AndyinLiverpool

Bit of a mess at the moment

44 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Whilst I'm posting, thought you might enjoy this "alternative" commentary on our Oxford game. Please note it contains a lot of swearing and - more worryingly - Peter Kay so not for the "sensitive".

 

 

Is any of that in English?

26 minutes ago, sage said:

or...take a gamble on someone who could play the role you want but isn't top class like Barkley or Gallagher or someone left field like Gomes.  

Or Phillips

Gordon Cowans

5 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Probably wants to concentrate on Arsenal, and perhaps feels he has been overlooked in the past.

Both Stones or White could play in the holding role. 

It's probably linked to the reason he left the world cup, whatever it was.

Now then, lads. Half an hour against 10 men...

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

Blatant red card that, clear as day. Ref bottled it

Ref had to decide if it was a real goalscoring opportunity

On 10/03/2024 at 21:21, Comrade 86 said:

The Gentlemen - spin off series from Guy Ritchie's film of the same title. Shan't say too much to avoid giving anything away, but with a strong cast and a sharp and often funny script, this rattles along with the occasional nod to early outings from the director. Ritchie fans will be pleased to know that Ritchie revisits all of his favourite schticks: drug dealers, the aristocracy, pikeys and arrogant Americans, so if Ritchie is your bag, then you'll probably love this. Great fun without taking itself too seriously.

Watched the first episode last night. Enjoyed it a lot. Will continue.

I had to look this one up so won't give the answer but the money laundering is a good one. Used the trainees at Wrexham.

Also got stabbed in the arse.

Hell or High Water.

Modern day Western. A pair of brothers go on a bank robbing spree, persued by the Texas Rangers.

Loved it. Very atmospheric and Jeff Bridges is terrific.

Gary Micklewhite / 10.

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

The Gentlemen - spin off series from Guy Ritchie's film of the same title. Shan't say too much to avoid giving anything away, but with a strong cast and a sharp and often funny script, this rattles along with the occasional nod to early outings from the director. Ritchie fans will be pleased to know that Ritchie revisits all of his favourite schticks: drug dealers, the aristocracy, pikeys and arrogant Americans, so if Ritchie is your bag, then you'll probably love this. Great fun without taking itself too seriously.

Do you need to watch the film first?

Just now, angieram said:

 

 

He looks thrilled

Can we lock this thread? 😀

Just now, oodledoodle said:

4 points clear in 2nd if we win on Tuesday. Biggest game we've had in years?

Have Bolton finished then?

1 minute ago, oodledoodle said:

I mean, fair play to us for being 2-0 up, but why are we so incapable of holding on to the effing ball?

Does putting it into the net count as holding on to the effing ball?🙂

12 minutes ago, Donnyram said:

I’m away for the Carlisle game but back for the play offs 🥴.  

Play offs? What are they?😉

Are you Derby in disguise?

12 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I don’t think xG was created to aid betting. But let’s take out City and United.

If I was a gambler, and I saw a team 0-1 down but with those stats, I’d find value in backing the home team to win (despite losing) due to the quality number of chances they are creating.

There is a reason why all the best and most successful teams use it.

You as a fan may think it’s cobblers because you don’t work in football analytics and it’s therefore no use to you.

But if you are involved in a football club and work in coaching or analysis and don’t use it, then you are a dinosaur.

 

You don't think someone might back the home team because the home team is Man City?

As far as Sky presenters are concerned, are they speaking to football analysts? No, they are speaking to their Sky Bet customers. They should leave that s*** for their betting website.

I suppose I just want to appreciate the beauty of the goal. 

11 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Could be the next Louie Sibley 

Or Callum Ball

29 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

If that is related to xG, I’m not sure what the big deal is?

xG measures the quality of chance created. Rashford’s 25-yard stunner wasn’t a chance. It was a pattern of play that would result in one goal every 100 times.

Haaland, meanwhile, missed an open goal from 3 yards which you’d expect a player to score from 99 times out of 100.

I caught the half-time stats only and it showed City 0-1 United, 17-2 in shots and an xG of 1.7 - 0.3 or something like that.

When watching the highlights later that made total sense. Rashford’s goal was scored out of very little and City had several good first-half chances.

 

It went in. It will always go in unless a goalkeeper managed to save it. Because it was on target. And since you don't have time to bet between Rashford shooting and it going in, it's not helpful. Will it guide you in your betting?

0.3 chance of Rashford's goal going in, apparently.

What cobblers.

11 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Thanks, I'm really overdue a re-watch of it. For me, some of Mel Brooks' films fall a bit flat but this one is a classic.

He said the sheriff is near

Derek Hales

1 minute ago, Shuff264 said:

5 defenders and 3 defensive midfielders at home...

Give over. It's nothing like that.

Such a disappointment. To be in such a strong position before start of play to this  it couldn't have gone much worse.

Can still win though. Gonna take something superhuman. Time for the captain to have a bowl.