We will lose at Sunderland on Sunday

[Not Nigel 0]

I don''t think that believing that we will lose against Sunderland is necessarily negativity, although it is probably best kept to yourself because it can cause negativity in others and our players no doubt read this board.

It is perfectly possible to look at a game subjectively, through the eyes of a neutral betting man, and reach the conclusion that considering our horrible record against Sunderland away from home and our failure to score there since 1996, as well as our single away win in the league this season, and our almost complete inability to score goals at the minute.... predicting a Sunderland win would probably be the much safer ''bet'' than predicting a Norwich win.

On Betfair, a marketplace where the betters and layers decide the odds, Sunderland are 21/20 to win, 12/5 for the draw, 13/5 for the away win, which suggests that believing that we will lose is actually very much in line with the markets/publics expectations. Unless a huge number of overly-positive Sunderland fans have placed a lot of money on a Sunderland win.

If any Norwich fan is confident that we will win then perhaps they should put a fiver on that outcome and then come back to gloat when they turn that five pounds into eighteen pounds. I suspect that most will consider that bet too risky.

So I''m backing Row D Seat 7 and have attempted to explain why in terms that if anybody on here understands..... it will be the betting maestro.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

With one away win all season, 5 points from 10 games, 3 goals scored in 8 games, and a reputation for underperforming in front of the cameras, it doesn''t seem too controversial to predict a defeat on Sunday.  People seem to get confused between predicting something and wanting it to happen though.

 

I think we''ll get the points we need this season, but I don''t expect that to start at Sunderland. Would gladly take a 0-0 (especially as I won''t be there to watch it).

 

[Not Nigel 0]

What people get confused about is the difference between ''negativity'', ''optimism'', and ''realism''.

In this case I suspect that the OP is operating with a degree of realism, something that negative people will acknowledge but optimistic people will label as negativity.

That is because people who are constantly optimistic are petrified of realism, a little like highly religious people who are too scared to face up to the fact that after 70 to 85 years of life the vast majority of us will become fertilizer, just like horse manure.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Can you keep a secret Chewy .....

 

Chris Hughton''s record with us on Sky is P4 W1 D3 L0 F3 A2 and that includes two away games.

 

Mind you I don''t know what it means but then I never knew what it meant when posters said we always lost on Sky. I suppose negative posters hang on to the poor record and positive posters the good record.

 

A draw would be most acceptable thank you Chris Hughton.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Sorry, obviously for the realists I meant to add that it would be more realistic to consider this season''s record than any other...

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

Yes and we are 18th in the away league under Hughton with an away win percentage of 7.14%.

Only two teams have scored less goals than us away from home, and only two teams have conceded more goals than us away from home.

You can dress it up all you want, we are absolutely terrible away from home under Hughton.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

I said a reputation Nutty, I didn''t say it was accurate! The Man U and Arsenal home games were on ESPN as well, so actually pretty good on tv this season (results-wise at least).

 

Still stand by the other factors though.

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

There you go again. Misrepresenting what''s been said. I''m amazed you get away with it Singup. And the personal abuse you throw out with it.

 

Chewy mentioned our "reputation for underperforming in front of the cameras". Hughton''s full tv record is even better than I stated because it includes victories on ESPN against Man Utd and Arsenal. Best in the league? Arguably!

 

It was that statement I was replying to. Now do you have a view on Hughton''s record on tv games?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Fr. Chewy Louie"]

I said a reputation Nutty, I didn''t say it was accurate! The Man U and Arsenal home games were on ESPN as well, so actually pretty good on tv this season (results-wise at least).

 

Still stand by the other factors though.

 

[/quote]

 

Spot on buddy. There''s no rhyme nor reason for it but let''s hope it continues [Y]

 

 

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Just to argue for the sake of it though - those SKY games were WHU, Villa, Sunderland and QPR though, so all bottom half teams, and perhaps a disappointing hall from that specific set of fistures.

 

Obviosuly the ESPN games go the other way. Maybe we should be on ESPN more often.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Fr. Chewy Louie"]

Just to argue for the sake of it though - those SKY games were WHU, Villa, Sunderland and QPR though, so all bottom half teams, and perhaps a disappointing hall from that specific set of fistures.

 

Obviosuly the ESPN games go the other way. Maybe we should be on ESPN more often.

[/quote]

 

I would have thought those results on Sky were superb. The only disappointment could possibly be West Ham at home. Everybody expected us to lose at Villa and QPR and when we didn''t they suddenly expected us to win in hindsight.

 

What were your expectations for those games Chewy?

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

There have been some heavy Norwich defeats on ESPN too. Pretty certain my stream for Man Utd was from ESPN.

[Not Nigel 0]

Man Utd away that is.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Two home wins and a draw at QPR wouldn''t have been too unreasonable I reckon Nutty.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I don''t have a problem with anyone predicting us to lose at Sunderland. With our away record we are probably more likely to lose any away game than we are win it. That said this season we havn''t lost to many of the bottom half teams home or away and i am perhaps more confident about getting something on Sunday than i would be going to several other away grounds because Sunderland are in pretty woeful form themselves. Worse form than us. I am perhaps more optimistic about this one than say Wigan (a) because on their day Wigan can really raise their game whereas i am not sure Sunderland have the same capacity to do that.

