When to do it

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

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.

[transfer reader]

3 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

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.

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.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

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. 

[transfer reader]

27 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

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. 

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.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

The idea that 9 wins and a draw from 10 isn’t promotion form if two other teams win all ten is just pointless pedantry. That form over a season, is promotion form and everyone knows it. As they do with the equivalent for relegation. 

[transfer reader]

19 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

The idea that 9 wins and a draw from 10 isn’t promotion form if two other teams win all ten is just pointless pedantry. That form over a season, is promotion form and everyone knows it. As they do with the equivalent for relegation. 

The point is why is that form only being extrapolated over a season for one side and not the others?

It's promotion form on the assumption that it is kept up for the whole season AND that the teams who were doing better also drop points.

[Silvio Dante]

13 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

The idea that 9 wins and a draw from 10 isn’t promotion form if two other teams win all ten is just pointless pedantry. That form over a season, is promotion form and everyone knows it. As they do with the equivalent for relegation. 

Correct. More succinctly put than I did but the same point. Everything else is just noise.

 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Just now, transfer reader said:

The point is why is that form only being extrapolated over a season for one side and not the others?

It's promotion form on the assumption that it is kept up for the whole season AND that the teams who were doing better also drop points.

Because, de facto, you can’t extrapolate for all, as @Davefevs points out above. Start of the season, 3 teams win their first 10 games. The team 3rd on goal difference will be automatically promoted if they retain their form, because the 1st and 2nd teams will have lost twice each to the team currently in 3rd. If 4 teams lose their first 10 games, the team just outside the relegation zone will be relegated if they continue their form, as they’ll have lost twice to each of the teams below them, so will be 0 points plays a minimum of 6. It’s a zero sum game. 

[transfer reader]

Just now, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Because, de facto, you can’t extrapolate for all, as @Davefevs points out above. Start of the season, 3 teams win their first 10 games. The team 3rd on goal difference will be automatically promoted if they retain their form, because the 1st and 2nd teams will have lost twice each to the team currently in 3rd. If 4 teams lose their first 10 games, the team just outside the relegation zone will be relegated if they continue their form, as they’ll have lost twice to each of the teams below them, so will be 0 points plays a minimum of 6. It’s a zero sum game. 

But it's a bullshit assumption to make, because you are favouring one team over the rest.

There is nothing to base the assumption of 3rd beating 1st and 2nd on.

It is flawed reasoning.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

But it's a bullshit assumption to make, because you are favouring one team over the rest.

There is nothing to base the assumption of 3rd beating 1st and 2nd on.

It is flawed reasoning.

Eh? It’s extrapolating the form of team I’m considering, that’s allowed, I’m not favouring them. Your reasoning is in effect, teams 1 and 2 who’ve each beaten the 10 bottom teams are the form teams for promotion and should be ‘favoured’ over the rest vs team 3 who’ve beaten teams 4 to 13. If that’s how you want to perceive form, fair enough, but to call me out for bs is dripping in irony.

[transfer reader]

Just now, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Eh? It’s extrapolating the form of team I’m considering, that’s allowed, I’m not favouring them. Your reasoning is in effect, teams 1 and 2 who’ve each beaten the 10 bottom teams are the form teams for promotion and should be ‘favoured’ over the rest vs team 3 who’ve beaten teams 4 to 13. If that’s how you want to perceive form, fair enough, but to call me out for bs is dripping in irony.

No, I'm not suggesting favouring any.

I've said from the start to do the same to all clubs.

This does of course mean you get issues in extreme examples, but these are extreme examples.

Alternatively, you could for this example give each team a win over each other or 2 draws, a neutral outcome for both sides.

You're also now making extra assertions on who each team has played which weren't there before.

You gonna put those goalposts back later, or keep on moving them when it suits?

[The Swan and Cemetery]

Just now, transfer reader said:

No, I'm not suggesting favouring any.

I've said from the start to do the same to all clubs.

This does of course mean you get issues in extreme examples, but these are extreme examples.

Alternatively, you could for this example give each team a win over each other or 2 draws, a neutral outcome for both sides.

You're also now making extra assertions on who each team has played which weren't there before.

You gonna put those goalposts back later, or keep on moving them when it suits?

Moving the goalposts? Haha. To be clear, I don’t believe anything you’ve contributed to this thread even vaguely supports the notion that a team that wins 20 games in a row isn’t in promotion form, whatever their league position. If you believe otherwise, fair enough. 

