and even lumping it over your own shoulder

Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now

 

[Ollessendro]

No we weren't. I have posted this about 23 times, but extrapolating Speed's records over the season we would have ended up with 54 points and relatively comfortable safety. We were toying with the shit but were most definitely not in it.

It took Adams to plunge us into the scatalogical abyss.

Both! You cannot argue with the stats. Once again Ollessendro's favourite friend 'FACT' comes in and decides the argument. Cheers Dazzler.

Hardly 'after the event' am I ,I've been saying for a season and a half that O'driscoll and Donny will drop like a stone. He is as bad as Blackwell in that there is no plan B and cannot adapt to different styles or circumstances.

( I am sure Darren with verify this or not but) Blackwell went from December 2008 to the end of his tenure (about 18 months) without winning a game that we went behind in. If I remember rightly, not since Charlton at home on 28/12/2008 did we come from a goal behind to win. That is not having a plan B. Admittedly Donny have not come from being behind (to win) since December, but let's wait and see if they go to the end of the season to see if he can match Blackwell's fine achievement.

Last season qwe got battered (in a truly inept performance) at the Keepmoat and were extremely lucky to get a point against DRFC at Bramall Lane. The season before that we could not beat them and the season we finished 3rd (with Killa, Naughton, Morgs, Naysmith, Halford, Mongommery, Howard, Ward and Henderson at Blackwell's disposal) we lost in a shocking game at Bramall Lane. 'Lowly' Donny took the lead and we had no plan B. It was a tugid game of football that saw aimless hoof fly towards their area. Blackwell did win one of the games mind. Blackwell's first half a season O'Driscoll was busy achieving something KB never achieved: promotion (against a highly fancied Leeds side in the play offs). So since SOD took Donny into a division they had only been in 3 times before in over a 100 years he has managed to beat Blackwell more than he lost.

Having Sex is great but achieving mutual orgasm is better:

Is the superior objective best achieved by skilful technique, well practiced teamwork, great touch and instant ball control or will aimless humping, banging it as far up the field as it will go as soon as you possibly can (and even lumping it over your own shoulder) do the job equally well?

Are you Casanova or Bill from Barnsley?

RAPFA :heart: metaphors

 

[shorehamview]

You cannot argue with the stats. Once again Ollessendro's favourite friend 'FACT' comes in and decides the argument.

Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same Ollesendro who said that the league table does lie? Either you cannot argue with the stats, or you can. It's make-your-mind-up time. Either the stats are always right, or they aren't. Which is it? Because if you're right with this argument, then you're wrong with the other. And vice versa.

I can't be arsed at the moment to find the post where you said that the table does lie, and the one where I said all it did was tell you certain limited information, or "stats", but if it does "lie" then your "stats" are just so much chaff in the wind.

All I'd like to know is why your stats can't be argued with, and others can. I don't care what the stats are showing. I just wonder why, when you trot out "stats" you declare that they can't be argued with, but anybody else pointing out "stats" is wrong. This isn't a declaration of anything other than wondering why you can take one view, and then totally swing round the other way.

RAPFA :loopy:

 

[JJ Sefton]

Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same Ollesendro who said that the league table does lie?

Oh shit. If the NHS is the third rail of politics then the prognostications of Ollie's mate are the third rail of the site.

 

[Darren]

Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same Ollesendro who said that the league table does lie? Either you cannot argue with the stats, or you can. It's make-your-mind-up time. Either the stats are always right, or they aren't. Which is it? Because if you're right with this argument, then you're wrong with the other. And vice versa.

I can't be arsed at the moment to find the post where you said that the table does lie, and the one where I said all it did was tell you certain limited information, or "stats", but if it does "lie" then your "stats" are just so much chaff in the wind.

All I'd like to know is why your stats can't be argued with, and others can. I don't care what the stats are showing. I just wonder why, when you trot out "stats" you declare that they can't be argued with, but anybody else pointing out "stats" is wrong. This isn't a declaration of anything other than wondering why you can take one view, and then totally swing round the other way.

