Alright Now
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2016
- Messages
- 9,842
We have: Milner.Then why haven't we signed them?
We have: Milner.Then why haven't we signed them?
Ding!We have: Milner.![]()
Loads of our signings weren't made by this stage. Robertson was signed "quite early" on 21st July. VvD for special reasons took an extra 6 months and Keita we had to wait a year for. Alisson was 19th July. Ox wasn't till 31st August.Then why haven't we signed them?
Because it's the 8th of July.Then why haven't we signed them?
If you're going to ban me for disengaging from people that are trying to make trouble, then it's obvious you have it out for me and you're going to do what you had your mind set on for a while.I’ve had enough of this kind of thing. You’ve been warned time and time again.
Two days off.
Not to mention Klopp is highly particular on targets. Just because we haven't brought a player in doesn't mean we don't want to or that we aren't working on it. If there is a player out there Klopp wants for a position he wants to fill he may well wait for perfect timing even if that is a delay. That doesn't mean there aren't players who could do the job available, wanting to come and at a decent price. But Klopp will ignore those good options if the perfect option is going to be available to him at some point soon.Because it's the 8th of July.
Said like a sad bastard, for whom this ‘open an account, lose the plot, get banned’ routine has taken in the dreary monotony of a tired heartbeat.Why is it that you ban me every time I block someone? It's like you'd rather let the rabble rousers keep rousing.
If you're going to ban me for disengaging from people that are trying to make trouble, then it's obvious you have it out for me and you're going to do what you had your mind set
on for a while.
It's wrong, but you won't care, as long as you protect your little fiefdom (very little, very few regular posters compared to, say, redcafe, which is much better run) and the people who pay patronage to your fake power, just like you were a fake mascot rightly told by Kenny to fuck off.
Go on then, do us both a favor. I've already proven right about everything I've said here, so my work here is done, really.
Still not whoever this is that lives rent-free in your head.Said like a sad bastard, for whom this ‘open an account, lose the plot, get banned’ routine has taken in the dreary monotony of a tired heartbeat.
If only banning you could cure you if this affliction. As is, we’ll just bid you farewell for now, and see you in a while under you 745th new name. And maybe you’ll last a bit longer before you blow your cover by throwing insults and snide a people for daring to have a different opinion about the football.
Yeah, seems set for Leicester. Did very well for them last season and looked to have adapted immediately to the PL.I banged on about this player (and Dendoncker) previously. Still to early for that letter to Santa, but I'd still quite like Tielemans. Yes he's another box to box midfielder, but he seems to have an eye for goal; and the opportunity for him to learn from Milner, at such a young age, would be great. He's also not work-shy or afraid of defensive work. Rabiot without the baggage? Anyway, i think his permanent move to Leicester is due soon, as personal terms are agreed.
Think we let Newcastle go blow for blow with us as well... just to make it interesting.Personally, I think city knew exactly what they were doing allowing that ball all but 11mm over their goal line. Luck had nothing to do with it.![]()
This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.So obvious and yet you didn't accept that it contributed towards City's 98 points but we were lucky to get 97.
Luck is luck regardless of what form it takes. To compartmentalise it in the way that you're doing is the logical fallacy.This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.
Whereas you, on the other hand, think focusing on Fernandinho is the logical thing to do. And Mascot thinks Kompany scoring a goal because City had Leicester so penned into their own half that he was afforded a free shot from outside the area, also constitutes the same kind of luck.
Both things I find illogical. Am I allowed to say illogical? Is it a banning offence? If it is, well, so be it, but I must stand by what I believe. Because to expect to control things outside of your own ability to control is illogical, because there is no rational way it will happen. Unless you believe in gods, in which case you are free to pray to them. Is there a god of injuries? Have a word about Naby Keita if you get in touch with him.
Anyway... like I say, City had more control of their games. If they have as much more control over their opponents than we did, we won't finish as close to them this time around. That's a logical perspective I would think. Which is why I believe we will look to improve this area of our play, whether by investing in the players we've already got to be fit, or in the market. The transfer market that is, not the tea leaf one.
Maybe City did too. Or maybe they just didn't control it very well.Think we let Newcastle go blow for blow with us as well... just to make it interesting.
About game control you realise they completely lost control of games 4 times last season unlike our once?This is about game control. The end. You can define luck in different ways, you're free to do that. I'm defining it as winning in games where you didnt have control. You say injuries etc, I say they are more variables whereas the amount of game control you have is a constant. This is the logic I'm using. I think it's pretty solid logic. I would. I'm the one saying it.
Whereas you, on the other hand, think focusing on Fernandinho is the logical thing to do. And Mascot thinks Kompany scoring a goal because City had Leicester so penned into their own half that he was afforded a free shot from outside the area, also constitutes the same kind of luck.
Both things I find illogical. Am I allowed to say illogical? Is it a banning offence? If it is, well, so be it, but I must stand by what I believe. Because to expect to control things outside of your own ability to control is illogical.
If you believe in gods, you are free to pray to them. Is there a god of injuries? Have a word about Naby Keita if you get in touch with him.
Anyway... like I say, City had more control of their games. If they again have as much more control over their opponents than we did, we won't finish as close to them this time around. That's my belief. So that defines my stance on "luck" That's a logical perspective I would think. Which is why I believe we will look to improve this area of our play, whether by investing in the players we've already got to be fit, or in the market.