[transfer reader]

Just now, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Moving the goalposts? Haha. To be clear, I don’t believe anything you’ve contributed to this thread even vaguely supports the notion that a team that wins 20 games in a row isn’t in promotion form, whatever their league position. If you believe otherwise, fair enough. 

Yes, moving the goalposts by inserting extra information to the hypothetical at a later point.

It went from top 2 won all 10, 3rd won 9 and drew 1 and that was all to the top 2 only played the bottom 10 sides, but 3rd played tougher games.

You changed the hypothetical after it was originally made.

To be clear, I don't believe you've contributed anything to this thread. If you believe otherwise, fair enough.

 

As for the bolded part, that wouldn't go against what I've been saying, a team winning 20 in a row would be at the top of the form table.

I have never, at any point, suggested anything different, show me where I have, or don't bother responding with your drivel.

 

 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

Yes, moving the goalposts by inserting extra information to the hypothetical at a later point.

It went from top 2 won all 10, 3rd won 9 and drew 1 and that was all to the top 2 only played the bottom 10 sides, but 3rd played tougher games.

You changed the hypothetical after it was originally made.

To be clear, I don't believe you've contributed anything to this thread. If you believe otherwise, fair enough.

 

As for the bolded part, that wouldn't go against what I've been saying, a team winning 20 in a row would be at the top of the form table.

I have never, at any point, suggested anything different, show me where I have, or don't bother responding with your drivel.

 

 

Changing a hypothetical or offering a different one, when the reasonably conclusive first one wasn’t quite enough for someone digging their heels in.  A team winning 20 in a row wouldn’t have to be at the top of the form table, but suspect most would still describe them as being in promotion form. 

I like how in your final sentence you’ve accused yourself so that you can accuse me of accusing you. Nifty. 

[transfer reader]

21 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Changing a hypothetical or offering a different one, when the reasonably conclusive first one wasn’t quite enough for someone digging their heels in.  A team winning 20 in a row wouldn’t have to be at the top of the form table, but suspect most would still describe them as being in promotion form. 

I like how in your final sentence you’ve accused yourself so that you can accuse me of accusing you. Nifty. 

No, because the bolded point was you accusing me.

Tell you what, next time a team wins 20 in a row and aren't top of the form table let me know and I'll concede any point you want. Because even for a hypothetical, that is beyond the extreme.

Edited April 11 by transfer reader

[Atyeo's Love Child]

I’d still do it now

[mozo]

I didn't follow this. Did we get relegated or not?!

[downendcity]

26 minutes ago, mozo said:

I didn't follow this. Did we get relegated or not?!

No, but we've not picked up a single point in the last 24 hours, so if this is extrapolated over a full season then we are absolute certainties to be relegated next season and therefore can look forward to playing a Bristol derby in 25/26.

 

 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

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.

[Silvio Dante]

57 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

 

 

Now I think you're just gaslighting people.

To be fair, I thought it was just me.

But when you’re involved in spats with four different people - all of whom are decent, longstanding posters - over the course of one thread, then it’s probably better to take some tIme for self reflection.

I’ve stopped engaging as it’s plain not worth it. But if your concept is so out there that everyone disagrees, it might be worth considering, y’know, that as opposed to others being obtuse, lying, lacking integrity etc the problem may lay a bit closer to home.

Hopefully he can get the support he needs.

[W-S-M Seagull]

Still not seen anything which suggests this guy can take us forward and beyond. 

 

Still worries me greatly that he's going to be allowed to shape the squad.

 

Has he managed to get some decent results of late? Yes so credit for that.

 

But the reality is its all too little too late. When it mattered he was found waning. 

 

What people havent factored in is that the results have come against teams that dont play with a low block. It remains to be seen if he can sort that problem out. 

 

The Sunderland performance was almost as worst as youll see and the Blackburn game was the opposite of that (with a huge helping hand from a very poor Blackburn) 

 

It seems the issue of pressing was brought up with him, we then start pressing. The issue of not being pro active with subs was brought up with him and then he starts to be pro active with subs. He shouldn't need to be told how to do his job. 

We can't afford to be a learning ground for a young 'head coach' it's just LJ all over again. Streaky and will just constantly change the plan until one works and then when it stops working will keep trying to find a new plan until he lucks upon one that does work. 

