Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

Ultimately, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if S'land had better than Bent they'd stand a decent chance of hitting the fantasy heights that worm thinks they'll achieve this season.

[eFestivals]

So firstly, he certainly doesn't get that many opportunities. And secondly, silky skills are not essential to being a good goal scorer.

and the opportunities he gets and takes are mainly what? Him sprinting down the field with few players able to get in his way - hitting teams on the break!!

And I agree - silky skills are not necessary for that. Skill is needed, but not the all-round skills someone like Drogba has, just a certain, limited (in scope, not ability), set of skills.

It's precisely because his skills are limited in their scope that he's playing for Sunderland, and not England or top club sides.

[TheGayTent]

Ultimately, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if S'land had better than Bent they'd stand a decent chance of hitting the fantasy heights that worm thinks they'll achieve this season.

[worm]

for once I can agree with the football expert that knows so much he doesn't even know the name of the club he supports.

[worm]

and the opportunities he gets and takes are mainly what? Him sprinting down the field with few players able to get in his way - hitting teams on the break!!

[eFestivals]

No you're aren't.

You're saying that if Sunderland had Ngog instead of Bent they'd stand a better chance of improving.

Which is patently bollocks.

I made what was meant only as a throwaway comment at the moment I made it - but having thought on it a little I decided that I think he'd do pretty similar to Bent at a club like that.

I don't really think that Ngog would make S'land better - to be better they need better players than they have already. Working from my view of Ngog, replacing Bent with a player much the same as Bent would not bring them any great improvement (it might bring them a little, who know, he might be a better fit with the other players they have than Bent is - but that's not me saying he'd defo make them better, that's me not ruling out a possibility none of us are able to know for sure).

[worm]

i sense a bet. can't have me and cbc having all the fun this season!

[eFestivals]

Now who's dealing in fantasy?

Does he score many more goals in that manner than all of the strikers in the teams currently above S'land in the table?

The fantasy is yours, not mine.

[worm]

Does he score many more goals in that manner than all of the strikers in the teams currently above S'land in the table?

The fantasy is yours, not mine.

[eFestivals]

That would be pointless. They'd have to finish all games with 11 players on the pitch or without own goals or something or it couldn't be classed as their own merit.

I'm unsure if they'll finish top six, I believe that they have the potential given the squad. Bruce may go back to 4-5-1 and f**k it up. I need more confidence in Bruce, but I have a lot of faith in our players abilities.

It's only you and not me that insisted our previous bet was interpreted on an unrealistic basis - as decided unanimously by others in this thread.

And despite you now back-tracking on what you'd said, put your money where your mouth is. The official Prem table at the end of this season decides.

[worm]

And despite you now back-tracking on what you'd said, put your money where your mouth is. The official Prem table at the end of this season decides.

[eFestivals]

Yet another goal post change!

You said that the goals he gets are mainly him sprinting down the field on the break with few players to get in his way. That's true in everything but reality.

They might not be the majority of his goals, but goals scored in that manner are a significant proportion of the goals he scores, and have been at every team he's played for.

It's precisely because that's the best string to his bow that he's not the top striker that his goal tally might by itself suggest.

[Cardboard Box City]

It's only you and not me that insisted our previous bet was interpreted on an unrealistic basis - as decided unanimously by others in this thread.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Cardboard Box City

[eFestivals]

The key word you're overlooking is 'potential' Neil. You see, sometimes potential isn't realised.

6/10 for effort though.

Oh, in that case Aldershot, AFC Wimbledon, and FC United of Manchester are all potential top 6 Prem finishers.

My apologies for having forgotten that you don't do meaningful or reality. I can't believe I'd done that.

[worm]

They might not be the majority of his goals

[worm]

Oh, in that case Aldershot and AFC Wimbledon are all potential top 6 Prem finishers.

[eFestivals]

From my recollection you kicked up a fuss when people disagreed with your interpretation but said you'd go along with it to shut him up, so he shut up and didn't post for months, but then when a few others suggested that you're view might to some degree be true you said that was the criteria without his consent.

It definately wasn't unanimous.

I made a bet on a particular basis; I accept that worm did too. The problem was that the basis of the bet in each of our minds was different.

The wording I'd used could have been interpreted in a number of different ways (I didn't say "strike partner", I'd very deliberately said "scored in partnership with"), and to settle the dispute over what the bet actually was I agreed to go with the interpretation that people here said was acceptable from their own interpretation of the words I'd used. Worm posted to say (after they'd given their interpretation) that he'd go with it too. At the end of the season he decided to revert back to his original interpretation.

Every person who posted about that matter agreed that the interpretation they'd come up with between them was a fair interpretation - it very definitely WAS unanimous for all those that posted about it.

If you wish to argue with those indisputable facts, I'll let you do it by yourself.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, you can say that, but someone with the power of discernment will laugh at you given that there is no logical argument to back it up, unlike my case for Sunderland.

I also pointed out at the very beginning that this was contentious and so invited you to name more than five better squads. You haven't convinced me with Liverpool, Villa, Everton and Newcastle - I don't think that their squad potential is as great as Sunderlands.

You seem to have great difficulty with qualitative concepts such as potential that require logic and reason to decipher.

Stand behind your words with money, or admit you don't really see the potential you talk of.

Easy!

[ampersand]

I made a bet on a particular basis; I accept that worm did too. The problem was that the basis of the bet in each of our minds was different.

[worm]

Worm posted to say that he'd go with it too.

[worm]

Stand behind your words with money, or admit you don't really see the potential you talk of.

Easy!

[eFestivals]

well it should be set in stone before a ball is kicked. like me and cbc. just wish i had a manager change opt out clause!

yep, with hindsight it should have of course been better defined. All the same, I very deliberately avoided saying "strike partner" and said something else instead, precisely because I was meaning something else.

But anyway, a table placing is something that doesn't need that deep defining, if worm cares to take it up.

[eFestivals]

Only I didn't.

You did, and your posts prove it.

I would never bet with you again.

once a bad loser always a bad loser I guess.

[Cardboard Box City]

Every person who posted about that matter agreed that the interpretation they'd come up with between them was a fair interpretation - it very definitely WAS unanimous for all those that posted about it.

[worm]

I didn't and I'm fairly sure I posted about it. You also agreed to his terms "to shut him up" and then afterwards you saw the opportunity to change them to something more to your liking. You cant just change the terms without consent after they've been agreed.