Guest Col city fan Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 I have conveniently forgotten? What a ridiculous comment. We were discussing the so called "17 match unwinning run" completely made up by another poster, nothing else. It wasn't 17 games, it was nothing like 17 games. End of bloody story. Read what people are actually saying rather than projecting what your preconceptions onto them. Ah well I'm glad you've pointed out the other what, 9 wins and 11 draws don't really count because they weren't consecutive enough. Oh and it was 7 games unbeaten (6 wins and a draw). 6 games unbeaten (5 wins and a draw). There was also a 4 games unbeaten (2 draws, 2 wins). And a one loss in 7 at the end of the season. How many games was it without a win? I had 17 in my mind for some reason? Anyway, however many games, the very poor run was a problem and hopefully won't be repeated. 17 or 7... Whatever it was still poor. You're kinda clutching at straws a little here.
Babylon Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 How many games was it without a win? I had 17 in my mind for some reason? Anyway, however many games, the very poor run was a problem and hopefully won't be repeated. 17 or 7... Whatever it was still poor. You're kinda clutching at straws a little here. it was 9 games I think off the top of my head. Col, could you please explain how exactly correcting a mistake is clutching at straws? Nobody is always right, I make plenty mistakes. The statement was incorrect, I corrected it and that's the end of it. I'm not "conveniently forgetting" the other losses, or "clutching at straws" or denying a poor run or anything else you want to throw at me for correcting you. I wish people would take things for what they are, rather than trying to find some hidden meaning.
hackneyfox Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Nice to see your time off from the site has mellowed you out.
Corky Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 How many games was it without a win? I had 17 in my mind for some reason? Anyway, however many games, the very poor run was a problem and hopefully won't be repeated. 17 or 7... Whatever it was still poor. You're kinda clutching at straws a little here. It was nowhere near 17, we'd have ended up in the bottom half with that record. Right, here's a link. We won the 33rd match against Blackburn, and then the 43rd v Bolton. So nine games without a win (which was unacceptable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Leicester_City_F.C._season#Football_League_Championship
Babylon Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Nice to see your time off from the site has mellowed you out. Arrrrgh well of course, I should have known it was all my fault. I shall make sure I ignore all factually incorrect statements in future.
hackneyfox Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 You pull up someone who mentions a 17 match run but never pull up all of those who have claimed that we did well for two thirds of last season. You have a habit, imo, of ignoring posts that are factually incorrect but in the main agree with your opinion.
Kitchandro Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 You pull up someone who mentions a 17 match run but never pull up all of those who have claimed that we did well for two thirds of last season. You have a habit, imo, of ignoring posts that are factually incorrect but in the main agree with your opinion. Why would he pull up something that's completely true? The season is about 9 months, we were in the top 2 until the last 3 when we went on an awful run. If we didn't do well for two thirds of the season how is it that we finished in the top 3rd, in fact the top quarter of the league? WTF are you even arguing with? 9 is not 17 is it? Or is it? Maybe I'm just not the best with numbers but I'm pretty sure 9 and 17 are completely different.
Guest Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 You pull up someone who mentions a 17 match run but never pull up all of those who have claimed that we did well for two thirds of last season. You have a habit, imo, of ignoring posts that are factually incorrect but in the main agree with your opinion. Because us doing well for 2/3 of the season is true (give or take the proportion is probably slightly better than that) and going on a 17 match losing streak isn't true perhaps?
hackneyfox Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 I didn't mention 9 or 17 as being correct, I pointed out that many on here seem to have ignored the fact that our season spluttered somewhat last season. We had a few poor runs, not just the one, overall I'd view it as an average season rescued by a couple of good runs.
Guest Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 I didn't mention 9 or 17 as being correct, I pointed out that many on here seem to have ignored the fact that our season spluttered somewhat last season. We had a few poor runs, not just the one, overall I'd view it as an average season rescued by a couple of good runs. But your argument was about Babylon pulling up people who were stating things that were incorrect as just that, and not doing the same to people who stated things that were true when why would he or anyone? Whichever way we look at it we were sat pretty near the top before that poor run of form so it's hardly unreasonable to suggest that it was only really that run that did us damage. Which means the rest of the season was pretty good at least in order to get us near the top
Guest Col city fan Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Let's have it right. Last season we started great, then went on a terrible run of form. The number of games without a win doesn't really matter now does it? Let's just accept we had that terrible run. It was a Jekyll and Hyde season, some of it playing lovely football, some of it embarrassingly bad. Therefore, we criticised, we worried, we moaned. Completely acceptable given that winning just a few of the games over the last third of the season would have probably seen us promoted. People wondered why, it was inexplicable how such a strong side had become pretty shite so quickly. That's how I saw it... Actually it WASN'T a good season ultimately. It could have been so much better. When I say 'clutching at straws' this is what I mean. Some people will argue that black is white if it means they can somehow get away from what is really being meant. Given our first half of the season, City should have been promoted. We weren't. Let's hope we don't stutter again this season and actually get out of this division. Ten years is long enough.
sphericalfox Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Let's have it right. Last season we started great, then went on a terrible run of form. The number of games without a win doesn't really matter now does it? Let's just accept we had that terrible run. It was a Jekyll and Hyde season, some of it playing lovely football, some of it embarrassingly bad. Therefore, we criticised, we worried, we moaned. Completely acceptable given that winning just a few of the games over the last third of the season would have probably seen us promoted. People wondered why, it was inexplicable how such a strong side had become pretty shite so quickly. That's how I saw it... Actually it WASN'T a good season ultimately. It could have been so much better. When I say 'clutching at straws' this is what I mean. Some people will argue that black is white if it means they can somehow get away from what is really being meant. Given our first half of the season, City should have been promoted. We weren't. Let's hope we don't stutter again this season and actually get out of this division. Ten years is long enough.
