TigerTedd

So they’re going to get more than 11pts, but is there half a chance they might take a few of our other records. They’ve got to be doing well on the goals conceded front now. That’s 4 home games in a row they’ve lost by 5 or more. No one has ever done that before. Not even us. I thought Wilder was supposed to improve them?

still can’t believe they beat Luton, that was a double whammy kick in the teeth. Stopped Luton catching Forest, and took United over 11pts. 

Edit: Genuinely thought 5-0 was a full time score. Thought aresenal must have calmed down a bit after the first 15 minutes. But wow! Half time. 

55 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Whilst xG is all total bollox, the Rashford goal was actually 0.03 (3% chance of a goal) not 0.3 (30% chance of a goal).

0.3 wouldn't indicate a special goal at all.

I did think that as i was typing it. But I was going with the original figures given here. 0.03 makes much more sense. 3 times in a hundred someone would try that and pull it off. 

far from being a meaningless stat, I’d actually love to see the xG on Garnacho’s bicycle kick. 

the type of goal where the commentator goes, ‘and there’s a pass, and another pass, and… oh my god what a goal’. It’s literally unexpected. Which means the opposite is an expected goal. xG is a perfect metric to quantify the wonderfulness if wonder goals. But it’s always difficult to quantify the unquantifiable.

Besides, every knows the only accurate way to decide how wonderful a wonder goal is is to ask a bunch of c-list celebrities and get a disembodied host to count them down at an obscure time in sky sports max. 

8 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

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. 

An xG of 0.3 helps you appreciate it even more though. It’s shows how rare it is that a goal like that would go in and what a special goal it is. It did not expected that anyone would score from there. 

if it was an xG of 1, then it’s a dead cert and there’s nothing special about it. 

Just now, Wolfie20 said:

Agreed. Ignoring the highly likely relegation of Rotherham, my 3 preferences for the drop would be (in any old order) - Stoke, Birmingham and Boro.

How could I forget about Birmingham. But I’ve always hated QPR since Wembley. It’s be nice to see it all come full circle. They get relegated while we get promoted. 

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

It's heart breaking to see Stoke in the bottom three. 😀

There’s so many clubs that could end up in the bottom 3 within a couple of losses. I’m spoilt for choice. I’m not sure who I would rather get relegated. Boro, QPR, Stoke. It’s all so lovely. 

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

After wins for all the top 5 on Saturday, we remain 4th in this "effective" table, everyone on 3 points more from a game more. However, Tuesday night sees Barnsley at home to Bolton meaning one or both of them will drop points and, regardless of the result we shall move up into effective 3rd place. My preference would be for the draw. Peterborough are also playing at home to Northampton. It would be great if they drop points so remain at arms length.

We improved our goals difference more than any of the others at least. Back to having the best goal difference in the league. That could make a difference by the end. 

13 hours ago, Chellaston Ram said:

they will be already relegated by then

Yes, you are correct. So those games will be dead rubbers. 

United are crap. And yet this is the umpteenth time this seeing I’ve heard pundits at the end of a United game say ‘it doesn’t matter how you win, as long as you win, move into the next game.’ United have a decent amount of points on the board in the prem, and it’s got them to 5th, but almost every win has been on the back of a terrible performance and a last minute goal against what should be vastly inferior opposition. You count their good performances on one hand. Whenever they’re up against a decent side, they don’t just lose, they get battered, as reflected by their terrible goal difference. Has any team ever been in 5th with a 0 goal difference?

snd yet pundits still blow smoke up them that they’re grinding out results. They’ve been so lucky to get the points they have. Starting with their first result against wolves I think in the first match. If I cared enough, I’d have a look through all their results, but they’re are so many where 3 points could’ve been 1, and 1 point could’ve been 0, off the back of a poor performance. But they’re good luck and table position masks all that. Their true position should be around 12th with Chelsea. Then imagine the melt down in Manchester. 

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

Gumps can concentrate on relegation now.

I would’ve actually quite liked gimps (autocorrect, but I’m going to keep it in) to win that one. The extra distraction would just hurt them. 

37 minutes ago, JfR said:

They had spaces leftover that they could had added Hendrick in, but chose to leave them empty, presumably so they could bring in one or two free agents instead.

That seems a bit harsh on Hendrick. He’s not that bad is he? Can’t say I know, but he was great for us once upon a time. 

31 minutes ago, JfR said:

Sheffield Wednesday have Nico Schulz training with them at present. Definitely a player above their standard in terms of ability, but he’s also currently a week away from facing aggravated assault charges against his exgirlfriend, including allegations he kicked her in the stomach while pregnant to try to induce a miscarriage. Just seems another sad case of football caring more for money and performance than morality.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/sheffield-wednesday-danny-rohl-nico-schulz-borussia-dortmund-4528963

And if they don’t have space for Hendricks in their squad, how do they have space for this guy?

A good win today. But it’s still on. If everyone below them wins their games in hand, then they’re only out of the relegation zone thanks to Everton, and Everton are better than them over the course of the season and will pick up more points. Deductions withstanding. 

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 

The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?

Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

You both make such good points. I’m so torn.

Unless you really buy into the necessity of humans being a multi planetary species, and I’m not sure that I do, the only reason to go to mars is to say we did it. Then I can see us not doing it again for generations. There’s not really anything we can do that robots can’t, so why risk human lives. 

1 hour ago, Shipley Ram said:

Interesting comments from him

 

I thought that when I heard it. EFL had made their decision and our punishment was relegation by any means necessary. Couldn’t pay players more than your average upper conference / lower league 2 club. There’s no way we could stay up. 

