By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Rocking up at Wrexham, apparently, now Wednesday are letting their people go.
No idea why we weren't in for him. Free transfer in effect, good age at 31, knows the Champ inside out, excellent scoring record. And an obvious improvement on Frey.
What else is a football message board after but a ‘mass debate’ (cheeky or otherwise)? And why would you, or anyone, imply I’m some kind of eccentric for wanting anything else? What I’m not here for is a powerplay or cult experience where some people tell me I need to ‘listen’ to him or her to, implicitly, correct my own view! My original thesis/critique/post was about the non-necessary correlation between wage budgets and league position, which I don’t feel a need to revisit. As to your points:
1. I corrected this to meet the pedantic needs of others. You’re quite right – I don’t know we weren’t in for Windass. Just like none of us know anything much about what happens at QPR (which obviously doesn’t stop you, me, or any of us talking about that ‘nothing much’ – if it did, this board, and others like it, would die of boredom).
2. By your own logic, you also don’t know (i.e. are making an assumption about) the kind of salary Windass might have accepted.
3. For the record, Gary Lineker played in Japan till he was 33/34, while Michael Owen retired at Stoke at 33. Just off the top of my head, in any case, I could raise you Cristiano Ronaldo and Jamie Vardy as counter-examples. If you give me longer, I could come up with any number of others who’ve done it in the Prem and the Champ well into their 30s.
4. Lyndon Dykes may know the Champ inside out, but unfortunately what he knows doesn’t amount to very much – as his record with us, and current career trajectory, rather clearly indicate. Are you his best mate or something? One goal in 25 games for Brum in League One, and you’re still licking your lips! Unfathomable!
5. Your calculations are awry – perhaps you need to study some more Maths. 173 apps, 50 goals, 23 assists, since 2020/21, according to your preferred source, Transfermarkt. Since when have we had a striker who even gets close to just under a goal every 3 games and all those assists? (And who said anything about Mitrovic?)
6. I agree (just about) re keeping Frey on as a squad player for the handful of games he can get his 36-year-old-looking body onto the pitch and stay there, but we need a mobile goalscorer in the berth, not another sub-par battering ram.
It’s a D- from me, darling (major minus marks for your Lyndon love-in)! 😉
[Post edited 23 Jul 19:19]
I will give you point 3.
Don't know how I had the number 31 linking those two. But 33 isn't far off and Japan and Stoke were hardly the pinnacle of the game.
As for Ronaldo's longevity. Let's try and stay the right side of the libel laws and say he must have a world class 'nutritionist'.
Point 5 you are wrong. Windass has 40 goals in 173 Championship appearances. Look again at the table in the link - or give a link to your own data.
Point 2 is basic economics. Supply and demand. If there are several clubs after your services you have plenty of bargaining power over salary.
As for the return of the mighty Lyndon.
If you don't know a wind-up when you see it I don't know what to say to you.
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
I'd rather be called boring (even by someone who, laughably, knows nothing of me) and didactic rather than be a straw man-erecting, abusive fellow like you. But that's just me - old-fashioned!
I've made my case on all points, topped off with your bit of wriggling on Owen/Ronaldo but re my data on Windass (which may not fully tally on Transfermarkt, oddly), if you add up all the stats for all comps as I did since 2021/21, you'll see how I got my figures.
I've made my case on all points, topped off with your bit of wriggling on Owen/Ronaldo but re my data on Windass (which may not fully tally on Transfermarkt, oddly), if you add up all the stats for all comps as I did since 2021/21, you'll see how I got my figures.
I guess I missed your irony about Lyndon.
Lineker got four league goals in his time in Japan. Owen scored one league goal for Stoke.
You land one small punch across six rounds and claim victory.
If you're that desperate to claim a win then you've completely undermined you're whole shtick about being here for "argument, complexity and controversy".
Maybe intellectual discourse isn't really your thing after all.
I'd rather be called boring (even by someone who, laughably, knows nothing of me) and didactic rather than be a straw man-erecting, abusive fellow like you. But that's just me - old-fashioned!
I don’t have to know you to know that you’re proper boring, I can read your desperately intellectual posts… ‘Didactic’ - I didn’t use that word, but you changed it to make yourself sound clever (and boring).
