St_Tel49

I think that his response may have been tongue in cheek too

So only manic depressives are realists then?

Bit of a knee jerk thread this. Yes Bart did have a nightmare yesterday but we all know that he is better than that.

Bart is not number 1 for me but he IS a good keeper. He just had a 'mare today so lets hope that that's got it out of his system.

For every manager that we had Oakley was always the first player on the team-sheet and its no surprise that he had no shortage of offers when we let him go - a truly stupid decision in my opinion. I would back their opinion against yours any day. BTW that goes for Schneiderlin too.

You should have gone to Specsavers.

Sorry but I think that you are stone wrong on this. Do Prado for me was working his socks off the entire game and, apart from Rickie, was the only person who looked likely to score. Our main problem today was Bart. Anyone can have an off day and I am not going to condemn him for it, but I hope that it settles the residue of the argument as to which keeper should be number 1. Nor do I believe that criticising players or systems today has any point. The truth is that we created enough scoring opportunities today to have won the game comfortably - even with Barts bloopers - but players were taking the wrong decision every time about whether to pass or go it alone.

You are of course quite right

Take the experimental approach. Draw up a grid for a set of 4 teams. (4x4 = 16). Eliminate the fact that they cannot play themselves: 16-4 = 12. We are only interested in the fact that they meet at all - not whether they are home or away therefore: 12/2 = 6. So the chance that any 2 out of 4 teams will meet is 1/6. i.e 1/4x1/3x2. Now increase the teams to 6 and repeat. You will find that the chance of any 2 teams out of 6 will meet is 1/6x1/5x2= 1/15. Extend that to our example it is 1/64x1/63x2=1/2016 that Man U will play Man C.at all, or 1/4032 that Man City will play Man U at home.

Yeah! It was like watching grass grow.

I don't think that the problem is your opinion - it is its endless repetition. For your next post just put in three blank spaces. I'm pretty sure that we can fill in the rest for ourselves!

Oh how I wish Hoddle was manager instead of Adkins. His astuteness in signing players was uncanny.

By which you mean they have played in the premiership. I think that there are a heck of a lot of journeymen in the premiership as evidenced by that fact that many clubs that drop from the premiership do not get promoted again and on the fact that Pompey have a number of so called premiershio standard players and look where they are. How many of our players are premiership standard? We won't know until we get there but until we do don't assume that they aren't.

And the odds-makers frequently get it wrong. Their job is to get people to bet and they don't especially care who wins. They form an opinion but at the end of the day the likelihood of us winning the championships depends on Nigel Adkins a hell of a lot more than it does on a Ladbroke's odds setter. If anyone thinks that West Ham are more likely to win than us based on us losing to Bristol City then go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. At least you will have some consolation if we don't win the championship.

There is no logic in depression.

Just wait for the rush of premiership clubs to sign him if, for some reason, we do not get promoted.

You should have gone to SpecSavers

The second penalty decision wasn't remotely dodgy. It was nailed on. Lambert was tripped in the penalty area. How could it not have been a penalty?

No he wasn't - Lowe did the only thing he could do in the circumstances and, as others are saying, his record at that point would have justified the sack and not merely gardening leave. However, to have sacked him would have implied that we believed the rumours. It was the justice system and the police who treated him badly.

With respect Hypo - you are expressing an opinion here. It isn't evidence.

And what is your evidence that it is spin? You clearly, for reasons of your own, don't like Cortese. It therefore doesn't matter what he says you will spin it as spin. I will make up my own mind thanks. I would cite where we are today as evidence that he tends to achieve what he says he will do. You can suit yourself what you believe -it is your prerogative. But your series of responses to St Garrett struck me much more as someone being a cock rather than offering any kind of constructive disagreement or analysis.

On what evidence?

TBH I think that JRM is just being a cock.

I agree with this. The two women in our jury who wouldn't commit, though misguided, did it for the best of reasons.

Not so - I have done two - although the second was a coroner's jury which was a very different kettle of fish from criminal courts - in some ways it is much less formal and also interesting in its own way. We actually did two cases in a day.