Olallana

You are talking about....?? Bale, a 16 year old in his first year at the level. Jones, talent but who needed much polishing in the game (and still do) Baird, well for that level a good player (for PL not so much, helped us away against Fulham though this year) Cranie, the one that never got anywhere Rasiak, over the top going downhills career wise Surman, good for that level Best, good every 10th game Lots of players go on to premier league, doesn´t mean they are any stars on championship level. And everyone of those but Bale is/were more squad players at PL level.

Who was the manager behind the decision NOT to do that?

Yeah, they came fifth that year. Sounds like he deserved that, as did MP. And he was fairly successful at us during a horrible time IMO.

Yeah, seems like all that matters is if the player gets into the team XI or not. If so I think the Skates are pretty successful lately with their signings/loans....

Too true I´m afraid. And being Manager of the year in front of Mourinho and Guardiola counts for nothing of course....

Just where did I slate Norwich in their form? I put another view of it that if you look back more than six games to look at their form. And btw, did you see their results from those games when they had more shots? Yes, 5 points from 3 games. Seems like my thoughts are backed up also in short term at times, even though that is not what I have been talking about. But you choose to put different angles on every sentence instead of reading (and answering) my points of view. I know that that is what you love to do, so I´ll let you continue with that. Yes I said that I think we have played much better under MP, that´s an opinion. People have different opinions, kind of normal. I backed it up with stats and only talked about those stats in the long run, still you keep coming back to single games, or the last few games which for me is not any kind of long run.

Well since you have got stuck in repeat mode I´ll say it once more. No, I did not say that everything matters about having more shots. What I did say is that in the long run the team that creates more chances is more likely to win games, than teams that dont create as many chances as their opponents. The team with fewer chances will win games yes, but I was never talking about the odd game. That is very easy to find out if you just check stats from, let´s say 100 games, if that is enough for you to say that stats are reliable? I did say that in a thread that were about that we haven´t performed any better under MP than under Adkins. I disagree with that and to not only make it an opinion I backed it up with stats, and in almost every post I said that it was _in the long run_. Stats proves me right if you look at a bigger amount of games, or as I did call it "the bigger picture". End of.

For the record, I never said our results form were better. Just put another view on it instead of looking at last six games.

Yes, and they are above us in the table, so I guess you are getting the logics......

Well if you read my posts again a bit more thoroughly you will see that I have already answered his questions, some of them several times but the same semantic kept coming back, why should I bother to repeat myself all the time? About your question. In one post I said that I believe we are staying up, that would answer your question if I think we will get the points in the right time frame....dont you think??

You mean like the way you are ignoring my questions?

I read the OP before, thought it was about performances. During the thread I have learned that it´s all about results. And why am I forced to follow the OP btw, don´t seem that important in most threads here....? The only question you have asked is about time frame, nothing else so please refer correctly when you are trying to correct someone else.

Good one, i see what you did there!!

Not at all, I´m just sitting here and thinking about peoples sense of logics.... The same people that all season has said that they would bite the hand off if they were offered a 17th spot are now saying that our results are not good enough and we´re in 16th spot!! Cant get my head around that logic I´m afraid..... And then I think a bit further about the logics.... After 28 games we have 27 points, teams below us are on 24, 24, 23 and 20. Still the common logic seems to be that they will get more points than us the last 10 games, even though they haven´t been able to do that in the first 28 games.....and I wonder why is that?? Surely the reason can´t be that they will perform better in the last 10 games, cause we have all learned that it is all about the results.....and still the results show that we have done better..... Well, maybe I should get that concussion instead, would probably help to understand the logics of this board.....

That´s not a form table, is it? If you would´ve said 32 points from 27 games I could have accepted that....

Tevez!!

For me a bit more Nathan Dyer-ish, but with better delivering....

quite alright that volley....

Can we have that Rowe guy taking our corners...?

Sorry, I can help you on that one.... 7 points from last 10 games... 7 points from last 9 games... 7 points from last 8 games.... Pick the one you like the best.

Or 7 points from last 11 games.....

We need our wingers to cut in more between their CB´s in games like this. When Punch has the ball on the right side you would like to see Adam or JRod cutting in, running along the offsideline and cut in between and behind the CB´s. And the same thing with Punch when ball is on our left side.... Optimal one of our CM would cut into it the same way to give the options and with Gaston tracking a bit back to utulise space in front of the CB´s.

Yes, english is my third language so I have to congratulate you to being able to understand that one better than me, hats off to you Sir. I think producing more shots at goal than your opponents over a longer period of time will give you more success, and therefore you would be a better team. Not rocket science to me at least. There is normally not a very big difference of "shots per goal ratio" if you look at a longer period of time. Therefore it is simpel mathematics that the more shots you produce, the more likely you will get more goals. And more likely through getting more goals, you will get more wins. Dont you agree? And all your logics you build on the single games or season. You claim Reading had lower shot per game ratio last year and because of that my theory would be wrong. And now you take one example of Wigan.......you really want to build your theories on the odd occassions or should we build it on the bigger picture? Yet again, why do you think Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs are successful year after year.....because they produce more or fewer chances?

If one only could get what one wishes all the time.....hmm I think I want to win the lottery this weekend then.... I´m probably talking about a picture too big for you since I have to put myself on repeat all the time. In the long run, which teams win most games? The one that produces more chances than their opponents, or the ones that don´t?

Ok, we can compare last 6 games under Adkins to the first 6 games under MP. That would put it to 7 points compared to 5. Not that much difference either in my opinion......and for the record I believe Man U, Man C and Everton are tougher opponents than Chelsea and Arsenal that we had during the last 6 games with Adkins.