I liked the old days when people talked about form.

[Port Said Red]

Players and teams used to have good games and bad games, sometimes everything clicked sometimes they didn't. 

It seems that with the advent of social media and the ability it has given to every Tom, Dick or Harry to give their instance opinion, players are either ******* useless of ******* world beaters dependent on their performance in one game, or even one thing they do within that game. Managers are either amazing or clueless based on individual results, and one bad result means everything that went before, no matter how good should be thrown out because it failed this time. 

The same people who use to castigate previous managers constantly chopping and changing, now want to change everything we have done up to now, based on 96 minutes of action. 

I don't go in for nostalgia much, but I do miss "form".

[Robbored]

Good form is transient. Pretty much every poster knows that and applies to every sport there is apart from F1 where the quickest car wins.

There’s a well used phrase in all sports - ‘form is temporary, class is permanent’ and all coaches know that and Deano is no exception.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Good form is transient. Pretty much every poster knows that and applies to every sport there is apart from F1 where the quickest car wins.

There’s a well used phrase in all sports - ‘form is temporary, class is permanent’ and all coaches know that and Deano is no exception.

 

You're wrong.

A game is transient (an instant in time), form however is a window of time and is a statistic.

As to the OP, it's the world we live in, everyone has an opinion and isn't shy to share it.
There is no effort required in sharing the pub conversations that take place after matches.
To get form, you have to wait for the more discerning poster who is prepared to spend that time looking at the stats and share them.

BTW, LJ was a random number generator, it just want's possible to see what the form was

 

[TonyTonyTony]

3 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

It seems that with the advent of social media and the ability it has given to every Tom, Dick or Harry to give their instance opinion, players are either ******* useless of ******* world beaters dependent on their performance in one game, or even one thing they do within that game.

People are too quick to react. Feast or famine. Even weirder are people who praise / Laud players that have hardly played, being convinced they are the next Messi, yet players who run through walls on a regular basis (Weimann) are labelled dogshit. I always try and stay away from the forums directly after the game as emotions run high. Best to have a period of reflection i feel rather than kneejerk reactions. I often wonder if people make such kneejerk reactions to situations in their own lives - life would be a total rollercoaster !

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

You're wrong.

A game is transient (an instant in time), form however is a window of time and is a statistic.

As to the OP, it's the world we live in, everyone has an opinion and isn't shy to share it.
There is no effort required in sharing the pub conversations that take place after matches.
To get form, you have to wait for the more discerning poster who is prepared to spend that time looking at the stats and share 

 

Well.....I don’t want to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word transient but to me it means - 

Not lasting or enduring, or permanent; transitory.

 

[Midred]

Didn't there used to be a manager who said that people thought he was as good as his last match?

[pongo88]

10 minutes ago, Midred said:

Didn't there used to be a manager who said that people thought he was as good as his last match?

I can remember John Atyeo saying he had his best matches when he was injured and didn’t play. (A bit obscure but when he was as injured, and City had a poor game, everyone said what as needed was Atyeo) 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

I can remember John Atyeo saying he had his best matches when he was injured and didn’t play. (A bit obscure but when he was as injured, and City had a poor game, everyone said what as needed was Atyeo) 

Korey Smith was similar.

[Port Said Red]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Korey Smith was similar.

And....... maybe whisper it...........Lee Johnson the player.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

And....... maybe whisper it...........Lee Johnson the player.

Can’t comment. Barely saw him play. 

[Clutton Caveman]

59 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

You're wrong.

A game is transient (an instant in time), form however is a window of time and is a statistic.

As to the OP, it's the world we live in, everyone has an opinion and isn't shy to share it.
There is no effort required in sharing the pub conversations that take place after matches.
To get form, you have to wait for the more discerning poster who is prepared to spend that time looking at the stats and share them.

BTW, LJ was a random number generator, it just want's possible to see what the form was

 

I really wonder if any post on any forum should start with "you are wrong" OTIB is supposed to be a place where people express their OPINION. Others can agree, disagree or comment but unless somebody gets a fact wrong like the score, we seem to be losing the ability to agree to disagree. This, I think comes form the WOKE minority who are small in number but shout very loud and always think they are right.

[LondonBristolian]

52 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

People are too quick to react. Feast or famine. Even weirder are people who praise / Laud players that have hardly played, being convinced they are the next Messi, yet players who run through walls on a regular basis (Weimann) are labelled dogshit. I always try and stay away from the forums directly after the game as emotions run high. Best to have a period of reflection i feel rather than kneejerk reactions. I often wonder if people make such kneejerk reactions to situations in their own lives - life would be a total rollercoaster !

Indeed. I was open at the start of the season that I wasn't keen on Weimann as a midfielder and would rather have had a recognised midfielder starting instead but Weimann did well, especially against Stoke and Wednesday, and deserved his spot in the team. 