RAPFA :loopy:

Oh goody, seems like we're warming up to a metaphysical argument about the meaning of ";lie" and "better"...

Just to add, if I remember rightly the whole argument back in around Jan 2010 started off with Olly assrting, on the basis of what his mate told him, that mathematically and analytically (or whatever) Ipswich were a better team than United. A quick look at the league table shows United finishing 8th that season and Ipswich 15th. Oh and we spanked them 3-0 at their place in the last game of the season.

So much for mathematics.

 

[Bladesway]

Hardly 'after the event' am I ,I've been saying for a season and a half that O'driscoll and Donny will drop like a stone. He is as bad as Blackwell in that there is no plan B and cannot adapt to different styles or circumstances.

Bit like saying it will rain at somepoint in the year though isn't it. They are punching over their weight, its a miracle they got to where they are and maintained it on a small wage budget. Once more I repeat, with a wagebill thats a fraction of our own they stayed in a division we catapulted ourselves out of because of poor management of both club and team from our end.

A season and a half in football is after the event in my book. But you keep believing whatever you want Sitwell, I'm not going to stand in the way of reason and logic.

 

[alcoblade]

As Pinchy quite eloquently points out style and success go hand in hand.

What a load of old shit, Ollie. I might explain over a pint.

Success can be achieved in many ways. It would be both preferable and nice to do it with style. But success without style is far superior to failure with it.

UTB

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Oh to have the same abject failure as Arsenal! Comparatively speaking

Having Sex is great but achieving mutual orgasm is better:

Pinchy, I quite like you, and find this suggestion flattering, but would it be OK if we just held hands..?

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

There you go Dunc trying to defend the indefensible. 6 months away from the forum because of this factor

I'm curious. How many more times do you have to repeat this before it becomes a 'fact'..?

 

[JohnDenver]

I'm curious. How many more times do you have to repeat this before it becomes a 'fact'..?

You don't achieve factual status by repetition. To do that you just append your post with "FACT!". (Must be upper-case)

Happy to help.

 

[moDtheGod]

Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same Ollesendro who said that the league table does lie? Either you cannot argue with the stats, or you can.

Yeah but you misunderstood his point in that thread and it would seem you're doing it again. He was saying that the league table doesn't factor in variance, such as a disproportionate amount of bad luck, poor refereeing decisions, injuries, suspensions, catching teams when they are in-form or whatever. So from that perspective, the table can be seen to "lie" in that if all teams had received a fair share of variance, certain teams may be in different positions.

The statistics themselves don't lie, but they can be interpreted in different ways. This is as true of the league table as anything. You can't argue with the stats, because they are facts. You can however argue with their interpretation. Like the pair of you did over the league table - one says that the stats are 100% conclusive while the other argued that they don't take everything into account. That fundamental point spawned a thread about 25,000 pages long...

 

[Darren]

Yeah but you misunderstood his point in that thread and it would seem you're doing it again. He was saying that the league table doesn't factor in variance, such as a disproportionate amount of bad luck, poor refereeing decisions, injuries, suspensions, catching teams when they are in-form or whatever. So from that perspective, the table can be seen to "lie" in that if all teams had received a fair share of variance, certain teams may be in different positions.

The statistics themselves don't lie, but they can be interpreted in different ways. This is as true of the league table as anything. You can't argue with the stats, because they are facts. You can however argue with their interpretation. Like the pair of you did over the league table - one says that the stats are 100% conclusive while the other argued that they don't take everything into account. That fundamental point spawned a thread about 25,000 pages long...

But I said last time, before you start saying that the table can lie, you have to define what you mean by a "better" team if you are saying that table placings are not a satisfactory definition of whether one team is better than another. I don't recall anyone giving any alternative definition.

 

[Ollessendro]

I'm curious. How many more times do you have to repeat this before it becomes a 'fact'..?