12 hours ago, Highgate said:

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 

I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 

As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  

I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

I agree with like 99% of what you’re saying. Elon is a bit of a t***. And I think there’s definitely more than a bit of vanity about having a city called muskville on mars. Rather than saving the world. Even if that happens to be an accidental side effect. If it’s a vanity project, then at least it has some benefits to humanity rather than just a giant platinum statue or something. 

but the 1% I don’t agree with is that there is a small window of opportunity. And that’s just because I’m selfish and would love to see a man (or woman) land on mars in my lifetime. Clocks ticking. 

Just now, David said:

Really? 12 years ago.

 

I was being facetious. But even Elon’s goal is more realistic than hoping the world’s leaders will ever come together and do something useful for humanity. We’re basically just waiting for crack pot billionaires to make ‘saving the world’ their latest project.

But of course a lot of them became crackpot billionaires by burning the world in the first place. So we might be waiting a while. 

1 hour ago, MadAmster said:

Depending on the extent of any action from FA/PL Wolves, Everton or the Red Dogs could still take the record...

I don’t think it’ll ever really count if it comes by way of points deduction. Although if Forest end up in 10pts following a points deduction, I’ll take it. 

On 13/02/2024 at 01:01, Highgate said:

I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.

Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 

Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 

I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 

Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 

 

 

 

A lot of people have a go at musk for spending his money on space when he could be spending it solving other problems.

But it’s not really Musk’s responsibility either way. He could be spending his money on hookers and yachts as many Uber rich people do. He’s decided that the space problem is important to him and he wants to devote a lot of resource to solving it. Many people will say it’s not the most pressing concern right now, but as @Carl Sagan it is, nevertheless, a concern that needs addressing. If Elon doesn’t do it, who will.

War, famine, global warming, wealth inequality, etc. these are all problems too. But it’s not only Elon’s job to fix them. There are other billionaires out there who could stick their billions behind these causes (like bill gates is very into his vaccines). Or, heaven forbid, world governments might even try to solve them. But now I’m just being fanciful. At least Elon has set himself a realistic goal. 

6 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Well said. It's amazing that so many wannabe intellectuals refuse to acknowledge this. 

One thing is clear - to start a human colony on Mars would require huge amounts of adaptability, both physically and mentally. And yet those advocating for it don't even to seem to be able to cope with mild ridicule, or critical analysis

What is the melting point of a snowflake on Mars?

Snowflakes will survive quite happily in mars. It’s incredibly cold there. 

1 hour ago, Bigunder said:

On the scale of the galaxy, let alone the Universe, our entire solar system is barely more significant than the earth itself, so moving within it is not a huge step on a universal scale. 

Not a huge step for mankind, but one giant leap for the generations to come. 

1 hour ago, dog said:

It's like playing with a permanent cheat mode.

That’s basically what they’ve done isn’t it. I imagine there’s a specific cheat code on football manager that gives you unlimited cash. 

47 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

My all time favourite example of a keeper own goal... Just after the 1 min mark...

 

A Chris Martin penalty and a Tomasz Kusczcak own goal were enough to give Derby a 2-1 lead over Brighton in the first leg of their playoff semi-final

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/08/brighton-v-derby-county-championship-play-off-semi-final-live

Was that the game we won 2-1 without getting a shot in target (penos font count on the stats). 

3 hours ago, Ram-Alf said:

I was at a Funeral yesterday...the wake was at Pride Park, I saw some old friends I'd not seen for 35+ years, Some I didn't recognise as age has caught up with all of us...now here's my take on the NHS

One had a peptic ulcer went into the General in Derby and on the operating table by 10pm, One was out walking and had a seizure and collapsed, Now diagnosed with Epilepsy and had his driving licence taken away, One has had a knee replacement and waiting for the other knee to be replaced, One has Parkinson's and can't stop pissing and has to take 3/4 tablets a day...and last but not least yet another funeral in a couple of weeks as an old friend died from Dementia at 66 years old 2 weeks ago 😔

The NHS was there for all of them and did a great job in trying times ☺️👍   

This sounds like Ed Sheeran’s castle on the hill, if Ed wrote it in his 70s. 😢

34 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think the theory is that the money saved by no longer paying the staff that have moved over to the private sector could be used to fund replacements (after all, the NHS funding shouldn’t change). The end game would mean we’d have fewer patients (as some go private) but the same number of doctors (as those leaving are replaced). However, I see two major problems with this theory: 1) the time it would take to recruit and train the replacements and/or 2) the downstream impact on other countries if more medical professionals move to the UK because we could pay more (that’s not an anti immigration statement but rather a genuine concern for medical services abroad). 
 

Maybe the only answer would be to pump even more money into the NHS (whilst at the same time tackling it’s inefficiencies) so that NHS pay could match that offered in the private sector (and therefore staff are retained and even more attracted), and more hospitals are built, but that would mean an increase in tax or NI that wouldn’t be popular and we might still have the potential problem with medical services abroad.🤷🏻

That’s the thing. I essentially offer a private healthcare service. I take people’s blood. Why wait 2 weeks for an appointment at the gp surgery when you can come to me and get it done same day.

i can get paid £20-£30 for an appointment. Or I can work on the bank at the hospital, which I have done, for 5 hours, taking 12 bloods an hour, for just over minimum wage. By the time I’ve bought a coffee at the Costa, and paid for my parking I’m barely making £50 for the whole stressful shift.

I love the idea of the NHS, but i honestly don’t know why anyone works for them NHS.

Most of the phlebs that work for me also work in the NHS, because we can’t offer them enough work to be anything more than pocket money. But until we offered them this role, they were supplementing their wage being Uber drivers or deliverers. At least this way it’s basically Uber, but they get to use their medical skills. I employ doctors, nurses, they all earn so little that they need to supplement their wage with private gig work, one way or another.