Jump to content
Paul

Catch - is that you?

Recommended Posts

You really think we are reduced to buying bottom of the barrel players because a couple of other teams have more money? Really?

 

In that case how come we are buying in the £20M range each summer?

 

I really think you're misrepresenting the presented arguement - that I showed both ends of the skill spectrum to illustrate differing values. How on earth you have got from that illustration to saying that I said we will be buying from the Zingari league is laughable. To then accuse me of presenting a strawman just has me in Bulk here.

 

You can carry on trying to muddy the water with your misrepresentation but as I said, I would advise you to simply stop now as I think you might have got away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're reducing the argument to nonsense. The point is that NONE of the top four teams finished in their "expected" positions last season. Or the season before. Or the season before that. If it's so fucking inarguable, riddle me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're reducing the argument to nonsense. The point is that NONE of the top four teams finished in their "expected" positions last season. Or the season before. Or the season before that. If it's so fucking inarguable, riddle me that.

 

So presenting differing ends of the skill spectrum to illustrate differing skill levels in an argument based on "A GENERAL" finding that most teams that pay players more money have better players and finish higher in the league is "Nonsense" is it?

 

 

You had got away with it - but now you're drawing attention to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example was nonsense because we are not shopping at the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

Stop it now, you're boring me.

 

Strawman or do you actually believe this is what was said?

 

Is it that you actually can't see the example of two differing levels of skill or that you've now realised your mistake but can't admit it?

 

I have an idea which it is - I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious that if we bought players from the Zingari league we would be shit, yes. Your argument works on that level.

 

But the number of players at a decent skill level who want to play in the premier league is high enough that the Mancs, Chelsea and the other Mancs can't buy them all. And even if they could, some will choose to come to us anyway. And even if they didn't, it's not set in stone that the best eleven will win on the day.

 

So if you can beat the other teams in the league and put in some good performances against your peers, then there is no reason why you should not be challenging.

 

And guess what? We proved that last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TK-421

Whilst we may not be shopping in the bargain basement for every signing I think it's fair to say that there are restrictions on the players we are able to attract due to a lack of capital and competition from other clubs who can offer better terms.

 

I believe Tevez and particularly Barry would now be our players if it wasn't for new competition from Man City, for example.

 

It's also interesting that the only two major signings we made were structured deals from clubs allegedly owing us money from previous sales.

Edited by TK421

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obvious that if we bought players from the Zingari league we would be shit, yes. Your argument works on that level.

 

But the number of players at a decent skill level who want to play in the premier league is high enough that the Mancs, Chelsea and the other Mancs can't buy them all. And even if they could, some will choose to come to us anyway. And even if they didn't, it's not set in stone that the best eleven will win on the day.

 

So if you can beat the other teams in the league and put in some good performances against your peers, then there is no reason why you should not be challenging.

 

And guess what? We proved that last season.

 

I'm not going to argue your strawman illustration. That isn't what was said, you know that isn't what was said but you're still trying to prove a seperate point with it. Go ahead - have fun.

 

But when you've finished that the point made (which has been explained) is that if you only have funds to pay for lesser skilled players but opposition teams have the funds to purchase better players, then GENERALLY the better players will produce better performances and better finishing position.

 

How you've got from claiming that the total of TWENTY teams in the PREMIERSHIP is only a "Sample" of the figures to be taken into account when looking at the statistics to "We have to buy players in the Zingari" is a very very impressive feat of mental gymnastics. I do look forward to your posts when you get into this mood.

 

Well done for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to argue your strawman illustration. That isn't what was said, you know that isn't what was said but you're still trying to prove a seperate point with it. Go ahead - have fun.

 

But when you've finished that the point made (which has been explained) is that if you only have funds to pay for lesser skilled players but opposition teams have the funds to purchase better players, then GENERALLY the better players will produce better performances and better finishing position.

 

How you've got from claiming that the total of TWENTY teams in the PREMIERSHIP is only a "Sample" of the figures to be taken into account when looking at the statistics to "We have to buy players in the Zingari" is a very very impressive feat of mental gymnastics. I do look forward to your posts when you get into this mood.

 

Well done for that.

 

You were the one who brought up the Zingari league you prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of anyone not stuck up their own rectum, I've never argued with the general case that increased money gives you a better chance in the league.

 

As I've said often enough in this and other threads, I don't like the fact some people use this to try to browbeat other people into believing we should only expect fifth place.

 

We've proved often enough, as have the Mancs, that we are capable of doing better than our monetary resources appear to imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were the one who brought up the Zingari league you prick.

 

Now, now - take it easy fella. I brought it up to illustrate the differing skill levels (which has now been explained to you at least twice) YOU then built your strawman around that, suggesting that we were shopping in the Zingari.

