sandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?
I genuinely muted it and put some music on instead while I was watching the game. Can't stand him on commentary.
by genome » 07 Jan 2020 09:50
sandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?
by stealthpapes » 07 Jan 2020 13:19
URZZZZsandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?
Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too
by URZZZZ » 08 Jan 2020 00:36
stealthpapesURZZZZsandman Danny Murphy is a happy wee soul isn't he?
Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too
genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?
by Franchise FC » 08 Jan 2020 06:59
URZZZZstealthpapesURZZZZ
Think we can conclude Murphy was a big fan of Xhaka too
genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?
For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press
Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal
by sandman » 08 Jan 2020 08:00
Franchise FCURZZZZstealthpapes
genuinely thought that was Lawro. Christ, did Xhaka piss on his flower pots?
For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press
Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal
For an awful moment then I thought you were talking about Lawro
by Franchise FC » 08 Jan 2020 10:09
sandmanFranchise FCURZZZZ
For some reason, a lot of pundits, football fans around the world etc give him bad press
Personally don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. He’s not amazing for sure but he’s still a decent enough option for Arsenal
For an awful moment then I thought you were talking about Lawro
He was talking about Lawro. Much better option than Luiz or Mustafi.
by stealthpapes » 08 Jan 2020 16:47
by Franchise FC » 09 Jan 2020 16:13
by John Smith » 09 Jan 2020 16:38
by URZZZZ » 09 Jan 2020 16:40
Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.
Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.
The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.
Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.
by BR0B0T » 09 Jan 2020 21:44
Franchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.
Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.
The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.
Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.
by Silver Fox » 10 Jan 2020 09:18
John Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.
Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.
by John Smith » 10 Jan 2020 09:39
Silver FoxJohn Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.
Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.
This might be the stupidest most back to front opinion I've ever seen
by Franchise FC » 10 Jan 2020 10:38
John SmithSilver FoxJohn Smith Martin Tyler simply has to go. Quite a few others saying it on Twitter now so I can't be the only one. His style now oozes arrogance: he refuses to get excited as if he knows the goal is coming and it's a formality.
Best: Ian Darke - makes the BT subscription almost value for money.
This might be the stupidest most back to front opinion I've ever seen
Fair enough. Please provide your counter opinion then.
by sandman » 10 Jan 2020 11:24
by From Despair To Where? » 10 Jan 2020 17:09
URZZZZFranchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.
Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.
The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.
Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.
I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree
When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't
I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.
by 6ft Kerplunk » 13 Jan 2020 11:58
From Despair To Where?URZZZZFranchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.
Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.
The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.
Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.
I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree
When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't
I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.
I'm just amazed anyone takes Savage seriously.
by Stranded » 13 Jan 2020 12:21
URZZZZFranchise FC Always thought Robbie Savage was OK (a bit controversial for the sake of it at times), but he's dropped a few points today with his comments about marks given to players for performances.
Apparently, Phil Jones was given an average score of just under 3 for his performance against City the other night. Savage is arguing that no player should ever be given a mark under 5. If that's right, then don't bother marking out of 10, just do it out of 6 because the first 4 obviously don't count. His rationale is that Phil Jones has worked hard, played for his country and, and, and …
My view is 'so what' - if the performance was that bad then 2 or 3 is perfectly acceptable as a mark given.
The problem is that it does seem to be fairly widespread that 4 or 5 represents a bad performance, 6 or 7 average and 8, 9 & 10 good or better. Strikes me as counter-intuitive as 5 should probably represent average.
Come on Robbie, don't let us down now.
I sort of see where he's coming from but don't necessarily agree
When rating players, people are often subjected to biases depending on the players they like/dislike so sometimes it can be a bit of a pointless exercise. People scoring below 4 should be a rare occurrence but in the real world it isn't
I'd put 5 as slightly below average, 6 as slightly above average and work from there.
by Zammo » 14 Jul 2020 14:23
by South Coast Royal » 14 Jul 2020 15:47
Zammo Clive Tyldesley been given the ITV elbow as main commentator and he aint happy about it.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/clive-tyldesley-video-replaced-itv-18593689
Matterface to replace.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests