Lorenzos Only Goal

3 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

10 woodbine 

Hahaha at today's prices that's £5m.  A friend of mine told me how much a pack of 20 costs nowadays

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

If your dentist suggests he can, I wouldn’t let him use gas!

If he does a good job maybe he can sort mine too.

Scott Twine's teeth are just horrible, Swindon Town. They were perfectly acceptable with their imperfections. 

Now they are just too big and straight perfect white for his head, they stand out and annoy the crap out of me.
 

If it annoys you, give this lady a follow: https://www.tiktok.com/@veneercheck?lang=en. On a more serious note, this quest for perfect teeth is just absurd and can't be good for the youth who are obsessed with it. 

36 minutes ago, Murraysrightplum said:

I once new a girl called False Dawn

Was she just very good at doing impressions of the real dawn?

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

If ever a thread was made for @Lorenzos Only Goal…

Hay my other goals didn't get a chance, but my hair is amazing

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

As would I, but as a bit of devils advocate here if he wasn’t one of our own would we be so bullish? The fact is that if you take out the penalties Tommys scoring record this season has been pretty poor (debate/discuss the reasons why) and there is an argument he’s regressed. I don’t think a Scotland U21 cap adds any real value so if we were looking at a player who say, played for Stoke and had Tommys record this season pre penalties would it be a deal many of us would be that keen on?

(FWIW I do think he’ll have suitors, I do think he’ll go but in view of the above I’m not sure we’re getting top dollar, particularly at this contract stage)

He's regressed IMO because he's playing as a lone striker.  He works better in a pairing with Wells but it seems at the moment it's either him or Wells.  That said I think he's slowly figuring it out.

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

As would I, but as a bit of devils advocate here if he wasn’t one of our own would we be so bullish? The fact is that if you take out the penalties Tommys scoring record this season has been pretty poor (debate/discuss the reasons why) and there is an argument he’s regressed. I don’t think a Scotland U21 cap adds any real value so if we were looking at a player who say, played for Stoke and had Tommys record this season pre penalties would it be a deal many of us would be that keen on?

(FWIW I do think he’ll have suitors, I do think he’ll go but in view of the above I’m not sure we’re getting top dollar, particularly at this contract stage)

He's regressed IMO because he's playing as a lone striker.  He works better in a pairing with Wells but it seems at the moment it's either him or Wells.  That said I think he's slowly figuring it out.

He's still ours until the end of next season, so he's going for a fee if he leaves.  That being said we still have 14 months left to get him pension to paper so maybe he just wants to look at his options over the summer.  

What do you think he's worth in the last year of his contract ?

18 hours ago, MyBrotherErnie said:

I always think about this graphic with VAR. Seems pretty intuitive that the system shouldn't be used for decisions that are closer than the margin of error inherent to the technology. If the call is too close for the system to be certain that the player is offside, then surely it isn't a clear and obvious error by the lino/referee. 

My bigger problem with VAR is that it's part of a culture making football more like a science, rather than something entertaining. I guess ultimately the only way to escape that is to reduce the sums of money invested in the game (which I can't see happening any time soon). 

There is also this nonsense of drawing a straight line. It's not actually straight. There are so many flaws with it that trying to be overly scientific is absurd; it also matters if the zoom is digital or fixed analogue zoom. They try to take some of this into account, but it's still awfully flawed, and when it's a cat's whisker, it should not overrule the infield decision.

19 minutes ago, redkev said:

With the upturn in results over the recent weeks and some slightly better displays ( much better yesterday ) are some fans starting to see a future under manning . 
I have always maintained under both managers with a fully fit squad ( which isn’t often with city ) there is a team in there somewhere - The consistency of performances is my biggest concern when good we’re more than decent but when we’re poor we’re piss poor 

Although I'm far from impressed with Manning I think the upturn in results has earned him some breathing space.  That said I really hope the summer goes well, as I've got a bad feeling, if the first ten results of next season show some progress or signs of progress I'll be happy.  But signs of further regression and I think I might lose my shit.

8 minutes ago, Fontaineofallknowledge said:

What a fantastic performance-front foot, aggressive and composed. The sort of football Brian and Jon promised when they signed Liam. 
 

really wish we sacked him after those couple of losses

Ok Brian.

Many things make a good ground for me, modern grounds need to be clean with good facilities and not a soulless bowl.

But then Port Vale for example is a tatty ground but full of character.  Good atmosphere, history etc.

So it depends for me.

Love the boy, he was amazing for us, remember the praise he got from pep.

14 minutes ago, Unan said:

No, he's been quoted as wanting to move away from his boyhood club regardless. Moving to us? Maybe.

He is ours, we loaned him back to Derby 

19 hours ago, redkev said:

Talking of players we should sign I’m not sure what deal he’s on and has taken a while to settle due to injury etc I have been very impressed with Haydn Roberts class act from what I’ve seen recently, him & Tanner ( who I have criticised) have been excellent as has Dickie 

19 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Roberts and Tanner both contracted to 2026, no option mentioned at signing

Haydon Roberts has been outstanding in some games.  He's got an eye for turning defensive play into offensive play which is a massive asset.  And he's got a wicked pass on him.  He really makes me want us to play a back three so we can accommodate all our decent CB.  But I also like a good back four setup as well.

