Ricky scoring goals again

[hogesar 9,671]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="hogesar"]And before anyone says something - that isn''t a dig. Having exiles who still support the club is a good thing in my book.

But maybe watching RvW on television isn''t as painful as being in the stands?

[/quote]They''ve probably got very big TV''s and we all know that if you watch on a big TV you get better insight to a game than those who are there, especially if you are in Norway.[/quote]

[:D][:D]

[Indy_Bones 441]

I deny anyone to say that you don''t see more of what actually happens in a game if there''s good media coverage of it, what you don''t get however is the atmosphere, the cameraderie, the ooh''s and aah''s, you don''t get to influence the game by joining in with (or starting) chants to boost the teams morale, and you don''t get the same chance to discuss what you have or haven''t seen with the people you went with, in the pub afterwards.From a satisfaction perspective, I don''t think you''ll ever beat actually attending the game and getting involved, but from a purely analytical side of things, you can''t beat watching the game on a big TV/projector/whatever, you simply see so much more of what''s going on (and without the hassle of trying to look round the people in front of you waving arms whatever [:)])

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]I deny anyone to say that you don''t see more of what actually happens in a game if there''s good media coverage of it, what you don''t get however is the atmosphere, the cameraderie, the ooh''s and aah''s, you don''t get to influence the game by joining in with (or starting) chants to boost the teams morale, and you don''t get the same chance to discuss what you have or haven''t seen with the people you went with, in the pub afterwards.From a satisfaction perspective, I don''t think you''ll ever beat actually attending the game and getting involved, but from a purely analytical side of things, you can''t beat watching the game on a big TV/projector/whatever, you simply see so much more of what''s going on (and without the hassle of trying to look round the people in front of you waving arms whatever [:)])[/quote]Disagree, I''m afraid.The camera follows the ball, you get a much better overall view of whats happening all over the pitch, if you''re there.

[Indy_Bones 441]

One of those situations where I''ll politely agree to disagree Morty [url=http://www.desismileys.com/][img]http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6666.gif[/img][/url]

[Mickdundee 0]

Depends on where you''re sitting

High up on the halfway line, yes you get a better view

Behind the goals you don''t, you get a far better perspective on the telly if your sat there

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Mickdundee"]Depends on where you''re sitting

High up on the halfway line, yes you get a better view

Behind the goals you don''t, you get a far better perspective on the telly if your sat there[/quote]

There was bloke once who was at an AGM, he told the then manager that he should sit high up in the stand so that he would get a better view of the game, anyone remember what the then managers reply was?

[Buh 0]

Watching it on telly is nowhere near going, sorry.

You can''t gains full perspective of a player untill you see him in the flesh. Simple as that.

[morty 0]

I bet I know someone who has an opinion on this.....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="morty"]So its not okay for people to hate on Ricky, but okay for you to hate on Snodgrass?[/quote]Ok, I''ll bite, becuase it is relevant to the argument about RVW. It''s not ok for anyone to hate on anyone.  I never said Snodgrass was awful or terrible, merely commenting on his attitude to the team and the way his play was often negative in it''s effect. Now a lot of people seem to think that is wrong, but I am entitled to say what I think about a player, without being told I am hating on him. The whole team was bad that season - RVW''s lack of service was a key feature and as far as Snodgrass goes, he was one reason why RVW didn''t get the service. Not the only reason, but a reason.............as I said in my past post.

[/quote]

I''m sorry but me saying RvW was awful, and you setting Snodgrass attitude was awful and he was a negative to the team - how is one worse than the other?

I''ll tell you how. It''s not.

[/quote]

Missed this one, but in terms in which even you might undertsand - You say RVW was an awful footballer.  I say Snodgrass could have done better. There is a huge difference.

[morty 0]

But thats not what you said about Snodgrass at all, is it?Does your head reset somehow, every night when you go to bed, and its a case of "Yeah I said that yesterday, so it doesn''t count now"?

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Lakey, your arrogant turn of phrase towards hogesar "even you might understand" is a bullying comment. So is it now acceptable that you can bully, but no one else can? Staggering hypocrisy

[westcoastcanary 0]

Buh wrote: "You can''t gains full perspective of a player untill you see him in the flesh. Simple as that"No, not as simple as that. It may be true that you need to see a player in the flesh over a period of time to gain a full perspective. But it certainly doesn''t follow that everyone who has that privilege gains a full perspective as a result. This board provides ample evidence of people clearly lacking perspective while at the same time boasting that they actually go to games!

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Lakey, your arrogant turn of phrase towards hogesar "even you might understand" is a bullying comment. So is it now acceptable that you can bully, but no one else can? Staggering hypocrisy[/quote]

You really have no idea what the word "bully" means. If you did you wouldn''t be so crass about using it.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Let''s be honest, you could have been watching from Pluto and realised RvW was completely sub standard. And there''s no blame to be had elsewhere, such as Snodgrass, because with our service Howson, Fer, Hoolahan, Snodgrass, Hooper and Elmander all scored more than him.

He''s just not good enough for a top league and was a shambles of a transfer for us.

[morty 0]

Staggering indeed.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]But thats not what you said about Snodgrass at all, is it?Does your head reset somehow, every night when you go to bed, and its a case of "Yeah I said that yesterday, so it doesn''t count now"?[/quote]

Show me where I said Snodgrass was an awful footballer.  You won''t find it.  Show me where I said his attitide could have been better, he could have used the ball better, that running into dead ends was not helping the team etc etc - you will find plenty.  He was not an awful footballer. Neither was RVW.

