Checko

https://www.premierinjuries.com/teams/arsenal Looks like they have Sterling, White, Saka, Nwaneri, Tomiyasu out. Havertz 50/50 Timber's on that list but looks to have been suspended for their last league game and can play now. Whereas we have Wilson, Schar, Bruno, Lascelles, Pope and Krafth out with Botman rated 75% https://www.premierinjuries.com/teams/newcastle-united

Should have come here. He could have been living the Lloyd Kelly life!

From Dennis Wise scouting Khusanov looks like a talent but might benefit from another year and a half in the French Leagues, Saliba Style,to refine his game a bit.

Ask Brighton. It's their fault.

It's definitely one of those things that's a bit weird and unintuitive. Particularly given the massive difference in odds.

Definitely the way cool people would do it.

ALWAYS CHANGE DOOR!

Absolutely, fuck we might even get some money out of Mike Ashley finally!

Basically our new stadium should have a casino.

TBH I don't remember reading what you've quoted, and if I did I certainly didn't understand it! What I was responding to was the point that because winning 9 in a row is so unlikely we are more likely to lose or draw in the next few games as it's super rare to win 9 in a row. That's not true, the odds of winning future games will still be the same (or even slightly higher due to being in good form). Hence the coin analogy.

Winning 9 in a row is super unlikely. But we've already won 5 in a row. So to win 9 in a row we need to win 4 in a row. Which is not as unlikely.

And what were the odd of that!

Wouldn't be concerned if it wasn't Ginola14 saying that

Not based on what I quoted tbh!

Don't think I've even seen a coin since the pandemic!

No that's not how it works Eg flipping a 50/50 coin - odds of 10 heads in a row is 0.098% or about 1 in a thousand. Super unlikely to keep getting heads. 9 in a row is about 1 in 500 chance. But if you flip 9 in a row the next coin you flip still has a 50% chance of being a head.

Lets say we have an 80% chance of winning each of the next 4 games. Probably far higher than they actually are. Odds of winning the next game: (0.8) 80% Odds of winning the next 2: (0.8x0.8) = 64% Odds of winning the next 3: (0.8x0.8x0.8) = 51.2% Odds of winning the next 4: (0.8x0.8x0.8x0.8) = 40% At 70% chance it would be 24% to win all 4 At 60% it would be 13% Past performance might increase odds in that if you've won 5 on the bounce you're probably playing well and confident, so perhaps slightly increases the probability of winning the future games. But that's it.

Doesn't seem to have played 50 prem games for any team. According to wikipedia his most was 41 for Portsmouth.

So it was Kanu, Yakubu, El Hadji Diouf and Diame. Good question.

Trying to think of Afican players who played for us. Tiote and Cisse just played for us I think. Ba played for West Ham, us and chelsea, but I think he was only at Wham for like half a year. Beye played for us and Villa I think. Not sure who else he would have played for. Geremi was just us and chelsea. Atsu same I think. And babayaro. Mbemba just us. Martins same. We signed Diame from west ham. Did he play for anyone else before west ham? Seem to remember him being a useful Football Manager player for quite a while back in the day.

Is Ayew one of them? Feels like he's been around forever for a few teams?

Yeah it is a judgement call at the end of the day, and if you don't think it meets the definitions then no free kick for you and that's fair enough. But, he is sticking his head into where someone already has their head and so risks the clash of heads that way, in the same way attemping to kick a ball and being late and kicking the player would often be a foul. There's no exact dividing line here, it's a judgement really on whether he was showing sufficent care and attention in his challenge.

Here's an article about stopping promising attacks that I largely can't be arsed to read. But skimming it one thing it does talk about is possession. "This is a key aspect of SPA [stopping a promising attack]. Without possession or the likelihood of an attacker to gain possession of the ball when the offence occurs, there can be no SPA." So in a handball like Burn's, the fact you can't be sure where the ball was going to go, or if the attacking team would have retained posession possibly means it arguably doesn't fall into the definition of stopping a promising attack. Or at least my guess is that's why there was no booking. Again it's a judgement call. For the record I do think it was a handball though.

I think the rule you're thinking of is in the list of what makes unsporting behaviour, which is a booking: "commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball or for a challenge for the ball" Not sure when an attack becomes 'promising' though

Again, making contact with the ball is irrelevant if his challenge was careless, reckless etc.