Dan Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 We should've gone up last year. Seeing utter shit like Palace in the Premier is astonishing really, it was a great chance. Interesting point here by the way - we'll hit November with our longest winless run all season being one game. That's pretty remarkable. 'Average season' last season lol. Average is harsh but he's not wrong when he says it could've been better.
Babylon Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 You pull up someone who mentions a 17 match run but never pull up all of those who have claimed that we did well for two thirds of last season. You have a habit, imo, of ignoring posts that are factually incorrect but in the main agree with your opinion. Jesus christ, you are on a different planet. Someone saying we did well is completely subjective, my "did well" is most probably completely different to your "did well". For instance, my did well would be us being in the top three games after two thirds of the season (30 games). Clearly yours isn't. What isn't subjective is facts, you know. Like we didn't win in 17 games last year.
Guest Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Let's have it right Eh up, Col's been taking notes from the Baby Squad thread
Babylon Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Let's have it right. Last season we started great, then went on a terrible run of form. The number of games without a win doesn't really matter now does it? Let's just accept we had that terrible run. It was a Jekyll and Hyde season, some of it playing lovely football, some of it embarrassingly bad. Therefore, we criticised, we worried, we moaned. Completely acceptable given that winning just a few of the games over the last third of the season would have probably seen us promoted. People wondered why, it was inexplicable how such a strong side had become pretty shite so quickly. That's how I saw it... Actually it WASN'T a good season ultimately. It could have been so much better. When I say 'clutching at straws' this is what I mean. Some people will argue that black is white if it means they can somehow get away from what is really being meant. Given our first half of the season, City should have been promoted. We weren't. Let's hope we don't stutter again this season and actually get out of this division. Ten years is long enough. Absolutely hillarious. I wasn't arguing anything other than you being wildly incorrect in your statement about it being 17 games. No the number of games without a win doesn't really matter. But if YOU are going to bring it up, and YOU get it wrong. When someone correct you, perhaps you should just have the good grace to say "oh sorry I thought it was longer than that, I stand corrected". Rather than going off on a tangent about something that clearly wasn't even being argued in any shape or form.
StanSP Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Average is harsh but he's not wrong when he says it could've been better. Clearly. But to call it average is very harsh.
Monsell1976 Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Let's have it right. Last season we started great, then went on a terrible run of form. The number of games without a win doesn't really matter now does it? Let's just accept we had that terrible run. It was a Jekyll and Hyde season, some of it playing lovely football, some of it embarrassingly bad. Therefore, we criticised, we worried, we moaned. Completely acceptable given that winning just a few of the games over the last third of the season would have probably seen us promoted. People wondered why, it was inexplicable how such a strong side had become pretty shite so quickly. That's how I saw it... Actually it WASN'T a good season ultimately. It could have been so much better. When I say 'clutching at straws' this is what I mean. Some people will argue that black is white if it means they can somehow get away from what is really being meant. Given our first half of the season, City should have been promoted. We weren't. Let's hope we don't stutter again this season and actually get out of this division. Ten years is long enough. Spot on assessment of last season col, as bluetint said yesterday there is a lot of emotion put in to posts, I agreed, as there is a lot, and people think their opinions are right, which we do.Your assessment for me is spot on, but a lot disagree, even though the facts are there. I just think it's flogging a dead horse, because those who supported the manager will not accept the fact last season was a failure in most peoples eyes. This is what annoys me with these type of threads, just ends up dragging up old repetative arguments, no one will give any ground, as everyone thinks they are right,and the same defence comes up, and the same counter argument. In a time when we have have had the best start in years, we should all hope we don't **** it up again, and draw a line in the sand and leave last season in the past, but that is going to be hard when people keep starting threads that are going to provoke old arguments.
Guest Col city fan Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Absolutely hillarious. I wasn't arguing anything other than you being wildly incorrect in your statement about it being 17 games. No the number of games without a win doesn't really matter. But if YOU are going to bring it up, and YOU get it wrong. When someone correct you, perhaps you should just have the good grace to say "oh sorry I thought it was longer than that, I stand corrected". Rather than going off on a tangent about something that clearly wasn't even being argued in any shape or form. Sorry, I forgot, yet again that you're always right. Silly me. Spot on assessment of last season col, as bluetint said yesterday there is a lot of emotion put in to posts, I agreed, as there is a lot, and people think their opinions are right, which we do. Your assessment for me is spot on, but a lot disagree, even though the facts are there. I just think it's flogging a dead horse, because those who supported the manager will not accept the fact last season was a failure in most peoples eyes. This is what annoys me with these type of threads, just ends up dragging up old repetative arguments, no one will give any ground, as everyone thinks they are right,and the same defence comes up, and the same counter argument. In a time when we have have had the best start in years, we should all hope we don't **** it up again, and draw a line in the sand and leave last season in the past, but that is going to be hard when people keep starting threads that are going to provoke old arguments.
Babylon Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 Sorry, I forgot, yet again that you're always right. Silly me. No I'm not always right, but clearly I was here. It wasn't 17 games!!!!!!!!!! I don't know how to spell it out in English any simpler. That's all i was doing, correcting a mistake. I've made plenty, there is no need to get all defensive and to try and flip this into something it really is not. Your summing up is perfectly reasonable, I'm not arguing against any of that!!!!
StanSP Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 I like how we won 1 match in our 17 match unwinning run.
Bluetintedspecs Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 I feel pistols at dawn is the way to settle this dispute Or maybe an emotionally charged rant could sort it out? If not Pringle Jumpers at dawn and get "pwoppa nawty"
Guest Posted 31 October 2013 Posted 31 October 2013 All Quiet on the West Stand front ? Same as usual then
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.