It is the first time I mentioned it! Of course there is no concrete evidence that you took a sabbatical for this reason, but the circumstancial evidence looks pretty convincing!

Oh goody, seems like we're warming up to a metaphysical argument about the meaning of ";lie" and "better"...

Just to add, if I remember rightly the whole argument back in around Jan 2010 started off with Olly assrting, on the basis of what his mate told him, that mathematically and analytically (or whatever) Ipswich were a better team than United. A quick look at the league table shows United finishing 8th that season and Ipswich 15th. Oh and we spanked them 3-0 at their place in the last game of the season.

So much for mathematics.

Was that the same Ipswich side that beat us home and away (including a tonking at thier place) last year and finished 13th whilst we got relegated?

Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same Ollesendro who said that the league table does lie? Either you cannot argue with the stats, or you can. It's make-your-mind-up time. Either the stats are always right, or they aren't. Which is it? Because if you're right with this argument, then you're wrong with the other. And vice versa.

I can't be arsed at the moment to find the post where you said that the table does lie, and the one where I said all it did was tell you certain limited information, or "stats", but if it does "lie" then your "stats" are just so much chaff in the wind.

All I'd like to know is why your stats can't be argued with, and others can. I don't care what the stats are showing. I just wonder why, when you trot out "stats" you declare that they can't be argued with, but anybody else pointing out "stats" is wrong. This isn't a declaration of anything other than wondering why you can take one view, and then totally swing round the other way.

RAPFA :loopy:

Read MoD the GoD post. You have misunderstood what I was saying (all that lager has killed too many brain cells). The whole 'FACT' thing possibly being tongue in cheek might have slipped passed you also. The league table does not factor in variance such as luck, poor decisions, injuries, brilliant goalkeeping by the opposition etc. Hence in that for the league table 'lies'. Hence, by my line of argument you could come back and dispute Darren's stats (not mine) and say that we were unlucky last year under Adams. You could argue that we did not get the rub of the green, had some poor refereeing decisions, injuries and la de da. Do you genuinly believe that we did not deserve to go down last season? Personally I just think we were thoroughly rubbish and deserved to go down. For what it is worth I think that the worst teams in the division got relegated. Would we have stayed up if Speed had been in charge? Who knows. My opinion is yes and the stats (Darren's) back up my thinking.

 

[moDtheGod]

Well I can't speak for Olle on that point (I came into the discussion half way through to make the point I made above) but I would imagine he was on about their players being technically superior "on paper". Which is all a matter of opinion, rather than fact.

 

[Darren]

Was that the same Ipswich side that beat us home and away (including a tonking at thier place) last year and finished 13th whilst we got relegated?

.

No it wasn't. Sorry if your brain cells aren't working very well , but that was 2010-11. Our argument was about Ipswich and United in 2009-10 remember.

You might as well argue that we are better than Ipswich now because we took 4 points off them in 2009-10.

 

[Pinchy]

The league table does not lie. Remember, though, that only one league table actually counts. That is published when all teams in the league in question have completed all their matches. Any purported table before that is illusory [but great fun if you're at the top!]

 

[shorehamview]

Read MoD the GoD post. You have misunderstood what I was saying (all that lager has killed too many brain cells). The whole 'FACT' thing possibly being tongue in cheek might have slipped passed you also.

Firstly, I rarely drink these days. When I do, I choose from many drinks that I like. What I do drink has got nothing to do with it, and as a former member of the licensed trade in more than one pub that featured in CAMRA's Real Ale Guide I'd reckon that my Real Ale:Lager ratio is around 7:1.

The "FACT" thing may well be twisted, but the crux of my point is that you said that stats - i.e. the league table - lie, and now you say that they don't. That's all. Just pointing out that you can't be on both sides of the argument and still correct.

