Weaponized Cum posted:

I love Sarri but his favouritism needs to end asap.

I have been highly critical of Jorginho all season and it is because he has been diabolical in all the big games and whereas in other games this cost the team 2pts somewhat fortuitously. He simply cannot play through a press, doesn’t offer anything forward and cannot protect a defence. At least Cesc is one of the best players in recent decades when it comes to the final ball.

Kante, without doubt, can do what Jorginho does in the DM role and offer much more defensively. I’d even say, Kante is significantly technically better in terms of dribbling and can actually carry the ball plus you can incorporate Barkley & Kovacic, too. It’s pretty clear if you want a proper regista you play Cesc there and if you want protection you play Kante in the big games.

Likewise, it is inconceivable that Luiz plays as CB with merely Jorginho in front of him against the better sides. We all know what Luiz is like as a defender, playing him in a back four which includes Alonso and with Jorginho as DM is asking for trouble. Azpilicueta – one of the best 1 v 1 defenders - as right-back has been poor on every front, too. Only Rudiger looks comfortable in a back four.

Willian and Morata are not even worth discussing; they are simply not good enough and have shown so multiple times.

This season is an important learning curve for Sarri and Chelsea, the positions that need bolstering and addressing will be clear as the season progresses. Good football, top 4 and any trophy remains the target – which all things considered is still on track.

Bundy posted:

Why are US football fans so loving goony?

trem_two posted:

https://twitter.com/VICEUK/status/1088101831606259712

sassassin posted:

Saw an advert today looking for writers for a football league blog. The only requirement was that you churn out 5 articles a day, every day. The content, its length or its quality didn't really matter.

It's all about headlines, clicks and ads.

trem_two posted:

Just seem Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain’s celebrations

19 minutes played this season; 0 in the Champions League

A real top player would be throwing that medal away and vow to work hard and earn one

Strawman posted:

RideTheSpiral posted:

gay people?

Blue Star Error posted:

For me, at the start of the season all teams start equal with no points....so in that sense, the possibility that we could win the league is the same as all the other clubs so at this stage it ought to be 20-1. As the season progresses, depending on results the odds will change up or down.

Leicester won it against well defined odds and we won the league last season totally against the odds........so in both cases the "odds" were totally wrong.

I strongly feel that in football people get sucked into a mentality that is affected by what people call odds, probablilities, what the stats predict etc etc etc.....whereas in reality football is often very unpredictable.

The odds of winning the league are whatever you want them to be. I just looked up the odds online to see what we were quoted at and I laughed when I saw 2000-1. The last time I laughed at odds was when I saw us 250-1 against to beat Man Utd at CR in 2004.....we won 2-0.

XBenedict posted:

https://twitter.com/Tweetgood_Mac/status/1151591209917472773?s=20

julian assflange posted:

They blocked me for a while because I kept telling them to stop posting so much low quality stuff.

Brony Car posted:

Speaking of Liverpool, there's a new When I'm Liverpool out:

https://streamable.com/p1k3b

I think some of it's kind of clever, but I can see why other fans would think this kind of stuff is unbearably stupid.

HJB posted:

The title isn't centred, definitely right thread

Brendan Rodgers posted:

You don't need to convince me of this sort of stuff, I am on board regarding the value of xG. I also know that's a good indicator of future performances. It's one of the reasons why I think the reaction to Astana was hysterical on the caf and why I continue to keep faith in Ole. He's doing okay despite the squad that he has. So far we have outperformed each opponent in every single game this season, if I'm not mistaken. That's a good sign and I sincerely hope he gets backed in January. The last two games were very bad though, hopefully that doesn't continue.

With that being said I responded to the notion that regression to the means has to happen over the course of one season. Which is just not true. Bad finishing over the entire season is very much so a possibility.

Shrapnig posted:

Please. I'm retarded, not autistic.

Bobby Digital posted:

Brendan Rodgers posted:

vyelkin posted:

Andy Serkis

jesus WEP posted:

new thread title imo

Gigi Galli posted:

who wants to be part of advanced stats gang

sebzilla posted:

Paulo Wanchope Memorial


'member when TRP was The Bruce Arena? I 'member

Total Meatlove posted:

If you can prove it’s integral to the role but lol this wouldn’t be.

quote:

What happened on Saturday was very predictable.

Concede first, moan, fume, Silva out. We've not won a game from behind under him and our away record is terrible.

Equalise straight away, oh actually this might be alright. First set piece goal of the season too (in the Prem).

Miss a few sitters, make some subs that are very loving questionable, 'why the fucks he brining DCL on???'. DCL scores, get in there! Maybe I was wrong about Silva, maybe we'll finally win a game from behind!

VAR. gently caress sake. Maybe Pickford will save it? Nah. Take a draw then. 6 minutes added time? Where the gently caress did that come from? Last minute own goal, Everton that.

And on the non football side, it isn't much better.

As promised I walked round to my cousin's house earlier this morning to ask her out. Now I don't want to use the words 'lead on' but they might apply here. I was under the impression we had a connection, we get on well, have a similar sense of humour, and we shagged a few weeks prior. In my mind, the next step would be a form of exclusivity. Turns out we aren't on the same wavelength. And I'll be honest it was pretty loving awkward lads.

TL;DR she told her sister about us (no one else in the family knows) and now it's loving spread around like Spanish influenza.

Big Huski Boi posted:

I'm calling you a bootlicker because you are taking the side of a dipshit venture capitalist who bought a company he didn't understand and tried to ban its most profitable work and then drove away all its employees. Side with labor.

It'd be like being an Ed Woodward fan.

quote:

Less people are dying constructing in Qatar than if they worked in their homecountry. An utilitaristic view would say it's actually morally right, saving thousands of lives by giving Qatar the world cup.

Would Qatar be able to construct as much as they do with safer work environment? No the cost would be higher. Depending on the numbers of how much less the constructions would be, Qatar (and FIFA) might end up saving more lives than they take by importing workers from countries with far more dangerous work environment.

quote:

Please answer my examples as it let's me know how you view what is morally wrong/right.

When Qatar imports 500 000 workers, 250 people dies a year.

If those workers would have stayed in India 1000 people would die.

quote:

Giving Qatar the world cup has saved more lives than if FIFA gave it to a country like the US.

quote:

Is it morally wrong to buy a new car when people are dying in africa to due to lack of money for good health care? Maybe you say no. What about if there's a child in your neighbourhood who starves and asks for food so he doesn't die, it's morally wrong not giving him food right? But only because the child is close to you in geographical terms? There's many children and adults dying from hunger/poor health care. Why isn't it morally wrong not personally helping them economically if you have extra money after food and providing health care for yourself?

A more relevant example is to ask if it is morally wrong killing a person if it saves 2 others? What if it saves 100 people? 10 000?

quote:

Your argument is that FIFA shouldn't have given Qatar the world cup because workers die. However more people would be dead if Qatar didn't host the world cup. What does your conclusion that Qatar getting world cup = bad stand on? When more people would be dead if Qatar didnt host it?
isn't it good that more people are saved by giving Qatar the world cup?