LOL at Lolro

[Fenham Mag]

Thread title should be LOL at Lolro or even LOL @ Lolro.

[Ocho]

No bias here:

 

The thing with Liverpool, though, is that I think they're about to beat someone quite heavily at home. They have created loads of chances, they've endured draws against the likes of Manchester United, Manchester City and Swansea at home when perhaps they deserved more, and I just think someone's going to get rolled over.

 

That could be this weekend.

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realise this was picked up on the page before. 

[Dr Venkman]

what a complete tit, we'd have done alright if we got 3 points from those three games but 1 isnt good enough?

[Neil]

Thread title should be LOL at Lolro or even LOL @ Lolro.

 

I agree.

[Neil]

Opening post btw. Forgot about that.

[Canuck]

Trying to be balanced - I think that every team feels that journos give their squad a rough ride so there is some bias when we read his predictions. That is what gives rise to the Lawro table that is kept on another site.

 

Having said that, I spoke to a Spurs fan here the other day and he aske me why Lawro had such a mad on for NUFC. I explained the ties to the club and he said that it suddenly made sense why the guy was always running NUFC down.

 

So in keeping with the OP:

 

FUCK YOU LAWRO...

[wormy]

We've established that they're definitely not fakes this time, right?

 

The only correct part of his paragraph for us is the injuries bit, tbh. Everything else is wildly exagerrated to make us appear to be in a crisis, surprise surprise.

 

However.. Bigger paragraph than Norwich. :fwap: We're moving on up.

[Guest]

In the space of those games they've gone from high-flyers to a team enduring a bit of a wobble.

 

 

Honestly don't see this. We've played the best 3 teams in the league and managed to match one (Could argue we matched Chelsea before the last 5 minutes with the amount of chances we had). If we fail to beat Norwich or Swansea I'd say we're on a bit of a wobble but at the moment, definitely not.

 

It is annoying like, a wobble is if, like you say, we don't win one of our next 2 games imo.

 

Spurs played the Manchester clubs and lost 8-1 on agg (one being at home) and haven't played Chelsea yet. Can hardly have called that "a wobble".

[Ameritoon]

It's not even his predictions, but what he uses to back them up is completely 100% baseless. Frustrating as fuck that he gets paid for this.

[OzzieMandias]

Everyone reads it, he gets people talking, whole websites are devoted to his predictions -- like or not, he's earning his money, and this thread is an example of why.

[Troll]

He doesn't spark debate and discussion though, he just gets lots of people to talk about what a tool he is.

[johnnypd]

Everyone reads it, he gets people talking, whole websites are devoted to his predictions -- like or not, he's earning his money, and this thread is an example of why.

 

Anyone could do that.

 

You could hire a binman off the street and give him a predictions page on BBC, put him up on MOTD making the same ignorant comments, showing off the same levels of bias and lack of insight and it would have exactly the same effect. and i dare say be quite a bit cheaper than Lawro.

[OzzieMandias]

Anyone could do that.

 

Aye, but they didn't.

[Si]

" I think if Newcastle had got three points they'd have done all right. "

 

 

Confirmation if it was needed that this mental c*** is on glue!

[Ameritoon]

Anyone could do that.

 

Aye, but they didn't.

 

What's your point?

[johnnypd]

Anyone could do that.

 

Aye, but they didn't.

 

What's your point?

[OzzieMandias]

Anyone could do that.

 

Aye, but they didn't.

 

What's your point?

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,57913.msg3379491.html#msg3379491

[Ameritoon]

So, because people talk about how shit his writing and analysis is, it's okay?

 

Also, I still don't how "but they didn't" has any relevance to that argument?

[OzzieMandias]

So, because people talk about how shit his writing and analysis is, it's okay?

 

Also, I still don't how "but they didn't" has any relevance to that argument?

 

Seemed a simple enough point to me.

 

"But they didn't" is an allusion to what the artist Damien Hirst always says when people point at one of his spin paintings and say, "Seventy grand?? But I could have done that!!"

 

Post your match predictions up on the internet and see who's interested. I'm guessing pretty much no one. Lawrenson has whole websites dedicated to his predictions. People go to the BBC website, read his nonsense and talk about it, as we are here. He's therefore doing his job rather well. The accuracy of the predictions is entirely secondary to the basic purpose of his employment.

[Ameritoon]

Because he is essentially given a job at the BBC with no review of performance (clearly, since he's still doing it). Anyone who is in that roll will have people talking, regardless of how good or bad it is. His just happens to be incredibly shit.

[OzzieMandias]

Because he is essentially given a job at the BBC with no review of performance (clearly, since he's still doing it). Anyone who is in that roll will have people talking, regardless of how good or bad it is. His just happens to be incredibly shit.

 

No, you still haven't got it.

 

In terms of what his employers want him to do -- drive traffic to their website -- he's performing extremely well.

[Ameritoon]

Anyone could do that, man. It's the fucking BBC. Just put a recognizable name, call him and expert, bring on a celebrity to predict with him, and people are going to look. He's the only guy on BBC that does that, it doesn't matter what he writes. The point is, he's shit and a terrible pundit.

[OzzieMandias]

Sigh.

[Ameritoon]

[johnnypd]

So, because people talk about how shit his writing and analysis is, it's okay?

 

Also, I still don't how "but they didn't" has any relevance to that argument?

 

"But they didn't" is an allusion to what the artist Damien Hirst always says when people point at one of his spin paintings and say, "Seventy grand?? But I could have done that!!"

 

 

yes, Lawro is clearly a ground-breaking artist with avant garde ideas behind his seemingly simply performance pieces. we've all been fooled.

 

You have completely and utterly missed the point here. Anyone could do what Lawro does. In fact, Lawro himself doesn't even do what you claim he does. What is succcessful about what's going on here isn't actually anything Lawro can take credit for - rather any success derives from the concept that the BBC created (not down to Lawro), and the platform they have given him (not down to Lawro). THAT is what makes his predictions talked about.

 

as for the fatuous argument that it's like comparing him to a conceptual artist - not at all. Because in that case the artist is doing something no-one else thought of doing - that's the genius.

 

In this case there's thousands of people on forums like this doing what Lawro does - only far more intelligently, with greater analysis and more thorough research. If anything the "my six year old could do that" analogy needs to be flipped - we're the artists with ideas to back up what we do, and Lawro is the "six year old" who is just faffing around with all the intellect of a pigeon.

 

Other differences? We don't get paid for it, but do it out of passion. We don't have the privileged platform he does. And the debate forumers spark off is far more reasoned and intelligent than the base provocation that comes from Lawro's ineptitude.

 

A better comparison to, say, Hirst would be that there's thousands of skilled graffiti artists out there creating great graffiti in marginal sites that few people see. Then a huge corporation comes along, hires a famous person with zero skill at graffiti art, gives them a gigantic billboard in the centre of town and let's them create a piece of shit with zero redeeming features. then when everyone talks about it due to the fact it has a privileged platform, saying its shit and any graffiti artist could do better, a clueless dick called Ozziemandias comes along and compares it to cutting edge art.