Paul Warne

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said:

The end of that quote may well inadvertently work in @RoyMac5's favour however 😂

Well ain't that ironic 😉

[DiggerB]

9 hours ago, Srg said:

What I said was factual. If you can't be happy with most points ever, then when can you?

I know you didn't. I did. I think I need to end my posts with /s in this thread as the sarcasm filter seems to be failing.

The year is 2041. DCFC, through another period of financial mis-management post-DCs tenure are expelled from the EFL by now joint chairmen Gibson and Couhig to Step 7 of the Pyramid. Lacking funds, a stadium and a car park (nicked by Couhig) Derby stalwart and last Ram standing Louie Sibley (who in a 22-year Rams career has just about scraped to 200 league starts, due to 13 successive managers not really rating him) is installed as player-manager of the Northern Premier League Premier Division newcomers. Groundsharing with Mickleover Sports and with both hands tied behind his back all season heroic Louie manages to scrape into the play-offs, before masterminding the comeback of all comebacks in the final, scoring with a 75 metre hoof from left back to secure a 5-4 win v Buxton FC and sending his beloved DCFC into the dizzy heights of National League South. At the subsea victory parade Louie is carried aloft through the streets of Derby, given the keys to the city and a lifelong deal for hair wax from VO5!

 

THEN, AND ONLY THEN will RoyMac5 finally be happy!

[Chester40]

13 minutes ago, ap04 said:

If you -or anyone else- think so I strongly suggest you read something like this (not dismiss it, try and understand it)

I don't want to...or need to. It adds nothing to my enjoyment or the end result.

Plus there are too many unknowns. You score an early offside goal in a match, you then choose to sit deep, soak up pressure and you give up a few chances but ultimately you win. The stats are totally driven by what happened in that initial incident.

If the goal had been disallowed,  the whole game would have been played in a totally different way. So all the stats are pretty meaningless to me.

You disagree...but I don't see the point or merit in your view anyway as its a lot of thinking about stuff that is impossible to know anyway.

Edited April 17 by Chester40

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

I had a velvet jacket like that one in the 70s! I can't be that smart as I keep replying to all the trolls jibes. 😂

Perhaps someone could start a celebratory thread for Warney I'd leave you to it. 😉

Pics or it didn't happen 😂

[jono]

On 16/04/2024 at 08:28, Tamworthram said:

The football this season has rarely been pretty, I don’t think anyone can deny that and the thought of more of the same isn’t very appetising. However, how much of that is down to the manager’s preferred style and how much is down to a need to adapt and do whatever it takes to get out of this league? Probably a combination of both. On the latter point, a lot of games this seem to blur into each other (which maybe says it all) but I reckon a lot of our entertaining football has come against the better teams in the league (I can’t substantiate that theory before anyone asks, it’s just a gut feeling). So, on that basis, I think we’ll either get rolled over pretty much every week (or, if we’re lucky manage to cling on for a point or three every now and then) or, we’re able to make some decent recruitment in the summer and will be able to go toe to toe with the more talented teams you get in the Championship - matching them to an extent in terms quality of football. 
 

Obviously the former is what we all fear whilst the latter is what we all want. I for one (not that it’s up to me of course), am prepared to give PW the benefit of the doubt and accept that, to a degree, the quality of football we have seen this season has been down to the league we’ve been playing in. I totally get that some members on this forum really don’t rate him, don’t like his football, don’t think anything will change if we go up, and want him gone but, I’m hoping such individuals (not aimed at you by the way) give their Warne out campaign a bit of a rest next season for at least a dozen games.

I have such mixed feelings. I can see the view of those who just don’t like our current style, yet what is fundamentally wrong with using wingers and getting the ball in the box ? It’s simplistic but it’s not kick and rush and I would challenge anyone who suggests it is. We have some intelligent players. Then dial in that this is L1 with the level touch, consistency and quality defined by that league  - which when lacking (which it is sometimes) makes silky tick tac midfield interchanges a bit of a lottery. Warne has adopted a style that best suits the skill set and consistency of the squad we have. The optimist in me thinks with a step up in quality there is nothing to say PW won’t change his preferences. We won’t know until A .. we’ve seen what’s available in new players, B if we can afford them and C if they want to come. For me he must have at least half a season to prove himself. And … can we honestly criticise him if the funds / players / opportunities are not there for him to adjust his current working model. ? 
 

