rynny Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 44 minutes ago, Alpha said: Look above at rynny's post. You have contradicted yourself. If you want to go on stats then Derby are the most controlled attacking side in the division If you want to say whoever dominates possession and has the most shots deserves to win then you have contradicted what you said about our previous games such as Birmingham and Charlton If you want to go back to the "tippy tappy between the back 4" comment not counting as good possession... what were Hull doing? Because all their football was played in front of us. Of course I'm tetchy. Your slating Derby County when we've won 10 of the last 13? Conceded 11 goals in 18 matches. Consistently display good game management and have only lost 3 matches in 19 in all competitions. Was the Hull game the best we've played this season? Possibly not. Could we have done better. I think so. But we were slightly better than Hull (one of the best teams we'll play) even according to Hull. If they'd gone 2-0 up then they'd have played on the counter. At 0-0 Derby had more possession, shots and by far better quality chances. They were playing that at 0-0 or at least intending to. The ignore button is a welcome addition for sanity with some posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbob Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 13 hours ago, super rams said: It is strange that some take offence when you simply put up the official stats and not the stats fans like to make up........ Hull 0 - Derby 2 official Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 2 hours ago, rynny said: The ignore button is a welcome addition for sanity with some posters. This is certainly a prime case of when it should be used. Though I fear I might miss some mental renaissance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 20 minutes ago, BondJovi said: This is certainly a prime case of when it should be used. Though I fear I might miss some mental renaissance... Still can see the posts from replies so you get to see the funniest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 2 hours ago, Alpha said: Look above at rynny's post. You have contradicted yourself. Nonsense again nothing to do with the Hull Game If you want to go on stats then Derby are the most controlled attacking side in the division Who's said we weren't - you do try to justify your posts with answers to a statements that have not been made? If you want to say whoever dominates possession and has the most shots deserves to win then you have contradicted what you said about our previous games such as Birmingham and Charlton Nobody has mentioned Birmingham or Charlton in this thread part from you - see above If you want to go back to the "tippy tappy between the back 4" comment not counting as good possession... what were Hull doing? Because all their football was played in front of us. Logic dictates they cannot play behind us! Of course I'm tetchy. Your slating Derby County when we've won 10 of the last 13? Conceded 11 goals in 18 matches. Consistently display good game management and have only lost 3 matches in 19 in all competitions. Not slated us - see my game review in the match thread - the were unlucky not to take any of their chances - even Clements mentioned it in his post match review because they had enough chances. Hull will play the same way again in another game and put 4 or 5 away. Was the Hull game the best we've played this season? Possibly not. Could we have done better. I think so. It is possibly the best first 34 mins we have played this season , could we have done ,certainly - again see Clements post match review [we play well in the 1st half] But we were slightly better than Hull (one of the best teams we'll play) even according to Hull. If they'd gone 2-0 up then they'd have played on the counter. At 0-0 Derby had more possession, shots and by far better quality chances. We were so much better for the first 34 mins, once Bruce realized he set up the Hull formation wrong and we were dominating midfield, he changed formation and we then were forced to into the midfield sitting deeper. Totally agree regarding 0-0 comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 1 hour ago, super rams said: Nonsense again nothing to do with the Hull Game Derby play like Hull did and it was rubbish the only stats that matter are goals scored, Hull play like it and are unlucky they didn't score. This makes you a hypocrite or a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 You're not thick so please don't waste our time by pretending to be. Your exact praise of Hull is exactly the same criticisms you levelled at Derby for the early games. Your exact criteria for "deserving to win" contradicts itself. That is why Charlton and Birmingham games are relevant. Because then, possession was dismissed. Shots and chances dismissed because "The only stats that matter are the results" . Bris for example was dissapointed that we didn't control the ball better v Hull. That's fair enough because his criteria for deserving to win is based on possession + territory + chances. But he sticks with that criteria. He doesnt change it. Like you have. Paul Clement, Steve Bruce, Peter Beagrie... All the people your selective quoting have said we deserved to win. Not lucky to win. Deserved to win. Pick your criteria and stick with it. That's why your point looks ridiculous. Not because you're claiming Hull deserved something. But because you're saying they deserved something based on stats you were dismissing 2 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The most worrying stat from this thread is that only 95% of the people contributing to it think Super Rams is a grade A bell end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 5 hours ago, Alpha said: You're not thick so please don't waste our time by pretending to be. Your exact praise of Hull is exactly the same criticisms you levelled at Derby for the early games. Your exact criteria for "deserving to win" contradicts itself. That is why Charlton and Birmingham games are relevant. Because then, possession was dismissed. Shots and chances dismissed because "The only stats that matter are the results" . Bris for example was dissapointed that we didn't control the ball better v Hull. That's fair enough because his criteria for deserving to win is based on possession + territory + chances. But he sticks with that criteria. He doesnt change it. Like you have. Paul Clement, Steve Bruce, Peter Beagrie... All the people your selective quoting have said we deserved to win. Not lucky to win. Deserved to win. Pick your criteria and stick with it. That's why your point looks ridiculous. Not because you're claiming Hull deserved something. But because you're saying they deserved something based on stats you were dismissing 2 months ago. Look, Hull will play the same as the did against us another day and put 4 or 5 away - they did create 23 