 

No need for name calling. Try to show a display some intellectual honesty.

 

Even if it's only acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the benefit of anyone not stuck up their own rectum, I've never argued with the general case that increased money gives you a better chance in the league.

As I've said often enough in this and other threads, I don't like the fact some people use this to try to browbeat other people into believing we should only expect fifth place.

 

We've proved often enough, as have the Mancs, that we are capable of doing better than our monetary resources appear to imply.

 

Really:

 

"but I think the 93% (notice it's getting bigger) is a gross exagerration which appears to come from some questionable analysis"

 

Your post in this very thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, now - take it easy fella. I brought it up to illustrate the differing skill levels (which has now been explained to you at least twice) YOU then built your strawman around that, suggesting that we were shopping in the Zingari.

 

No need for name calling. Try to show a display some intellectual honesty.

 

Even if it's only acting.

 

To be fair you got the reaction you were after. I always find the so called 'positive' brigade far more smug and patronising, which often rubs up those who are looking for a balanced debate up the wrong way. It says more about them and how much the manager is struggling than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair you got the reaction you were after. I always find the so called 'positive' brigade far more smug and patronising, which often rubs up those who are looking for a balanced debate up the wrong way. It says more about them and how much the manager is struggling than anything else.

 

 

Fair enough - I've made my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really:

 

"but I think the 93% (notice it's getting bigger) is a gross exagerration which appears to come from some questionable analysis"

 

Your post in this very thread!

 

To be fair, he's arguing about how much of an impact it has. Not that it doesn't have an impact. I'd also agree that 93% seems far too high. But I'd not have an issue with it been 70% or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing isn't it how some people can never argue anything but black or white. Apologies to everyone else for two pages of complete bollocks, I shouldn't let myself get drawn in by it. I used to have him on ignore from last time he tried to have a discussion with me, but I try not to keep anyone on ignore for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, he's arguing about how much of an impact it has. Not that it doesn't have an impact. I'd also agree that 93% seems far too high. But I'd not have an issue with it been 70% or so.

 

I take your point - but why then try to dismiss the percentage (Whatever that is) by questioning the validity of the source. When in actualy fact it has only ever been presented as a generality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, he's arguing about how much of an impact it has. Not that it doesn't have an impact. I'd also agree that 93% seems far too high. But I'd not have an issue with it been 70% or so.

 

I think the precise answer is 88% (or 93% if you're in the Eurozone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got the only set of fans who claim to be stuck in the bargain basement when we've got an 18m right back and our last two 20m signings have barely made an impact. If the fans of any other team were doing the same thing those same people would be on here buzzing of them.

 

No doubt the yanks have completely fucked us over but people are now strecthing to the extent you'd think we'd got our kits from Oxfam in a bid to excuse terrible under-achievment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the precise answer is 88% (or 93% if you're in the Eurozone).

 

I think you'll find that depends entirely upon the precise exchange rate on the day when the calculation is being made. Today, £1 = 1.14977 Euros. By my reckoning, that makes it 91.785%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're reducing the argument to nonsense. The point is that NONE of the top four teams finished in their "expected" positions last season. Or the season before. Or the season before that. If it's so fucking inarguable, riddle me that.

 

That doesn't actually disprove the 90% odd though does it. In fact, on a very basic stats level, it would prove it, as from memory the output of the regression, which is the analysis where the 90% comes from, will be the one that has the least squared errors. Taking last season as an example, Utd finished 1st, an error of +1, we were 2nd, an error of +2, Chelsea 3rd, an error of -2, and Arse were 3rd, an error of -1. So the sum of those errors = 0, and infers that the regression has a very good fit.

 

The regression is a line of best fit through a sample, but none of the sample actually have to be on that line for the regression to be significant.

 

When I did stats you always had to do a confidence interval of the the output as well, usually to 90% or 95%, as there will always be errors. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95% confidence interval for expected positions is about + or - 2 places. So, even when were 4th highest payers, we only had a small chance of winning the league.

 

Haven't done any stats for a while though, so I may not be completely right.

 

I think have a problem with the 90% explanation as it makes everything else seem insignificant, whereas statistically, that 10% is still very significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this - surely if were a team that when playing at its best we can only finish fifth, then by definition (even playing at our best) we can only expect there to be some crap football along the way. Anything higher would be overachieving wouldn't it?

 

That's my point, if shite is the best we can do then fine, I can completely accept sitting there watching boring, rubbish football because at least I'd know the players were giving their all and making the most of their abilty.

 

If we can do better than shite (and at present I think we can) then it's not acceptable to watch the kind of dross we've been subected to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×