I perfectly understood MoD's point, but anything can be interpreted however you like. The table doesn't lie in that it only tells you certain limited information. Interpret how you like. You can interpret it as a document that reveals alien life on the moon if you want to. All it shows is statistics, and they don't lie, any more than your last quoted statistics lie.

You can interpret stuff however you like, but statistics correctly arrived at only tell part of the story. The league table only reveals limited information, just as other statistics like leading scorers or number of yellow or red cards, or corners conceded and throw-ins won. You can interpret them how you want to make or disprove a point, but they never, ever lie. I'd just like you to acknowledge that perhaps you may have been mistaken in suggesting that statistics lie, as now you state that they don't.

I agree that we deserved to go down last season. We were shit, and the league table shows this.

The league table does not lie. Remember, though, that only one league table actually counts. That is published when all teams in the league in question have completed all their matches. Any purported table before that is illusory [but great fun if you're at the top!]

See? Even Pinchy agrees with me. My point was, many moons ago, that it can't lie because it can only tell you the facts it is designed to. You said it did lie. Now you say stats don't lie. All i'd like is for you to decide which one of these two statements you support.

I'm not arguing in favour of any of the viewpoints of this thread other than trying to find out which side of the fence Olle is on, because at the moment it would appear that he can't make his mind up.

It's like being in the pub with a ladyfriend. You know you want a pint, and what of, but she's fannying around. Six months ago she liked Bacardi Breezers, but now she doesn't and can't decide between a Cherry B, half a Guinness and black, a Lambrusco, a blue WKD or a double Malibu and pineapple. After all, it took her hours to get ready to go out in the first place. She can't work out whether it's Cinzano or Christmas. And she smells like a mix of Christian Dior and Ralgex.

 

[Jehovah]

I've been very impressed with Wilson so far. I have enjoyed the way he has quietly gone about his business and adopted this "open door" policy. Regardless of the level of the opposition I have witnessed some of the best football I have seen in years at the lane. We crushed Colchester like 11 flabby grapes and could have won by 250 goals.
I really find some comments in this thread bizarre. We are a championship team playing against division 1 players? I thought we got relegated from the championship making our players division 1 players?

 

[judge]

I've been very impressed with Wilson so far. I have enjoyed the way he has quietly gone about his business and adopted this "open door" policy. Regardless of the level of the opposition I have witnessed some of the best football I have seen in years at the lane. We crushed Colchester like 11 flabby grapes and could have won by 250 goals.
I really find some comments in this thread bizarre. We are a championship team playing against division 1 players? I thought we got relegated from the championship making our players division 1 players?

Wow would love to have seen the goal diff after that

 

[Ollessendro]

But I said last time, before you start saying that the table can lie, you have to define what you mean by a "better" team if you are saying that table placings are not a satisfactory definition of whether one team is better than another. I don't recall anyone giving any alternative definition.

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.

What a load of old shit, Ollie. I might explain over a pint.

Success can be achieved in many ways. It would be both preferable and nice to do it with style. But success without style is far superior to failure with it.

UTB

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.

No it wasn't. Sorry if your brain cells aren't working very well , but that was 2010-11. Our argument was about Ipswich and United in 2009-10 remember.

You might as well argue that we are better than Ipswich now because we took 4 points off them in 2009-10.

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.

 

[shorehamview]

You have misunderstood what I was saying (all that lager has killed too many brain cells)..

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?

So. You can have a go at me about my brain cells, and that's fine and dandy.

Yet when Darren does it to you, that's personal. Darren is losing the argument by getting personal, and you're not, yet are doing the same thing.

Having a dig at someone else is okay in your book, it would seem, yet you don't like taking what you happily dished out. Don't chuck your teddy out of the pram when some of it comes back to you and you don't like it.

 

[Ollessendro]

Firstly, I rarely drink these days. When I do, I choose from many drinks that I like. What I do drink has got nothing to do with it, and as a former member of the licensed trade in more than one pub that featured in CAMRA's Real Ale Guide I'd reckon that my Real Ale:Lager ratio is around 7:1.

