A nervous couple of months ahead

[BallRoyal]

I just hope Cardiff and Swansea have prolonged stays in the F.A. Cup, either more replays etc. Doesn't necessarily mean that they would struggle more in the CCC. But give them a couple of games, injuries etc.I still maintain that its not Wolves we should worry about, but these two teams. But it is essential we kick off with 3 points aginst the City on Saturday.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Cardiff have got an extremley busy schedule between now and the end of the season. Starting this Sunday (22/02) they play weekend and midweek every week with the exception of:

Tuesday 24th March through to Sat 4th April (this is a designated international break)
Midweek of the final week of the season.

Come 5pm on Saturday they are going to have 5 games in hand on Preston and 4 on Brum and Sheff Utd. They haven't got the biggest of squads so I fully expect them to run out of steam (although hopefully not before this Sunday's game).

[Great Knolly]

The last team, in a division involving Reading, who had the best goal difference in the division and didn't get promoted automatically, were Brentford in 2001-2002. 3.Brentford +34 / 2.Reading +27 / 1. Brighton +24 .

( Man Utd had the best GD and won the Division in both Reading's prem seasons. )

[loyalroyal4life]

more exciting than nervous IMO

[Snowball]

Snowball on another thread, responding to Schards - 'I ignore cup games'.

Nope (I wish you would learn to read)


I ignore OUR cup games

I ignore READING cup games

I ignore OUR, READING games because we play weakened sides




I have never said, anywhere on these boards, that I would take into consideration
or would not take into consideration, cup games by other clubs



I realise you and Ian are a bit simple, but TRY to understand the difference

[Snowball]

And if Steve Coppell changed his attitude and started seriously going for the cups
then I WOULD take those results into consideration


OK, children?

[Snowball]

oh look there go the goalposts moving at the speed of sound.

you're a first class idiot if you can't see the difference between playing

6/7 bottom clubs and 2/12 bottom clubs


Oh, but...

[CMRoyal]

Snowball on another thread, responding to Schards - 'I ignore cup games'.

Nope (I wish you would learn to read)


I ignore OUR cup games

I ignore READING cup games

I ignore OUR, READING games because we play weakened sides




I have never said, anywhere on these boards, that I would take into consideration
or would not take into consideration, cup games by other clubs

Do you take into consideration cup games by other clubs when they play us in the cup? Or cup games by other clubs when they play weakened teams? In fact, how do you define 'weakened'?

[cmonurz]

Really?

Burnley v Swansea - League
De Vries ,Rangel ,Williams ,Tate ,Monk ,Britton ,Gomez (Pintado ,87 ) ,Pratley ,Gower ,Scotland ,Allen (Dyer ,64)

Histon v Swansea - FA Cup
De Vries ,Serran ,Monk ,Williams ,Tate ,Orlandi (MacDonald ,76 ) ,Tudur-Jones (O'Leary ,56 ) ,Britton ,Butler (Dyer ,64 ) ,Pintado ,Bauza

I make that six changes to the starting line-up.

[Snowball]

Do you take into consideration cup games by other clubs when they play us in the cup? Or cup games by other clubs when they play weakened teams? In fact, how do you define 'weakened'?

No. Because i don't take into consideration OUR CUP GAMES.

It's that simple.

[Snowball]

Really?

Burnley v Swansea - League
De Vries ,Rangel ,Williams ,Tate ,Monk ,Britton ,Gomez (Pintado ,87 ) ,Pratley ,Gower ,Scotland ,Allen (Dyer ,64)

Histon v Swansea - FA Cup
De Vries ,Serran ,Monk ,Williams ,Tate ,Orlandi (MacDonald ,76 ) ,Tudur-Jones (O'Leary ,56 ) ,Britton ,Butler (Dyer ,64 ) ,Pintado ,Bauza

I make that six changes to the starting line-up.

But I don't dispute that. I don't care if they play the first 11 or the third team
because I am not that interested in them. Sometimes if they are playing in a good run
I'll just lump all score/results together because it's a pain separating them out, sometimes
I'll ignore the cup, sometimes i'll list the league followed by the cup

BUT IN THE CASE OF READING FC
(because Reading don't give a toss about cups and I know that)
I IGNORE READING CUP GAMES.