The transfer market that is, not the tea leaf one.
Yeah, but they meant to do that. Just how they meant to go behind to Brighton on the last day.About game control you realise they completely lost control of games 4 times last season unlike our once?
Yeah, that's borne out by their massively superior goal difference of +72 compared to our pathetic +67.I haven’t checked back to see where this derailed into having a little pop at each other, but I just want to say that Man City won more of their games more comfortably than we did last season. It is borne out in the xG and other stats. Basically, they won more of their games with more to spare. What that tells me is that if the same 38 batch of games was reproduced over and over again, there would be more seasons where Man City beat us by several points, rather than one. I don’t want to get into who enjoyed luck over the whole season, as that’s such an emotive and imprecise thing to argue about.
We are on the rise. Next season we have a fair chance to go one better and win the league. Most fans have got a similar idea about where we need to strengthen, and how we go about doing that remains to be seen. It’s also nice to see us sign a couple of highly rated kids, given the way we are showing we can bring the best ones through to the first team.
As for Man City, hopefully they are punished for FFP abuses. AC Milan just got kicked out of European football for a spell, and they are European ‘royalty’ so hopefully the authorities won’t fear an impudent rapscallion like Man City. Hopefully they get what’s coming to them.
Leaving that side of things out of it, on the pitch they are starting to lose some key players due to age. Kompany has gone. If they sign Ake, decent player that he is, it’s a downgrade. Fernandinho has been excellent for them - in a snide way, but you need a bit of that. Rodri will be phased in and it remains to be seen if he is as good. Aguero is still going, but he’s in his 30s and doesn’t have nearly the peak years ahead of him as our forwards. And this will be David Silva’s last season there too.
We have to hold our nerve and keep going. We are knocking on the door and that Premier League title is just around the corner, and when it comes, we might have a little period of dominance to follow.
I picked that game at random but given that it's impossible to get 3 points no matter how much you batter the other team by the chances are those teams that are winning a lot of their games are more likely to be said to have 'overachieved'. For example, only 2 teams in the bottom half are said to have overachieved, compared with 7 teams in the top half.One game isn’t enough. The xG differential carries more weight over the course of a season.
We were the closest team to City and I’m filled with hope for the season to come. That’s the unifying factor. Arguing the toss over the significance of a point gap between Liverpool and City, and whether it should have been more, less, or the same, is not really something I’m willing to invest more time in. I saw some analysis of that, hence I added my viewpoint to the discussion. I also did so partly out of a sense of fair play, as it looked like Mousecat was being belittled for saying Man City seemed to have more control in games than us. (I think they did too). I see evidence of the belittling thing in your post above to me also, where you mentioned their “massively superior goal difference.”
No need to be like that, IMO. An exchange of viewpoint should be possible without a veneer of sneer.
Anyhow, we were second to Man City and like all reds I’m hoping next time we go one better.
That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.Luck is luck regardless of what form it takes. To compartmentalise it in the way that you're doing is the logical fallacy.
So theres no luck but teams can lose games they don't deserve to lose? And you can control games therefore dictating who wins them and City were better at this than we were despite them losing more games?That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.
The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.
When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.
I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..
City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.
City's 98 points is a result of many factors outside of what happens on the pitch. Even just restricting it to what happens in the 90 minutes this assessment of 'control' is intangible.That there's any such thing as luck at all is a logical fallacy. This is why I'm giving you my definition of the term. It's not luck at all, this is just a figure of speech.
The logical explanation would be that, the more you control a game, whether by possession, territory, chances, the less the likelihood that you will lose. The less control you have, the more it becomes a question of single moments, and the more you rely on opposition mistakes, or individual plays.
When I say lucky, I mean we won games we really didn't control and couldn't have complained, based on balance of play, if we'd lost or drawn.
I'll say this again, and youre free to disagree.. city were more comfortably better than their opponents than we were. We battled harder for our points total. That's my opinion. We've still got improving to do, they haven't, I understand that. I agree with anyone who says it. I've said it many times myself. It's why we're in this thread... discussing the question 'who would you sign'..
City were the better team last season, and by more than the point that separated us. They looked clear levels above the teams they played, even in some of the games they lost... we battled, and probably punched above our weight to even be there at the end.
We are playing 60+ games next season. A backup player would expect to get 30 games at least in both Cup and league competitions. Liverpool is a giant step up from Celtic and I don't expect Salah, Mane and Firmino to start early in the league campaign with the summer they have had. Zaha would start in the first five games for us, thus giving him the opportunity to stake a claim for a position.Why would Tierney or Zaha come here to be a backup? I get their other alternative is Arsenal but it’s Arsenal with a guaranteed starting spot and the chance to push for Europe and silverware via cups.
This is why it’s so dam hard for us to bring in the level of quality we need, they simply won’t come. Salah, Mane, Trent, Robertson are worldclass, so if you play that position you are coming in as 2nd choice and considering how robust they are you could be looking at games in the cup and/or a few in the league to rest only.
It’s also about cost. Klopp won’t be splurging £70mil on Zaha for someone to play 10 games or so.. he’d rather those minutes went to Origi or Brewster (or Wilson depending on pre-season).