I do think that, with games coming thick and fast, we need to rotate a little more and I think last night showed why but it was frustrating that yesterday people started complaining that a midfield three of Bakinson, Weimann and Paterson were suddenly not good enough at this level when they were rightly being lauded a couple of weeks ago. The midfield struggled last night for sure but they've not suddenly become terrible players, although they had perhaps become players who were a bit too tired to maintain a high intensity game for two matches a week. 

[LondonBristolian]

3 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I really wonder if any post on any forum should start with "you are wrong" OTIB is supposed to be a place where people express their OPINION. Others can agree, disagree or comment but unless somebody gets a fact wrong like the score, we seem to be losing the ability to agree to disagree. This, I think comes form the WOKE minority who are small in number but shout very loud and always think they are right.

Nah. People have always been quick to jump to outrage and hysteria. It's just the internet gives a people a way faster place to panic in public.

Nothing to do with being woke either - the truth is people who complain about "wokeness" on the internet are every bit as shrill, hysteric and quick to leap to outrage as the people who they call "snowflakes". You just need to see the overwrought reaction to people not singing a couple of songs at the proms or performing a dance routine at a TV talent show to see that.

It's daft to dismiss it as being one particular side of an argument - there's just a lot of people around who jump to hysterics at the slightest setback and social media gives them the ideal platform to do so. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Robbored said:

Well.....I don’t want to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word transient but to me it means - 

Not lasting or enduring, or permanent; transitory.

 

This is all about your use of the word transient.

This what you said: "Good form is transient."

Good form is consistent good results over time.
Inconsistent form is inconsistent results over time.
Bad form is consistent bad results over time.
Deriving form is a statistical activity, requires thought, work, diligence and to a certain extent, impartiality.
I believe the OP is indicating that he misses the work that goes into deriving true form (current social media trends take a shoot from the hip approach and believe they can derive form from a single game).

Form might be temporary, but I wouldn't say it's transient.

6 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I really wonder if any post on any forum should start with "you are wrong" OTIB is supposed to be a place where people express their OPINION. Others can agree, disagree or comment but unless somebody gets a fact wrong like the score, we seem to be losing the ability to agree to disagree. This, I think comes form the WOKE minority who are small in number but shout very loud and always think they are right.

Opinion is subjective and generally devoid of evidence or proof, otherwise it would be a fact.
So it can be challenged with another opinion and even the truth.
I see you didn't offer an opinion yourself, other than giving me a veiled telling off about breaking some imaginary forum etiquette (we are talking about OTIB) with some mention of 'WOKE', which is rather ironic.

I started my post with an opinion 'you are wrong' and then went on to explain why I thought Robber was wrong.
Robber has countered my opinion and that is how it should be.

My opinion of WOKENESS/counter-WOKENESS:
Rather than challenging peoples opinions, the WOKE types try to silence/cancel them instead. In old school talk, they try to send the 'cancelled' to Coventry.
The counter-WOKENESS crowd tend to be a rather disparate group of people that have been cancelled (and lets face it, some of these people hold some strange views, some are victims of saying things that are taken out of context, etc.), freedom of speech types and others who just take the piss.
WOKENESS is a natural outcome of social media culture, an amplifier of points of views/opinions that people then take as their own, sometimes without being very discerning, and by some people just feel the need.to conform or be outraged.
I'm minded to think of Lord of the Flies for some reason or other and that the whole culture is rather childish.

[Prinny]

19 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Players and teams used to have good games and bad games, sometimes everything clicked sometimes they didn't. 

It seems that with the advent of social media and the ability it has given to every Tom, Dick or Harry to give their instance opinion, players are either ******* useless of ******* world beaters dependent on their performance in one game, or even one thing they do within that game. Managers are either amazing or clueless based on individual results, and one bad result means everything that went before, no matter how good should be thrown out because it failed this time. 

The same people who use to castigate previous managers constantly chopping and changing, now want to change everything we have done up to now, based on 96 minutes of action. 

I don't go in for nostalgia much, but I do miss "form".

No they've always had opinions. What it's done is it's given YOU the ability to see their opinions. And what YOU lack is self restraint in coming and looking. Before you didn't have access to, or record of their opinions, you'd be at the game, or outside of it with your friends/colleagues/classmates and those would be the only times you'd see or hear opinions. Maybe the paper, maybe the radio. But you're struggling with the temptation of coming to look.

Your form is to not like other people having or sharing opinions. Yet you come to a place where that happens. While it's fair to criticise the "same people" (provide evidence please?) if they do the things you accuse, you're making a bad decision to read those posts. If it is the same people with inconsistent logic, why would you listen to them? Why wouldn't you use the modern tools of ignoring them? Because you are giving into your temptation, and taking no responsibility for it.