chances - thats why they are top scorers. If we play the we did against Hull in the future [ which means the opposition having 62% and creating 23 chances then we will might concede a few - even Clement said ''we played well in the first half'' - But hey, I forgot you don't want to accept the coach's view as your must be better. Perhaps the next game you watch take off those blinkers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, super rams said: Look, Hull will play the same as the did against us another day and put 4 or 5 away - they did create 23 chances - thats why they are top scorers. If we play the we did against Hull in the future [ which means the opposition having 62% and creating 23 chances then we will might concede a few - even Clement said ''we played well in the first half'' - But hey I forgot you don't want to acccept the coach's view as your must be better. Give it a rest and just admit you're talking rubbish. If you honestly believe that Hull created 23, or even had better chances than us, then I can only conclude that you did not even watch the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Give it a rest and just admit you're talking rubbish. If you honestly believe that Hull created 23, or even had better chances than us, then I can only conclude that you did not even watch the game. Look at the official stats - not my stats, not the blinkers stats -23 chances is what is recorded, if you want to disrecard that then thats up to you - but those are the facts. Out of the 23 chances only 2 ended up between the sticks, but 23 is recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 minute ago, super rams said: Look at the official stats - not my stats, not the blinkers stats -23 chances is what is recorded, if you want to disrecard that then thats up to you - but those are the facts. Out of the 23 chances only 2 ended up between the sticks, but 23 is recorded. I have never seem any site which records chances created, please point me in the direction and I will look to see what they are classing as chances. If you are referring to shots and they only managed to get 2 out of 23 on target then the defence have done their job. (Blocks or forcing long range shots) Alternatively go away and come back with a stat of what you class as good goal scoring opportunities where they failed to hit the target. If you think they created more good goal scoring opportunities than us then it is you that is blinkered and are just blindly trying to back up your Clement is not up to the job theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 19 minutes ago, super rams said: Look at the official stats - not my stats, not the blinkers stats -23 chances is what is recorded, if you want to disrecard that then thats up to you - but those are the facts. Out of the 23 chances only 2 ended up between the sticks, but 23 is recorded. Super Rams, do you have access to ramsplayer? Look at the match again. If not look at the stats on the site below. Almost the same as the ones I recorded myself. No way did they have 23 chances. http://www.sportinglife.com/football/live/match-stats/339742/hull-city-v-derby-county Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie20 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Exactly what are "official stats" anyway? The BBC is not the "official" watchdog of English football - an individual has probably put those figures together based on what he (or she) saw or read about so their assessment of what constitutes a chance, on target attempt etc etc is no more valid than yours or mine. Just read this thread from the beginning for the first time (time in my life I will never get back). Super Rams - you are either a troll (in which case please continue to provide some hilarity during the day) or if not a troll, you really need to get a grip of yourself before the guys in white coats come calling anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryram Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Bbc stats would count a goalkeepers punt through to Carson as an attempt. Can't believe folk are still moaning. Maybe there would have been less moaning if we had drew 2-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 6 hours ago, Alpha said: You're not thick so please don't waste our time by pretending to be. Your exact praise of Hull is exactly the same criticisms you levelled at Derby for the early games. Your exact criteria for "deserving to win" contradicts itself. That is why Charlton and Birmingham games are relevant. Because then, possession was dismissed. Shots and chances dismissed because "The only stats that matter are the results" . Bris for example was dissapointed that we didn't control the ball better v Hull. That's fair enough because his criteria for deserving to win is based on possession + territory + chances. But he sticks with that criteria. He doesnt change it. Like you have. Paul Clement, Steve Bruce, Peter Beagrie... All the people your selective quoting have said we deserved to win. Not lucky to win. Deserved to win. Pick your criteria and stick with it. That's why your point looks ridiculous. Not because you're claiming Hull deserved something. But because you're saying they deserved something based on stats you were dismissing 2 months ago. You are a clever man Alpha. COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admira Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 We scored two goals and they didn't. The only stats that matter, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 6 hours ago, Alpha said: You're not thick so please don't waste our time by pretending to be. Your exact praise of Hull is exactly the same criticisms you levelled at Derby for the early games. Your exact criteria for "deserving to win" contradicts itself. That is why Charlton and Birmingham games are relevant. Because then, possession was dismissed. Shots and chances dismissed because "The only stats that matter are the results" . Bris for example was dissapointed that we didn't control the ball better v Hull. That's fair enough because his criteria for deserving to win is based on possession + territory + chances. But he sticks with that criteria. He doesnt change it. Like you have. Paul Clement, Steve Bruce, Peter Beagrie... All the people your selective quoting have said we deserved to win. Not lucky to win. Deserved to win. Pick your criteria and stick with it. That's why your point looks ridiculous. Not because you're claiming Hull deserved something. But because you're saying they deserved something based on stats you were dismissing 2 months ago. I agree with everything apart from the first 3 words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shepram Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 We won. They lost. On to the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 After all this time, I'm still amazed by how long people humour super rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.