You are falling into a classic philosophical/logical error. Me saying I don't consider Reading games
because they don't play their first eleven or take the games seriously enough does NOT
logically imply I should do the same for other sides

[Snowball]

Really?

Burnley v Swansea - League
De Vries ,Rangel ,Williams ,Tate ,Monk ,Britton ,Gomez (Pintado ,87 ) ,Pratley ,Gower ,Scotland ,Allen (Dyer ,64)

Histon v Swansea - FA Cup
De Vries ,Serran ,Monk ,Williams ,Tate ,Orlandi (MacDonald ,76 ) ,Tudur-Jones (O'Leary ,56 ) ,Britton ,Butler (Dyer ,64 ) ,Pintado ,Bauza

I make that six changes to the starting line-up.

You are LAUGHABLE. You picked Swansea playing against a NON-LEAGUE side to prove some point?

[Ian Royal]

So your analysis is based on one rule for us and another for other teams? Great job there.

We've also put in pretty darn competitive performances in most of our cup games over the last 4 years, sometimes against teams of higher quality, so I think the whole argument is flawed from the very start.

[cmonurz]

Snowball, really, take a step back from your stats and look at your arguments for a second. You have made quite an impassioned argument as to why you include cup games in some stats (for example Swansea's unbeaten run), and not in others (any games involving Reading). A reason you gave for this was weakened sides fielded by Reading in cup games.

All I have done is show that you are quite happy to include games played with weakened sides when it involves other teams (in my example, Swansea), and when it helps your point of view, and not when it doesn't.

Non-league or otherwise, the Histon cup tie, which Swansea narrowly won 2-1, was played with a weakened side, and yet you have determined is a relevant stat.

[CMRoyal]

You are falling into a classic philosophical/logical error. Me saying I don't consider Reading games
because they don't play their first eleven or take the games seriously enough does NOT
logically imply I should do the same for other sides

Logically, you need to define 'weakened' and test Reading and the other teams against that definition before deciding whether to include the result. Either that or dismiss ALL Cup games.

Everything else is just philosophical/logical hogwash.

[rg6royal]

Bring it on!

[bcubed]

At first I appreciated Snowball, now he bores the h*ll out of me. Sorry man.

I have to scroll down through all these numbers...

me too

[hughsies no.1]

At first I appreciated Snowball, now he bores the h*ll out of me. Sorry man.

I have to scroll down through all these numbers...

me too

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Please stop!

[Snowball]

Snowball, really, take a step back from your stats and look at your arguments for a second. You have made quite an impassioned argument as to why you include cup games in some stats (for example Swansea's unbeaten run), and not in others (any games involving Reading). A reason you gave for this was weakened sides fielded by Reading in cup games.

All I have done is show that you are quite happy to include games played with weakened sides when it involves other teams (in my example, Swansea), and when it helps your point of view, and not when it doesn't.

Non-league or otherwise, the Histon cup tie, which Swansea narrowly won 2-1, was played with a weakened side, and yet you have determined is a relevant stat.

I just took a quick glance at Swansea's last two games, one cup, one league

de Vries; de Vries
Monk (C), Monk (C),
Tate; Tate
Britton, Britton,
Allen, Allen
Gomez, Gomez
Gower, Gower
Dyer, Dyer
Scotland. Scotland.

Rangel, Serran
Williams, Mark,


Oh LOOK, basically the same side. Spo why did you need to go back to a game versus a non-league outfit to make your point?

I do not KNOW what the policies are of other clubs BUT I KNOW READING'S

So I've been totally consistent in always ignoring Reading's

And I believe if a club is on a run it is perfectly valid to include all games if you wish to

OR

to look only at league games


All I have done is show that you are quite happy to include games played with weakened sides when it involves other teams (in my example, Swansea), and when it helps your point of view, and not when it doesn't. Non-league or otherwise, the Histon cup tie, which Swansea narrowly won 2-1, was played with a weakened side, and yet you have determined is a relevant stat.

Interesting that you failed to notice I separated the cup games from the league...

[Snowball]

So your analysis is based on one rule for us and another for other teams? Great job there. We've also put in pretty darn competitive performances in most of our cup games over the last 4 years, sometimes against teams of higher quality, so I think the whole argument is flawed from the very start.

It's not a flawed argument, it's a straightforward decision

I choose to ignore all our cup games and will continue to do so