He has simply not shown me what Liam Manning football looks like.

Ultimately Manning has failed this season. We are better than where we are in the league. Without results clouding my judgement, it has largely been poor, dull and difficult to watch.

He has not managed to get the maximum out of this squad (with good availability) and certainly not managed to get them out performing their ability. 

We are obviously not going to sack him now and neither will we this season. But I think we should. We are looking at an October sacking in my opinion.

I fear that he will recruit players that are suited to his preferred possesion based style.

What do you do if you build an F1 car that has decent ability and potential but the driver can't extract that ability and potential? You don't rebuild the car to suit the driver do you? No you get rid of the driver and bring in someone more suited to the car and the teams philosophy. 

[TV Tom]

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Still not seen anything which suggests this guy can take us forward and beyond. 

 

Still worries me greatly that he's going to be allowed to shape the squad.

 

Has he managed to get some decent results of late? Yes so credit for that.

 

But the reality is its all too little too late. When it mattered he was found waning. 

 

What people havent factored in is that the results have come against teams that dont play with a low block. It remains to be seen if he can sort that problem out. 

 

The Sunderland performance was almost as worst as youll see and the Blackburn game was the opposite of that (with a huge helping hand from a very poor Blackburn) 

 

It seems the issue of pressing was brought up with him, we then start pressing. The issue of not being pro active with subs was brought up with him and then he starts to be pro active with subs. He shouldn't need to be told how to do his job. 

We can't afford to be a learning ground for a young 'head coach' it's just LJ all over again. Streaky and will just constantly change the plan until one works and then when it stops working will keep trying to find a new plan until he lucks upon one that does work. 

He has simply not shown me what Liam Manning football looks like.

Ultimately Manning has failed this season. We are better than where we are in the league. Without results clouding my judgement, it has largely been poor, dull and difficult to watch.

He has not managed to get the maximum out of this squad (with good availability) and certainly not managed to get them out performing their ability. 

We are obviously not going to sack him now and neither will we this season. But I think we should. We are looking at an October sacking in my opinion.

I fear that he will recruit players that are suited to his preferred possesion based style.

What do you do if you build an F1 car that has decent ability and potential but the driver can't extract that ability and potential? You don't rebuild the car to suit the driver do you? No you get rid of the driver and bring in someone more suited to the car and the teams philosophy. 

Like Frank Lampard ? 

[AppyDAZE]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Still not seen anything which suggests this guy can take us forward and beyond. 

 

Still worries me greatly that he's going to be allowed to shape the squad.

 

Has he managed to get some decent results of late? Yes so credit for that.

 

But the reality is its all too little too late. When it mattered he was found waning. 

 

What people havent factored in is that the results have come against teams that dont play with a low block. It remains to be seen if he can sort that problem out. 

 

The Sunderland performance was almost as worst as youll see and the Blackburn game was the opposite of that (with a huge helping hand from a very poor Blackburn) 

 

It seems the issue of pressing was brought up with him, we then start pressing. The issue of not being pro active with subs was brought up with him and then he starts to be pro active with subs. He shouldn't need to be told how to do his job. 

We can't afford to be a learning ground for a young 'head coach' it's just LJ all over again. Streaky and will just constantly change the plan until one works and then when it stops working will keep trying to find a new plan until he lucks upon one that does work. 

He has simply not shown me what Liam Manning football looks like.

Ultimately Manning has failed this season. We are better than where we are in the league. Without results clouding my judgement, it has largely been poor, dull and difficult to watch.

He has not managed to get the maximum out of this squad (with good availability) and certainly not managed to get them out performing their ability. 

We are obviously not going to sack him now and neither will we this season. But I think we should. We are looking at an October sacking in my opinion.

I fear that he will recruit players that are suited to his preferred possesion based style.

What do you do if you build an F1 car that has decent ability and potential but the driver can't extract that ability and potential? You don't rebuild the car to suit the driver do you? No you get rid of the driver and bring in someone more suited to the car and the teams philosophy. 

Oh give it a ******* rest.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Still not seen anything which suggests this guy can take us forward and beyond. 

 

Still worries me greatly that he's going to be allowed to shape the squad.

 

Has he managed to get some decent results of late? Yes so credit for that.

 

But the reality is its all too little too late. When it mattered he was found waning. 