That said with both teams lack of firepower this season then perhaps 0-0 is the most likely result from this one!

[Not Nigel 0]

"Hughton''s full tv record is even better than I stated because it includes victories on ESPN against Man Utd and Arsenal"

So why do you choose to include that particular American TV channel to add to your argument, but opt not to include Norwich games which have been screened on Fox and Fox Soccer, the other two American channels which share Barclays Premier League screening rights? The majority in fact. And if for some strange reason you would choose to ignore Fox but take into consideration ESPN games, then why would you claim that it makes the record "even better than I stated" when it clearly includes a 4-0 defeat that you chose to ignore and our 0-0 stalemate with the club at the bottom of the league.

Fulham 5--0 Norwich Fox Soccer Plus

Tottenham 1-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 2-5 Liverpool Fox Soccer Plus

Chelsea 4-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 1-0 Arsenal Fox Soccer Channel

Aston V 1-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 1-0 Man Utd Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 2-1 Sunderland Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 0-1 Chelsea Fox Soccer Plus

Norwich 3-4 Man City Fox Soccer Channel

Norwich 0-0 Newcastle Fox Soccer Channel

Liverpool 5-0 Liverpool Fox Soccer Channel

QPR 0-0 Norwich ESPN2

Man Utd 4-0 Man Utd ESPN2

If we play fairly and acknowledge the full spectrum of American channels with expensive Premier League rights, and add the other Sky games which were not broadcast in America, then we just need to add:

Norwich 0-0 West Ham.

That gives us a record, after making things fair by acknowledging the existence of Fox Sports, a record of:

P15 W3 D5 L7

It''s funny how people can be selective with their data to present a case which furthers their own agenda, unfortunately it does show one to seriously lack integrity. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this instance of course Nigel and just assume that you are the eternal optimist and scared of realism. For that purpose I''m happy to play along and acknowledge the existence of ESPN, pretend that Fox doesn''t exist, and conveniently chalk off that 4-0 defeat at Old Trafford which I watched with my own eyes on an ESPN stream (naughty eyes!). I wouldn''t want to subscribe to reality if it means you getting your briefs wet.

Of course, every Norwich league game is broadcast SOMEWHERE in the world, so if you add ESPN, and I add Fox to make that argument fair, then we should add all countries, in which case our record looks like this:

P29 W7 D12 L10

Which puts us in a very comfortable 13th position with 33 points. Happy now?

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Because those two games were on ESPN in the UK.

[Not Nigel 0]

Well I''ve lost that one then haven''t I.

[Not Nigel 0]

It does pale into significance though, considering every one of our games is seen by hundreds of millions of people each week. Every game is a TV game.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]

It''s funny how people can be selective with their data to present a case which furthers their own agenda, [/quote]Speaking of being selective:I notice that during the run of 15 games you list as having been on ESPN we''ve played : Tottenham, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd.Either we really are playing 60% of our league games against the biggest six teams in the league in which case a return of  marginally under a point per game isn''t bad at all or the games selected for broadcast aren''t actually representative of our season as a whole. Over the year we play 12/38 or 31.5% of our games against the big six, seems to me that it''s the TV companies who are being selective and that if amything we are underperforming in the games that aren''t televised rather than those that are.

[Not Nigel 0]

Recently Zak Burger I actually calculated that Hughton''s performance against the biggest 7 teams in this league is far superior to Lambert''s.

Out of the current top 7, who we can take as: Man Utd, Man City, Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Everton....

Hughton already has 12 points, Lambert got 8 all last season against those 7 teams, Hughton can still get more as there are games left to play against the big boys.

But that is irrelevant, because we aren''t playing a big team tomorrow, and it would be well worth pointing out that only 2 of our 12 points against the ''big seven'' (which is effectively what the big four has become) have come away from home.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"Hughton''s full tv record is even better than I stated because it includes victories on ESPN against Man Utd and Arsenal" So why do you choose to include that particular American TV channel to add to your argument, but opt not to include Norwich games which have been screened on Fox and Fox Soccer, the other two American channels which share Barclays Premier League screening rights? The majority in fact. And if for some strange reason you would choose to ignore Fox but take into consideration ESPN games, then why would you claim that it makes the record "even better than I stated" when it clearly includes a 4-0 defeat that you chose to ignore and our 0-0 stalemate with the club at the bottom of the league. Fulham 5--0 Norwich Fox Soccer Plus Tottenham 1-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 2-5 Liverpool Fox Soccer Plus Chelsea 4-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 1-0 Arsenal Fox Soccer Channel Aston V 1-1 Norwich Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 1-0 Man Utd Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 2-1 Sunderland Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 0-1 Chelsea Fox Soccer Plus Norwich 3-4 Man City Fox Soccer Channel Norwich 0-0 Newcastle Fox Soccer Channel Liverpool 5-0 Liverpool Fox Soccer Channel QPR 0-0 Norwich ESPN2 Man Utd 4-0 Man Utd ESPN2 If we play fairly and acknowledge the full spectrum of American channels with expensive Premier League rights, and add the other Sky games which were not broadcast in America, then we just need to add: Norwich 0-0 West Ham. That gives us a record, after making things fair by acknowledging the existence of Fox Sports, a record of: P15 W3 D5 L7 It''s funny how people can be selective with their data to present a case which furthers their own agenda, unfortunately it does show one to seriously lack integrity. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this instance of course Nigel and just assume that you are the eternal optimist and scared of realism. For that purpose I''m happy to play along and acknowledge the existence of ESPN, pretend that Fox doesn''t exist, and conveniently chalk off that 4-0 defeat at Old Trafford which I watched with my own eyes on an ESPN stream (naughty eyes!). I wouldn''t want to subscribe to reality if it means you getting your briefs wet. Of course, every Norwich league game is broadcast SOMEWHERE in the world, so if you add ESPN, and I add Fox to make that argument fair, then we should add all countries, in which case our record looks like this: P29 W7 D12 L10 Which puts us in a very comfortable 13th position with 33 points. Happy now?[/quote]