The football hasn’t been electric but it has been entertaining, puzzling, awkward, frustrating and occasionally exciting…in equal measure. The clicheed suggestions from certain quarters that it’s crude or “Warne ball” are limp, inaccurate and unfair. 
 

We need some youth, we need improved touch and skill quality and a striker that scares people. The rest is fate but it’s 50 years since we could puff our chests out and really justify it on the field of play against all comers. That isn’t PW’s fault. 

[HorsforthRam]

I enjoy reading @RoyMac5 posts with regards to style of football. To me she/he is obviously a massive Derby fan and will enjoy our promotion as much as anyone else if it should happen. I have no problem with him criticising our style at times and I happen to agree with his opinion a lot of the time. Where we disagree is probably on Warne’s future in the championship (hopefully). I’m not a Warne fan (in terms of football style) but think he deserves a chance with us in the championship and maybe he can too change his style. 
 

Keep posting @RoyMac5👍🏽

[richinspain]

4 hours ago, bcnram said:

I think you are on something there. 

FTFY

[Foreveram]

1 hour ago, ap04 said:

If you -or anyone else- think so I strongly suggest you read something like this (not dismiss it, try and understand it)

I’ve read it, I understand it, it’s b*******.

[IslandExile]

5 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Give it up with your poultry attempts at humour!

I think this pun fest has been scrambled by those trying to whisk up trouble for eachother. 

Not so much over easy.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

2 hours ago, HorsforthRam said:

I enjoy reading @RoyMac5 posts with regards to style of football. To me she/he is obviously a massive Derby fan and will enjoy our promotion as much as anyone else if it should happen. I have no problem with him criticising our style at times and I happen to agree with his opinion a lot of the time. Where we disagree is probably on Warne’s future in the championship (hopefully). I’m not a Warne fan (in terms of football style) but think he deserves a chance with us in the championship and maybe he can too change his style. 
 

Keep posting @RoyMac5👍🏽

Why do posters keep referring to Roy as a possible she rather than a he?

Did noone else use the video forum links in lockdown? 🤣

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, IslandExile said:

I think this pun fest has been scrambled by those trying to whisk up trouble for eachother. 

Not so much over easy.

Trying to poach egg realted puns is a fools errand.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Why do posters keep referring to Roy as a possible she rather than a he?

Did noone else use the video forum links in lockdown? 🤣

@RoyMac5 can use whatever pronouns he/she wants! I frequently go by LLW or sometimes ILW, or if I'm sad, VLLW.

[IslandExile]

16 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Trying to poach egg realted puns is a fools errand.

True, it's no yoke, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Anyhow back to the discussion between the mother hens....

Edited April 17 by IslandExile

[Van der MoodHoover]

8 hours ago, Kernow said:

Here are my stats that I also hope you trust, as I too have worked hard on them.

Teams that accumulate more points than 22 other sides in their division over the period of 46 games get promotion in the English football pyramid 100% of the time.*
 

*Stats based on a sample of over 120 years of competitive football where sides are ranked based on points-based performance.

Apart from Wycombe.......😉

[Tamworthram]

13 hours ago, ap04 said:

If you -or anyone else- think so I strongly suggest you read something like this (not dismiss it, try and understand it)

From what I can make out, all this article tell us is if you run a random set of numbers many times you’re much more likely to get the spread of results you’d expect than if you only ran it once. That’s pretty obvious stuff in the same way that if you tossed a coin 6 times, the chances are that you wouldn’t get a 50:50 split between heads and tails. If you tossed a coin 10,000 times though, you would get much closer to half heads and half tails.

