Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest HTT II
6 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:


But can’t afford a Sky subscription and has to watch dodgy streams. [emoji38]

Shows he’s no mug, who would pay for sky when you can get IPTV/streams

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Heron said:

:thup:

 

I tweeted about this earlier...

 

From our first 5 I expected around 5 points - draws at Wolves and Brighton with a win vs Forest. Losses at Liverpool and against Man City. As it happens we're 1 point better off with 1 to go.

 

From the 5 that follow Liverpool, I'd be aiming for 13 (as high as that sounds). We're more than capable of winning all those games but West Ham (a) I'd be happy for a point.

 

That'd put us on 19 after 10 games, on course for safety in the earlier stages of the season (prior to FA Cup involvement) and on track to hopefully finish top 10 (and potentially Europe). For me we need to be aiming to hit 40pts ASAP depsite not really being at any risk of going down. It enables us to attack the cups, and for me we should be doing that as it's a fairly achievable goal to get to a semi final or final with a team of our calibre. 

 

Liverpool, even moreso than City is now a free hit for me. If we knick something there then our confidence could sky rocket and Palace will not be wanting to come to SJP either way... 

 

 

 

I’ll post an update next week from the preseason analysis I did, looking at what the points total trajectory should look like in order to finish tenth or above. This takes into account quality of opposition (based on last season’s standing) and home and away fixtures as they fall across the season. We’re basically one point ahead of where we should be for this. September is an important month. 

 

 

Edited by Coffee_Johnny

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is have been fucking gutted if Tranmere got an equaliser and we went out because of it. Fucking well worth Bruno missing a couple of games in the league to avoid that embarrassment. We lambasted Ashley for sacrificing the cups, we can't now pretend that we shouldn't even be able to play out best players for ten minutes to make sure we go through our first round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pata said:

Take the cups seriously but not with our best players!!!11

It's not even that - it was clear Tranmere's game plan was to knock seven bells out of us.  Just don't risk your best player in a game that you are already winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

If they'd equalised and we lost on penalties, I doubt you'd be happy because at least he didn't bring Bruno on.

 

We were winning - if we were chasing the game then fair enough. We had already had half the team kicked to bits wasn't necessary to bring him on.

 

 

Edited by duo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tranmere really weren’t that bad man. The only really ‘bad’ tackle was the one on Darlow.

 

The lad swinging his arm on Lascelles was a bit reckless, but even Lascelles said himself it was probably an accident. There was nothing in the Kraft one really, he was just (incredibly) unlucky.

 

Wolves committed more fouls against us than Tranmere did.

 

 

Edited by SteV

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, elbee909 said:

Outcome bias, I believe it's called.


Not really in this case, outcome bias works both ways. If you can say he should have come on because we won, you can say he shouldn’t because he got injured. They’re both outcome biases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:


Not really in this case, outcome bias works both ways. If you can say he should have come on because we won, you can say he shouldn’t because he got injured. They’re both outcome biases. 

 

It's judging the quality of the  decision making based on an unpredictable outcome, after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:


Not really in this case, outcome bias works both ways. If you can say he should have come on because we won, you can say he shouldn’t because he got injured. They’re both outcome biases. 

The argument in favour of bringing him on is that we want to take the cups seriously which justifies playing our best players (not that we won).

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BoSelecta said:

The argument in favour of bringing him on is that we want to take the cups seriously which justifies playing our best players (not that we won).


That argument is fine. But some people were saying ‘you’d have been complaining if we had gone out’ etc, which implies that the outcome is important. It’s equally fair to say you would have kept Bruno on the bench and taken the risk. Just saying outcome is influencing a lot of the arguments on both sides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...