 

[morty 0]

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/3415277/ShowPost.aspx

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

RvW scored 1 in 26 for us. He created nothing, he offered nothing, he was weak, he had no pace, he played phantom passes and was generally just garbage. This is the definition of an awful footballer. Snodgrass is not an awful footballer. What this boils down to is you having an agenda against Snoddy and simply not wanting to admit you''re wrong about van Wolfswinkel - because face it, you blatantly are.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Has anyone mentioned Grefstad''s telly yet?In seriousness, though, I find that to be at the game and high up in the stands offers more than watching on TV. You catch things in your peripheral vision such as movement off the ball, body language etc., that you can''t see on TV where essentially the director is focused on the immediate action. You gain more from freedom of vision than you lose in distance from the action. Obviously post-match analysis by experts will offer insight that mere mortals such as myself don''t see, but I feel I have a better view of the game from my lofty perch in the River End. Maybe when I am no longer lucky enough to have 20/20 vision my views will change, but for now I am in no doubt.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/3415277/ShowPost.aspx[/quote]

Yes, that pretty much confirms what I said in my last post. Every post I wrote in that thread was constructive and never did I say he was an awful footballer.   Thanks for that. 

[morty 0]

Amazing[:D]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]RvW scored 1 in 26 for us. He created nothing, he offered nothing, he was weak, he had no pace, he played phantom passes and was generally just garbage. This is the definition of an awful footballer. Snodgrass is not an awful footballer. What this boils down to is you having an agenda against Snoddy and simply not wanting to admit you''re wrong about van Wolfswinkel - because face it, you blatantly are.[/quote]Exactly this[Y]

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"]Has anyone mentioned Grefstad''s telly yet?In seriousness, though, I find that to be at the game and high up in the stands offers more than watching on TV. You catch things in your peripheral vision such as movement off the ball, body language etc., that you can''t see on TV where essentially the director is focused on the immediate action. You gain more from freedom of vision than you lose in distance from the action. Obviously post-match analysis by experts will offer insight that mere mortals such as myself don''t see, but I feel I have a better view of the game from my lofty perch in the River End. Maybe when I am no longer lucky enough to have 20/20 vision my views will change, but for now I am in no doubt.[/quote]Rational discussion about football, anyone? [;)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]RvW scored 1 in 26 for us. He created nothing, he offered nothing, he was weak, he had no pace, he played phantom passes and was generally just garbage. This is the definition of an awful footballer. Snodgrass is not an awful footballer. What this boils down to is you having an agenda against Snoddy and simply not wanting to admit you''re wrong about van Wolfswinkel - because face it, you blatantly are.[/quote]Exactly this[Y][/quote]

What a load of baloney. RVW was not awful. Snodgrass was not awful either and I''ve never said he was. How many times do I have to say it??  Both had their weaknesses and issues and both struggled in a poor season for us.   Do try and understand chaps, it''s nothing to do with being right or wrong - it''s about having opinions and discussing them.

[morty 0]

Its about having informed opinions, based on, and backed up by solid facts.And admitting when you get it wrong.

[king canary 7,606]

Is RVW an awful footballer? Probably not.

Was he awful for us, factoring in everything? Yes.

Is it particualrly wrong for a Norwich supporter, who only watched him generally be pretty crap for us after we spent a record fee on him, to call him awful? Not really.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]Its about having informed opinions, based on, and backed up by solid facts.[/quote]I really wish it was Morty, but that''s not what I''m being told on here.Whenever I fetch relevant stats to back up my opinions I get comments stating that they''re "too linear" or "you can manipulate stats however you like" etc.Redmond''s accuracy from corners was a clear 20% better than Snoddy''s, there are almost no external factors on corner taking (unlike say a cross whereby defensive pressure, ball movement and a number of other factors come into play), yet even this is apparently meaningless, so what more do people actually want here, because at the minute it feels like it doesn''t matter what evidence or factual data can be provided, because if someone doesn''t personally agree with it, then it''s going to be dismissed or written off in some form or another.I can just imagine some of the team talks that must take place if that''s the case:AN: "Robbie, I''ve just been going over the pro-zone stats from the weekends game, and nearly 90% of your crosses went nowhere near any of the lads, what''s happening?"RB: "Nah Boss, you''ve got it all wrong, my crossing was great, anyone watching the game could tell you that"AN: "The stats don''t lie Robbie, your crossing was poor last game"RB: "That''s a load of squit gaffer, you ask any Hull fan what my crossing is like and they''ll tell you it''s spot on, besides those stats are too linear anyway"AN: "So you''re telling me that despite everything being video''ed and recorded clearly, and despite the evidence showing that 90% of your crosses went nowhere near any of the lads, that I''m still wrong, that I''m taking the data out of context and in fact you were really Man of the Match"RB: "Pretty much"AN: "Have fun in the U23 side..."

[king canary 7,606]

Stats are great Indy but they need context. I don''t reckon Alex Neil just looks at someones stats and says- you''re crossing was terrible. He''d look at the stats, watch the crosses in question and decide whether his crosses not finding the mark were down to terrible crossing or players not making runs, excellent defensive play or a lack of bodies in the box. Context is important.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="morty"]And admitting when you get it wrong.[/quote]Do you have to admit when your wrong just the once Morty, or do you have to keep admitting it over and over like us when we admit we''re right? [:)]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="morty"]Its about having informed opinions, based on, and backed up by solid facts.And admitting when you get it wrong.[/quote]

How about admitting you''re a person who can''t be crossed at all and reacts by doing or saying anything to discredit your target, even if it involves twisting things so as you aren''t being seen to lose face.