 

I''m sure Chewy was referring to our gamers on tv that were broadcast in this country and could be recieved on our tv sets. Otherwise every game is on tv. But Chewy is the only one who can confirm this.

 

I''m also quite impressed that you managed such a long post without the usual personal insults. But then by now I should imagine you''re on final warning...

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

"But then by now I should imagine you''re on final warning"

Not unless you only get one warning, because I haven''t had any.

How many ''warnings'' have you had for starting threads which target individual users in the thread title and are not Norwich related? I suspect that running the popular PUPs thread and having the moderator on speed dial would provide you with sufficient leverage to be completely exempt from those. They do all get deleted though, did you notice that?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"But then by now I should imagine you''re on final warning" Not unless you only get one warning, because I haven''t had any. How many ''warnings'' have you had for starting threads which target individual users in the thread title and are not Norwich related? I suspect that running the popular PUPs thread and having the moderator on speed dial would provide you with sufficient leverage to be completely exempt from those. They do all get deleted though, did you notice that?[/quote]

 

What a strange individual you are. I have never rang the moderator. I have also never reported a post or poster. I treat people the same on here as I do in person. It''s extremely rude not to. So if somebody posts something I disagree with I tell them. Not in a rude way and certainly not with insults that you use. Would you walk up to me in the street and call me a pathetic idiot or is that just something you''re comfortable doing from your keyboard?

 

And what has the PUPs thread got to do with your nasty behaviour on here?

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

"What a strange individual you are"

The feeling is very much mutual.

"I have also never reported a post or poster"

I''ve reported one, it was yours, and it got deleted.

"I treat people the same on here as I do in person. It''s extremely rude not to"

Condescending in real life too then?

"Would you walk up to me in the street and call me a pathetic idiot"

Actually Nigel, if I knew what you looked like, and happened to meet you, I probably would.

"nasty behaviour on here?"

Nasty behaviour? Oh grow a pair. You can give it but you can''t take it. I called you an idiot, I''m sure you have been called much worse in the past.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"What a strange individual you are" The feeling is very much mutual. "I have also never reported a post or poster" I''ve reported one, it was yours, and it got deleted. "I treat people the same on here as I do in person. It''s extremely rude not to" Condescending in real life too then? "Would you walk up to me in the street and call me a pathetic idiot" Actually Nigel, if I knew what you looked like, and happened to meet you, I probably would. "nasty behaviour on here?" Nasty behaviour? Oh grow a pair. You can give it but you can''t take it. I called you an idiot, I''m sure you have been called much worse in the past.[/quote]

 

Then surely the issue is what I''ve called you in the past.

 

I don''t remember it unless the past goes back further than yoiur join date, You''ll have to jog my memory...

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

Well you started a thread addressed to me this morning, calling me out for no other reason than to have a very public conflict, and that was the reason that I called you a "pathetic idiot".

You may feel that this wasn''t justified, I feel that it was justified. And that''s where our difference of opinion emerges, one which we can either both accept gracefully and agree to disagree, or one that you can choose to continue to make an issue out of.

[Bill 1,788]

slightly off topic (or not, perhaps)

 

can I ask you singup, do you have a girlfriend at all ?

 

our maybe a life outside of this forum ?

 

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]Well you started a thread addressed to me this morning, calling me out for no other reason than to have a very public conflict, and that was the reason that I called you a "pathetic idiot". You may feel that this wasn''t justified, I feel that it was justified. And that''s where our difference of opinion emerges, one which we can either both accept gracefully and agree to disagree, or one that you can choose to continue to make an issue out of.[/quote]

 

Or you could apologise publicly for insulting me publicly. That''s before we get into you misrepresenting my posts and then making out I am constantly in telephone contact with the forum moderator. But you already have form for making stuff up...

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

Apologise to you? I''d rather shove pins in my eyes and dunk my testicles in boiling water.