Kaizero

Last bit was my confusion, the CL/EL/CFL winners no longer take a spot from their respective leagues if the winners don't re-qualify through them

How?

I'll never understand anyone not swapping Same goes for anyone not breaking out of the Sunken Cost Fallacy once they've been made aware they're in one.

How good are your memories, people?! I can barely remember yesterday

The odds of winning these nine fixtures were 1 in 136 before the first one, I'd not have put money on those odds. The odds of us winning the next four fixtures are 1 in 7.40, I'd put money on those odds. tl;dr we won't win nine in a row because I'll now have money on us winning the next four

#trustthefinns

That's not my perception of events, as I understand it he's arguing for it being less likely that we win our next four fixtures because we've won five in a row. Not that the concept of winning nine in a row is an unlikely feat in general, which is something I agree with.

Bookies has us winning the next four with a probability of 1 in 7.40 Us winning the four matches before those were given a probability of 1 in 14.69 Us winning the past five was 1 in 18.37 Tell me how "winning nine in a row is an unlikely feat" means it's less likely we win our next four fixtures when all matches start 0-0?

It just doesn't, though You're arguing on behalf of a logical fallacy

The argument "9 wins in a row is unlikely" is only applicable to a situation before any of said 9 matches have been played. Once the first of nine have been played, that standard of probability "measurement" is void.

But it's not less likely because a 9 game win streak is an unlikely feat to pull off. That 9 game streak has nothing to do with how likely/unlikely it is for us to win the next four fixtures, it has no impact on anything in the world as it's an artificial measure we've made up and applied to the current fixture list. The next four matches exist completely outside of any measurable force applied to them by "9 wins in a row is unlikely".

It's all about the phrasing I reckon. "A club winning 9 in a row is a very rare achievement and therefore us managing to do that isn't very probable" vs "Winning the next four is unlikely because we've already won five in a row"

Genuine question, but isn't there a form of inherent dislike of England in general from people having grown up in Northumberland and adjacent areas? As in "England = London/The South = England not caring about the North East"? Might just be me having misunderstood the political climate of England the time I've semi-followed it, but just never been amazed when North Eastern Englishmen say they don't support the national team

Why on earth would our five previous matches have any impact on how well we'll do in our next four?

It's not "none up front", man Howe wanted to shore down things defensively and not let Spurs back in the game, Willock provides counter-attacking abilities whilst at the same time being used to battling in midfield.

When you're shoring up a win away from home, it's not very common tactically to put on a striker. I think the reasoning for that is the fact that it'd increase the probability of you conceding instead of seeing out the match to secure three points from a winning position. So, you have the following two scenarios: 1: Sub on a striker and increase the likelihood of conceding a goal in the final minutes of a match you are winning. 2: Sub on a midfielder to tighten things up defensively, whilst still being a player that can be very useful in the event of a breakaway opportunity for the team to score a third goal. One of the scenarios is way more likely than the other to end in disaster. I'll leave it there.

Welcome to an Internet forum, mate. I think you'll find that people agree with other people over a variety of topics as well as disagree with others Fully stand behind deriding your post, however. That was some insane shit. No need to lick Ron's arse though. I post insane shit multiple times a day though, so no need to feel hard done by either

I think you missed out on including your own comment, which I'm quite certain is what you are referring to here.

I love how he's adamant it wasn't a tactical decision because it happened during the time period of a match where 99.9% of tactical decisions get made

Did.. did that really guy just... ...just... say Liverpool are Sabrina Carpenter and Real Madrid are the Hawk Tuah girl?...

I wasn't meaning to compare 21yo Delap to 33yo Wood Comparison was meant to be that Delap's career will most likely end up looking similar to Wood's due to their similar level of ability (in my subjective opinion).

Not sold on Delap at all. Another Chris Wood, at best. Just really doesn't strike me as anything special and his pre-Ipswich record has been okay- to bad+ Prepared to eat my words in ten years time if I am wrong, though

You answered the question in your own post as the reason he gets jobs in football management is the same reason you won't get them, because he used to be an okay+ player once upon a time and club owners still haven't realized that having played the game doesn't automatically translate to knowing how to be a manager in the game.