The author claims to have taken into account the fact all teams don’t start the league equal and has allowed for some being stronger than others when arriving at the random number that generate the results for each individual game. However, as far as I can see, he hasn’t explained what weighting he has applied nor how he has applied it. If the weighting is only marginal then you’d expect fairly similar variation to the completely random results.

I don’t think anyone is denying that the larger the sample size the more likely the results are to reflect expectation. But what I think we are saying is that, over the course of a full season, whilst there still be a few random results where a “weaker” team will beat a “stronger” team, the impact of these unexpected results will be dissipated to an extent that the league table, by and large, reflects the relative strengths of the teams competing.

and breath………

[Foreveram]

40 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

From what I can make out, all this article tell us is if you run a random set of numbers many times you’re much more likely to get the spread of results you’d expect than if you only ran it once. That’s pretty obvious stuff in the same way that if you tossed a coin 6 times, the chances are that you wouldn’t get a 50:50 split between heads and tails. If you tossed a coin 10,000 times though, you would get much closer to half heads and half tails.

The author claims to have taken into account the fact all teams don’t start the league equal and has allowed for some being stronger than others when arriving at the random number that generate the results for each individual game. However, as far as I can see, he hasn’t explained what weighting he has applied nor how he has applied it. If the weighting is only marginal then you’d expect fairly similar variation to the completely random results.

I don’t think anyone is denying that the larger the sample size the more likely the results are to reflect expectation. But what I think we are saying is that, over the course of a full season, whilst there still be a few random results where a “weaker” team will beat a “stronger” team, the impact of these unexpected results will be dissipated to an extent that the league table, by and large, reflects the relative strengths of the teams competing.

and breath………

In short, like I said, it’s b******* 😂

[AutoWindscreens]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

From what I can make out, all this article tell us is if you run a random set of numbers many times you’re much more likely to get the spread of results you’d expect than if you only ran it once. That’s pretty obvious stuff in the same way that if you tossed a coin 6 times, the chances are that you wouldn’t get a 50:50 split between heads and tails. If you tossed a coin 10,000 times though, you would get much closer to half heads and half tails.

The author claims to have taken into account the fact all teams don’t start the league equal and has allowed for some being stronger than others when arriving at the random number that generate the results for each individual game. However, as far as I can see, he hasn’t explained what weighting he has applied nor how he has applied it. If the weighting is only marginal then you’d expect fairly similar variation to the completely random results.

I don’t think anyone is denying that the larger the sample size the more likely the results are to reflect expectation. But what I think we are saying is that, over the course of a full season, whilst there still be a few random results where a “weaker” team will beat a “stronger” team, the impact of these unexpected results will be dissipated to an extent that the league table, by and large, reflects the relative strengths of the teams competing.

and breath………

What for me is interesting is that if you ask 1,000 people to flip a coin 100 times, you will get very close to 50,000 heads and 50,000 tails...

... but amongst those 1,000 there will probably be someone who flips 80 heads out of 100 and as a result thinks he's magic!

[ap04]

22 hours ago, NottsRam said:

As some golfer once said 'the more i practice, the luckier i get'.

I know the above wasn't meant to say this but in sport the opposite is true, the better you are the more unlucky you get.

The two extremes in football: a perfect side that deserves to win every time can only get unlucky (draw/lose); an awful side that deserves to lose every time can only get lucky (draw/win).

[ap04]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

The author claims to have taken into account the fact all teams don’t start the league equal and has allowed for some being stronger than others when arriving at the random number that generate the results for each individual game. However, as far as I can see, he hasn’t explained what weighting he has applied nor how he has applied it. If the weighting is only marginal then you’d expect fairly similar variation to the completely random results.

I get your point that with a bigger spread results would be more predictable/gaps larger and the table more representative, but their example giving top 83 points and bottom 27 seems varied enough. And even if you changed it a bit it wouldn't mean 800 games but 600, still eons away from 46.

I think the author just added this so that some readers don't dismiss it out of hand due to the 'all teams equal' assumption, the theory is the same.

But this has made a mess of the topic which is about Warne.

[Ram-Alf]