The "FACT" thing may well be twisted, but the crux of my point is that you said that stats - i.e. the league table - lie, and now you say that they don't. That's all. Just pointing out that you can't be on both sides of the argument and still correct.

I perfectly understood MoD's point, but anything can be interpreted however you like. The table doesn't lie in that it only tells you certain limited information. Interpret how you like. You can interpret it as a document that reveals alien life on the moon if you want to. All it shows is statistics, and they don't lie, any more than your last quoted statistics lie.

You can interpret stuff however you like, but statistics correctly arrived at only tell part of the story. The league table only reveals limited information, just as other statistics like leading scorers or number of yellow or red cards, or corners conceded and throw-ins won. You can interpret them how you want to make or disprove a point, but they never, ever lie. I'd just like you to acknowledge that perhaps you may have been mistaken in suggesting that statistics lie, as now you state that they don't.

I agree that we deserved to go down last season. We were shit, and the league table shows this.


See? Even Pinchy agrees with me. My point was, many moons ago, that it can't lie because it can only tell you the facts it is designed to. You said it did lie. Now you say stats don't lie. All i'd like is for you to decide which one of these two statements you support.

I'm not arguing in favour of any of the viewpoints of this thread other than trying to find out which side of the fence Olle is on, because at the moment it would appear that he can't make his mind up.

It's like being in the pub with a ladyfriend. You know you want a pint, and what of, but she's fannying around. Six months ago she liked Bacardi Breezers, but now she doesn't and can't decide between a Cherry B, half a Guinness and black, a Lambrusco, a blue WKD or a double Malibu and pineapple. After all, it took her hours to get ready to go out in the first place. She can't work out whether it's Cinzano or Christmas. And she smells like a mix of Christian Dior and Ralgex.

Geez. You're metaphors are worse than mine.

Not the case at all. The only 'FACT' here is that you cannot get your head around what I am saying. 'I said you cannot argue with the stats', which is a figure of speach. Of course Dunc could have argued with the stats (but perhaps he is taking another sabbatical) but he has chosen not. Stats can be interpreted in different ways. I said previously that: a) the league table does not take in to account external factors (i.e. it lies) and b) agreed with Darren's stats that suggest that if Speed had stayed in charge then previous results suggest we should have stayed up. Dunc could have come back suing my original line of argument that 'external factors' mean he could argue with my statement. But then no one would have bought it. You yourself said we deserved to go down. You are taking what I said out of context and writing a short essay on it, throwing in some patrnoising slant and accompanied with a crap metaphor is not really proving anything.

You say that you do not want to argue what side of the fence I am sitting on (even though there is only a side in your mind) and then state Pinchy agrees with you. Which he of course does not. He disagrees with me that the league table can lie, but has added nothing to say that he thinks I am contradicting myself.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

So. You can have a go at me about my brain cells, and that's fine and dandy.

Yet when Darren does it to you, that's personal. Darren is losing the argument by getting personal, and you're not, yet are doing the same thing.

Having a dig at someone else is okay in your book, it would seem, yet you don't like taking what you happily dished out. Don't chuck your teddy out of the pram when some of it comes back to you and you don't like it.

touche what goes for one does not go for me!? another in the above for you. Perhaps you have me on the ropes!?

there's no chucking my toys out of the pram here. You should realise that someone who is accused of being a chief 'wum' would not get upset by comments people write on a forum.

 

[shorehamview]

Geez. You're metaphors are worse than mine.

Not the case at all. The only 'FACT' here is that you cannot get your head around what I am saying. 'I said you cannot argue with the stats', which is a figure of speach.

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.

touche what goes for one does not go for me!? another in the above for you. Perhaps you have me on the ropes!?

there's no chucking my toys out of the pram here. You should realise that someone who is accused of being a chief 'wum' would not get upset by comments people write on a forum.

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