With lock down/social restrictions it's hard, but you need to ween yourself off the computer and the forum/social media or start using the tools it provides if it's negatively impacting your enjoyment of coming on here. But ultimately, it's up to you not to look if it bothers you, you have the power to block those same people, and you control your internet time and continual access to opinions you don't want to hear.

[Major Isewater]

I liked the old days when people talked. 
 

[Port Said Red]

59 minutes ago, Prinny said:

No they've always had opinions. What it's done is it's given YOU the ability to see their opinions. And what YOU lack is self restraint in coming and looking. Before you didn't have access to, or record of their opinions, you'd be at the game, or outside of it with your friends/colleagues/classmates and those would be the only times you'd see or hear opinions. Maybe the paper, maybe the radio. But you're struggling with the temptation of coming to look.

Your form is to not like other people having or sharing opinions. Yet you come to a place where that happens. While it's fair to criticise the "same people" (provide evidence please?) if they do the things you accuse, you're making a bad decision to read those posts. If it is the same people with inconsistent logic, why would you listen to them? Why wouldn't you use the modern tools of ignoring them? Because you are giving into your temptation, and taking no responsibility for it.

With lock down/social restrictions it's hard, but you need to ween yourself off the computer and the forum/social media or start using the tools it provides if it's negatively impacting your enjoyment of coming on here. But ultimately, it's up to you not to look if it bothers you, you have the power to block those same people, and you control your internet time and continual access to opinions you don't want to hear.

Ah right. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

[1960maaan]

20 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Players and teams used to have good games and bad games, sometimes everything clicked sometimes they didn't. 
Oh they still do, 
It seems that with the advent of social media and the ability it has given to every Tom, Dick or Harry to give their instance opinion, players are either ******* useless of ******* world beaters dependent on their performance in one game, or even one thing they do within that game. Managers are either amazing or clueless based on individual results, and one bad result means everything that went before, no matter how good should be thrown out because it failed this time. 
Knee jerk reaction has always been the trait of the football fan. Actually that should be the football supporter as people who go appear to be more emotional about things. I've told the story  before, of our promotion season behind Watford. Early on we were about  9 points behind them, a mate said we had no chance of ever catching them. I argued that with so many games left we might. We did and at 3/4 points ahead of them he said they'd never catch us, they did. It's the way of the follower.
The same people who use to castigate previous managers constantly chopping and changing, now want to change everything we have done up to now, based on 96 minutes of action. 

I don't go in for nostalgia much, but I do miss "form".

The big difference between the times you 'miss' and now, is that every Tom , Dick and 1960maaan has a platform or 3 to put their opinions , which can then be accessed and disagreed with by hundreds if not thousands, if your opinions are out there enough.
Turn off your smart phone, your laptop or your PC and  Presto chango  ........ the good old days are back.

I actually enjoy being able to talk bollox about all sorts of things at any time. I ignore the odious or stupid but engage with the funny/interesting/informative.
Now , what was I saying? oh yeah, Wells was shit the other night, how much did we pay for him? 

 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

Ah right. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

The good old philosophical question which is of course impossible to answer.

[TonyTonyTony]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I liked the old days when people talked. 
 

Dont you prefer the modern age of being be able to stick your tongue out to people from behind your face mask? You can even mouth FO to selected people. Great fun

[1960maaan]

2 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Ah right. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

 

57 minutes ago, Robbored said:

The good old philosophical question which is of course impossible to answer.

Not true Mr Bored, you could set up a tape recorder. Still no one around , but you could get proof.  

[Robbored]

11 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

 

Not true Mr Bored, you could set up a tape recorder. Still no one around , but you could get proof.  

I think you’re missing the point of the question 1960maan............

[1960maaan]

38 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I think you’re missing the point of the question 1960maan............

Not really, talking in the tech age, purely as a sound it can be recorded and prove it. Or technically sound is vibration , which if no one is there for the vibrations to be heard then maybe not.

If you want to get philosophical, go nick the neighbours cat, stick it in a box for three days and we'll talk about it Sunday 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Prinny said:

No they've always had opinions. What it's done is it's given YOU the ability to see their opinions. And what YOU lack is self restraint in coming and looking. Before you didn't have access to, or record of their opinions, you'd be at the game, or outside of it with your friends/colleagues/classmates and those would be the only times you'd see or hear opinions. Maybe the paper, maybe the radio. But you're struggling with the temptation of coming to look.

Your form is to not like other people having or sharing opinions. Yet you come to a place where that happens. While it's fair to criticise the "same people" (provide evidence please?) if they do the things you accuse, you're making a bad decision to read those posts. If it is the same people with inconsistent logic, why would you listen to them? Why wouldn't you use the modern tools of ignoring them? Because you are giving into your temptation, and taking no responsibility for it.