 

What people havent factored in is that the results have come against teams that dont play with a low block. It remains to be seen if he can sort that problem out. 

 

The Sunderland performance was almost as worst as youll see and the Blackburn game was the opposite of that (with a huge helping hand from a very poor Blackburn) 

 

It seems the issue of pressing was brought up with him, we then start pressing. The issue of not being pro active with subs was brought up with him and then he starts to be pro active with subs. He shouldn't need to be told how to do his job. 

We can't afford to be a learning ground for a young 'head coach' it's just LJ all over again. Streaky and will just constantly change the plan until one works and then when it stops working will keep trying to find a new plan until he lucks upon one that does work. 

He has simply not shown me what Liam Manning football looks like.

Ultimately Manning has failed this season. We are better than where we are in the league. Without results clouding my judgement, it has largely been poor, dull and difficult to watch.

He has not managed to get the maximum out of this squad (with good availability) and certainly not managed to get them out performing their ability. 

We are obviously not going to sack him now and neither will we this season. But I think we should. We are looking at an October sacking in my opinion.

I fear that he will recruit players that are suited to his preferred possesion based style.

What do you do if you build an F1 car that has decent ability and potential but the driver can't extract that ability and potential? You don't rebuild the car to suit the driver do you? No you get rid of the driver and bring in someone more suited to the car and the teams philosophy. 

There is a lot of stuff I agree with here although I’m not so black and white.  All I can do is sit and watch us game by game and see if the recent games, still containing inconsistency, are the “new norm” or not. If they are then I can move forward. But if we start to see a move back towards the style we saw pre-Easter now he’s got himself a few points, then I’ll be very disappointed.

All I can hope is he’s seen a bit of light and realised his principles, identity needed a bit of a tweak to be more effective at this level. 

[And Its Smith]

If we finish 8th next season and win the league the season after a certain poster will still be moaning about the 8th place. The more he posts, the more bizarre it gets. 

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

If we finish 8th next season and win the league the season after a certain poster will still be moaning about the 8th place. The more he posts, the more bizarre it gets. 

I don’t think his posts are bizarre.  The posts are just giving the view that he’s not impressed by Manning, nor can he see Manning progressing us.  And does it matter that he reached that view really early and has stuck to it.  At least he explains why, unlike several who just say it’s all good / it’s all bad without anything to go on. Hey-ho.

 

[transfer reader]

8 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

To be fair, I thought it was just me.

But when you’re involved in spats with four different people - all of whom are decent, longstanding posters - over the course of one thread, then it’s probably better to take some tIme for self reflection.

I’ve stopped engaging as it’s plain not worth it. But if your concept is so out there that everyone disagrees, it might be worth considering, y’know, that as opposed to others being obtuse, lying, lacking integrity etc the problem may lay a bit closer to home.

Hopefully he can get the support he needs.

If you don't like it when you're accused of lying, just don't lie.

That's not ******* difficult.

Still probably too much for you to wrap your head around though.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader

[transfer reader]

9 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

 

 

Now I think you're just gaslighting people.

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.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

If you don't like it when you're accused of lying, just don't lie.

That's not ******* difficult.

Still probably too much for you to wrap your head around though.

What has he lied about to be called a liar earlier on?

I think you’re trying to read way, way, way too much into an oft-used “calculation” of “form” and use of the result of that calculation to give a statement, ie relegation or promotion form.  It’s nothing more than that.

[transfer reader]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What has he lied about to be called a liar earlier on?

I think you’re trying to read way, way, way too much into an oft-used “calculation” of “form” and use of the result of that calculation to give a statement, ie relegation or promotion form.  It’s nothing more than that.

Made the claim of us being relegation form pre Easter when not a single form guide matched that.

The only 'form' tables Silvio provided where we were in relegation form was one with a very specifically curated selection of dates, over about 13 games. So non standard and specifically selected to be the worst case that could be found.

And the 2nd was a table where it had us playing 6 games, about half the teams playing 7, about half also on 6, and a couple on 5.

But over the set of results for that table, if you used an equal number across all teams, whether 5 or 6 (standard amounts used in form guides) or even 7, we were not bottom 3 of them.

I pointed this out but it was still used further.

This is intentional dishonesty. The act of a liar.

 

That is not to say we weren't in bad form. But at least 3 teams were worse, and at least 2 of the 3 from a worse starting point, so not relegation form.

Edited April 12 by transfer reader