I think Naismith can push into midfield but he's got frustrating availability. He's got so many good attacking attributes, but he's fragile now which is unlucky.

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That is down to the imagination of the Recruitment process.  We attracted Dickie, Knight, Bird, Roberts, etc, so it’s not Mission Impossible to sign players better than we have.

The other thing I would add is our recruitment has been good in bringing in decent players, what we also have is a bunch of raw players with plenty of potential that are in or around the first team that the academy is developing combined with a couple of development punts Stokes and Murphy.  So we don't need nearly there signings blocking their pathway, they need to stand out and lift the side.

I think you have to be more brutal,

• He's not stood out.
• He's done ok, but he's not a marked improvement.

Given that he's likely to command a high wage and a significant fee.  It should be a no!  

Aww goodie, more skewed income to the big boys who've dropped from the premier league.  

Stupid IMHO.

I'm glad you lot can't stand stoke as much as me would be delighted if that happened.

25 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

That's because it isn't objective. I said to you already you cannot put a number value on what relegation form is because of how it changes year on year.

At the moment, based on the current ppg of the teams in the bottom 3, 30 points would be enough for safety in the Premier League 

That requires less than 0.8 ppg. So all of those ppg values wouldn't be relegation form.

Yes, it's a different division, but it's an easy example and I already listed to you before several seasons where teams stayed up in the Championship with a lower ppg than the value you were using.

 

IF relegation was based on a minimum points level, then you could say below X ppg is objectively relegation form.

 

**** me sideways, you keep banging on about equitable yet you in this very post compare the premier league with the championship.

0.85 points per game would have got you relegated 10 out of the last 10 seasons from the championship.

You call people out for one thing then do it yourself. 

5 hours ago, transfer reader said:

No, you're just not taking what I'm saying.

The 2nd of the ones you quoted is where I'm showing what my point was.

I am not making the claims about the form, I disagreed with Silvio ********'s one, showed multiple times how they were being dishonest by using a table where teams had different amounts of games played to make a claim about our form.

With the screenshot etc, that's me pointing out how it would be seen, not me making an assertion.

Even the first line of it is out of context because it's a response to someone else saying something way off base.

 

If you have to remove context to misrepresent and then claim I'm gaslighting, that's actually you gaslighting.

Look you've clearly called into question someone's assertion that over certain 14 games that it was relegation form.  It clearly was 0.85 points per game is a pretty big cause for concern.  You've then conflated that with the notion of bookies form guides which I provided you link for that explains they're way more random than that, so an actual window of a 14 game run is appalling as it's more than 1/4 of a season, it ended our playoff hopes and allowed a fair few teams to leapfrog us.   Yet your obsessed with calling someone a liar because you think the bookies view on form is best, right?

2 hours ago, transfer reader said:

Or you just weren't being clear

Seeing as from the start youve been acting as if I was doing something I wasn't regarding form.

For the third time, I wasn't the one making claims based on form.

7 hours ago, transfer reader said:

No, you're missing what I said 

 

Our form is top 2 form because it's literally top 2 in the form table.

If it was bottom 3 of the form table it would be relegation form.

That's been my point from the start.

You're adding in ppg, form is always relative to the performances of other teams, but you're ignoring that.

 

Even in those quotes where you've claimed I'm arguing with myself you've ******* misread.

There's literally no more ways for me to state this, I don't know why you're struggling with reading so much.

 

For those struggling to understand, below the red line = relegation form.

 

Now I think you're just gaslighting people.

47 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Where are you getting this from?

What did you think you're responding to? Because you aren't responding to the words I'm saying, at all.

FML it is a proposition, "for example," Now I know what I'm dealing with, just an argumentative individual that doesn't read posts properly. 

5 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Again, tell that to the people making claims about when we were in 'relegation form'

I was correcting fallacious conclusions being made.

I'm fine with people using 14 games as a sample size and being worried about it.  It's statically significant especially when the return is 0.85 PPG.  When you talk about the recent uptick in form the previous it's far more probable that you're following a 1.2 PPG path than 2.2 PPG using a window of 18 vs 6.

You then compound that with performances if you think Cardiff for example was great or Okay then you're very much at odds with opinion and then combine that with results people are rightly worried.

The win and manor of the win is greatly appreciated but it's meaningless now, based on our season being toast.

3 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I'm not the one making and drawing conclusions, just making a point about misuse of the stats.

Not sure why the team in your scenario doesn't get a full season though.

 

The truth is, bookies build form tables on 6 results be made there is a large error margin baked in, and people get suckered in and they make money.  The truth is this is called a "hot hand fallacy" and invariably is more psychology than statistics.

https://medium.com/@deepgreenanalytics/the-illusion-of-form-an-empirical-analysis-of-the-premier-league-930299eaa92a