Rab a dab doo Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 He has got a very good chance if keeps up his goals to games ratio in the second half of the season. Go Vydra go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninos Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Overlooked here are the amount of peachy goalscoring chances he’s starting to create for others: its at least 3-5 every game, chances that really should be finished. He’s forgoing half chances and setting up his teammates ... who for the most part are missing them badly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 On 13/01/2018 at 21:23, SKRam said: Fewer minutes please boss. Sorry, grammar police after three pints On 13/01/2018 at 21:24, David said: Less of that please. 16 hours ago, Duracell said: Hi. Internet virgin here chipping in. In this instance, "less" is correct. "Fewer" is used for countable nouns, but @David was referring to a period of time. "Minutes" are a measurement of time. We still use "less" when referring to measurements of time because it is the time period we are referring to, rather than each individual minute itself. Minutes are a measurement we put to an abstract concept - David was saying that Vydra has scored more goals in less time, not fewer time. That he chose minutes as a measurement to make the point does not chance the point itself. Hence why we say "less than two years", not "fewer than two years." 16 hours ago, RamNut said: Don't think so.....if we said less than 1000 minutes, then yes its the amount of time but "in less minutes" doesn't reference a time period it refers to the units. Therefore fewer. 16 hours ago, David said: Don't argue with the teacher, we're here to learn. You have to excuse me, but I've wasted 13 years of my life as an Oxford University Press editor. For the avoidance of doubt, "less" refers to continuous quanitites whereas "fewer" refers to discrete quantities. By that I mean we all have fewer fifty-quid notes than David, or less money than him. I'd say SK was right with his original correction and David was correct with his (witty) retort. Duracell's intervention is contentious (but we do indeed say "less than two years" because we're talking about a continuous measurement of time and not a discrete value of years) and I think RamNut has it right. But in the end, David is the boss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OohMartWright Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 You might wish to edit "quanitites" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niram Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 who was the last derby player to get a golden boot out of interest guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, niram said: who was the last derby player to get a golden boot out of interest guys? Not sure, but we’ve given a fair few to a number of managers in recent memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramcoteRam84 Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Genuine chance of 30 goals this season. l’d settle for 25!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brammie Steve Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 17 hours ago, Carl Sagan said: You have to excuse me, but I've wasted 13 years of my life as an Oxford University Press editor. For the avoidance of doubt, "less" refers to continuous quanitites whereas "fewer" refers to discrete quantities. By that I mean we all have fewer fifty-quid notes than David, or less money than him. I'd say SK was right with his original correction and David was correct with his (witty) retort. Duracell's intervention is contentious (but we do indeed say "less than two years" because we're talking about a continuous measurement of time and not a discrete value of years) and I think RamNut has it right. But in the end, David is the boss! All this interplay of semantics merely goes to demonstrate the high standard of intellect and intelligence inherent in the genetic makeup of the average Rams supporter! And all done without the slightest hint of rank ad arrant pedantry up with which we will not put!✌ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAT Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Time to play a tune in the proverbial trumpet. There was always a great chance Vydra would do so well this season, under a manager who is more direct and plays him in position. I was slightly out though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 On 1/16/2018 at 01:08, Jean Antoine Tessier said: Time to play a tune in the proverbial trumpet. There was always a great chance Vydra would do so well this season, under a manager who is more direct and plays him in position. I was slightly out though... Take your negativity elsewhere, he was obviously going to score at least 20 and you just had to have a pop at him didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-would-season-without-1223617 13th place on 41 points, apparently. Although, if we didn't have Vydra, we'd probably have been playing Lawrence there (and who knows how he'd have got on etc) but it does highlight how important he's been to our success this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Without Carson we would be bottom of the table. That's why these things are largely pointless, I get it's to highlight the importance of his goals but as you say Lawrence may have played there, it's not that we would have been playing with 10 men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 10 hours ago, David said: Without Carson we would be bottom of the table. That's why these things are largely pointless, I get it's to highlight the importance of his goals but as you say Lawrence may have played there, it's not that we would have been playing with 10 men. Even if we were, still good for 6 points v Forest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.