With lock down/social restrictions it's hard, but you need to ween yourself off the computer and the forum/social media or start using the tools it provides if it's negatively impacting your enjoyment of coming on here. But ultimately, it's up to you not to look if it bothers you, you have the power to block those same people, and you control your internet time and continual access to opinions you don't want to hear.

I think I need to get my crack pipe out because this is very profound.

3 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Ah right. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? 

Another way to look at it, does OTIB exist only when you look at it? (to paraphrase AE).
I'll get that crack pipe now

 

[Robbored]

Sound does not exist if nobody hears it. 

[Clutton Caveman]

9 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

This is all about your use of the word transient.

This what you said: "Good form is transient."

Good form is consistent good results over time.
Inconsistent form is inconsistent results over time.
Bad form is consistent bad results over time.
Deriving form is a statistical activity, requires thought, work, diligence and to a certain extent, impartiality.
I believe the OP is indicating that he misses the work that goes into deriving true form (current social media trends take a shoot from the hip approach and believe they can derive form from a single game).

Form might be temporary, but I wouldn't say it's transient.

Opinion is subjective and generally devoid of evidence or proof, otherwise it would be a fact.
So it can be challenged with another opinion and even the truth.
I see you didn't offer an opinion yourself, other than giving me a veiled telling off about breaking some imaginary forum etiquette (we are talking about OTIB) with some mention of 'WOKE', which is rather ironic.

I started my post with an opinion 'you are wrong' and then went on to explain why I thought Robber was wrong.
Robber has countered my opinion and that is how it should be.

My opinion of WOKENESS/counter-WOKENESS:
Rather than challenging peoples opinions, the WOKE types try to silence/cancel them instead. In old school talk, they try to send the 'cancelled' to Coventry.
The counter-WOKENESS crowd tend to be a rather disparate group of people that have been cancelled (and lets face it, some of these people hold some strange views, some are victims of saying things that are taken out of context, etc.), freedom of speech types and others who just take the piss.
WOKENESS is a natural outcome of social media culture, an amplifier of points of views/opinions that people then take as their own, sometimes without being very discerning, and by some people just feel the need.to conform or be outraged.
I'm minded to think of Lord of the Flies for some reason or other and that the whole culture is rather childish.

Had you started with

In my opinion you are wrong, your points above hold water.

Don't agree with you thoughts about Counter Wokeness, and I hold freedom of speech as one of the highest aspirations of any society. If you consider the struggles of previous generations to obtain this, perhaps you would not take this hard won right more seriously. I think it is something perhaps we don't appreciate until it is gone.

This is my opinion and for now I am very happy to have the ability to express it.

[Clutton Caveman]

19 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Nah. People have always been quick to jump to outrage and hysteria. It's just the internet gives a people a way faster place to panic in public.

Nothing to do with being woke either - the truth is people who complain about "wokeness" on the internet are every bit as shrill, hysteric and quick to leap to outrage as the people who they call "snowflakes". You just need to see the overwrought reaction to people not singing a couple of songs at the proms or performing a dance routine at a TV talent show to see that.

It's daft to dismiss it as being one particular side of an argument - there's just a lot of people around who jump to hysterics at the slightest setback and social media gives them the ideal platform to do so. 

If you consider the reaction to the BBC attempting to sanitise the format of the last night of the proms which the majority like and approve of, as overwrought, I seriously wonder what is important to you. When we read that Lord Admiral Nelson is being investigated as a potential racist, when in fact his innovative tactics saved us from near certain invasion by France and Spain I really wonder why such perpetrators of this tripe are not ridiculed as totally insignificant compared to the heroes they seek to smear

We, because of our laziness are allowing a small minority to not only control what we can say, but also control what we think.

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Had you started with

In my opinion you are wrong, your points above hold water.

Don't agree with you thoughts about Counter Wokeness, and I hold freedom of speech as one of the highest aspirations of any society. If you consider the struggles of previous generations to obtain this, perhaps you would not take this hard won right more seriously. I think it is something perhaps we don't appreciate until it is gone.

This is my opinion and for now I am very happy to have the ability to express it.

I really don't know what you think you read?

As to freedom of speech, you haven't defined it.
Are your thoughts that: Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like?
Or are there restrictions?

[1960maaan]

3 hours ago, Robbored said:

Sound does not exist if nobody hears it. 

So if I set my tale recorder to tape the chart rundown, but leave the room, in your theory the tape would not pick anything up as I wasn't there to hear it?

 

 

 

 

 

Just messing, look up Schrödinger's cat for the explanation of my post above.

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

So if I set my tale recorder to tape the chart rundown, but leave the room, in your theory the tape would not pick anything up as I wasn't there to hear it?

 

Just messing, look up Schrödinger's cat for the explanation of my post above.

Too highbrow for me 1960maan..............