And if you had paid more attention to my detailed post critiquing that black and white correlation, backed up with data and cogent counter-argument, you might be less noxiously authoritarian. Budgets and wages play a (big) part, sure, but clubs also 'over-achieve' and 'under-achieve' in relation to such, as the evidence shows. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to play football matches at all - we'd just decide it all on paper! When QPR were the top London club in London in the mid-90s, do you really think we were spending anything like what Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea were doing? More recently, to make the point the other way round, when we broke the bank and tried to buy success under Hughes and Redcrap, we ended up with a shit team with no spirit, and went down in shameful fashion.
Finally, and for the record and your benefit, and while I respect Clive's analyses of course (a lot more than he appears to respect mine, but that's not my problem), I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking - I don't fetishise individuals.
[Post edited 23 Jul 11:07]
The words "black and white correlation" tell me all I need to know about your grasp of statistics. Correlations are not black and white. If you think you have a black and white correlation, a relationship with an r^2 of 1.0, what you have is a dependent variable. The r^2 of wages to points in the Championship is in the 0.5 region, which means half of the variation in points can be explained by the variation in wages; pointing out that therefore half of the variation *isn't* explained by the variation in wages is not the insight you think it is.
Lineker got four league goals in his time in Japan. Owen scored one league goal for Stoke.
You land one small punch across six rounds and claim victory.
If you're that desperate to claim a win then you've completely undermined you're whole shtick about being here for "argument, complexity and controversy".
Maybe intellectual discourse isn't really your thing after all.
I don’t have to know you to know that you’re proper boring, I can read your desperately intellectual posts… ‘Didactic’ - I didn’t use that word, but you changed it to make yourself sound clever (and boring).
‘Straw man-erecting’ - you do you.
Please, for the love of all angels, do us all a favour and disappear till you have some interesting to say.
The words "black and white correlation" tell me all I need to know about your grasp of statistics. Correlations are not black and white. If you think you have a black and white correlation, a relationship with an r^2 of 1.0, what you have is a dependent variable. The r^2 of wages to points in the Championship is in the 0.5 region, which means half of the variation in points can be explained by the variation in wages; pointing out that therefore half of the variation *isn't* explained by the variation in wages is not the insight you think it is.
I lost interest in your eight line post after four lines, but the amusing thing is you seem to be agreeing with me . .
The words "black and white correlation" tell me all I need to know about your grasp of statistics. Correlations are not black and white. If you think you have a black and white correlation, a relationship with an r^2 of 1.0, what you have is a dependent variable. The r^2 of wages to points in the Championship is in the 0.5 region, which means half of the variation in points can be explained by the variation in wages; pointing out that therefore half of the variation *isn't* explained by the variation in wages is not the insight you think it is.
Your statistical word-itis aside, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point I was making, which was itself questioning the thing, i.e. the far from perfect correlation between budgets and attainment, you are (correctly) questioning now. So you've basically made the same point I was making again. Thanks for that, but what it mainly shows me again is that, on LfW, as in life, it isn't the point that's made but the person who makes it that tends to carry the day. (Which is why one always need to talk truth to power, of course.)
Your statistical word-itis aside, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point I was making, which was itself questioning the thing, i.e. the far from perfect correlation between budgets and attainment, you are (correctly) questioning now. So you've basically made the same point I was making again. Thanks for that, but what it mainly shows me again is that, on LfW, as in life, it isn't the point that's made but the person who makes it that tends to carry the day. (Which is why one always need to talk truth to power, of course.)
[Post edited 24 Jul 15:47]
When you reach the place beyond thoughts, the only thing you'll find is love and the only purpose of life becomes to ease the suffering of others.
Your statistical word-itis aside, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point I was making, which was itself questioning the thing, i.e. the far from perfect correlation between budgets and attainment, you are (correctly) questioning now. So you've basically made the same point I was making again. Thanks for that, but what it mainly shows me again is that, on LfW, as in life, it isn't the point that's made but the person who makes it that tends to carry the day. (Which is why one always need to talk truth to power, of course.)
There's a third variable you've over looked there, which is the _tone_ of the point being made. If the point being made is dripping in condescension and self-importance, you should not be surprised if the reaction it gets is ridicule. Because frankly it comes across as ridiculous.
Your statistical word-itis aside, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point I was making, which was itself questioning the thing, i.e. the far from perfect correlation between budgets and attainment, you are (correctly) questioning now. So you've basically made the same point I was making again. Thanks for that, but what it mainly shows me again is that, on LfW, as in life, it isn't the point that's made but the person who makes it that tends to carry the day. (Which is why one always need to talk truth to power, of course.)
Adrian Cronauer:
You are in more dire need of a blowj*b than any QPR fan in history.
Those possessed by devils, try and keep them under control a bit, can't you ?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
