Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - boinging_along

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 249
1
Likewise though I hear that we are a well run club and spend within our means, but then the same people will insist that we can't possibly afford an extra £5m because we'll go to the wall.  Seems we're always on the brink of doing a Bolton yet we are also a well run club.

What I'd like is a bit more clarity from the club. Eg, When the summer transfer window shuts and we've inevitably missed out on targets we get told that the money was there for purchasing players.  January transfer window opens, the money is no longer available.  When we sell MP, will that money be available for transfers? What would the budget be with/without the sale?

We also have no clarity on where the decisions lie for transfers anyway.  When we've gone into seasons with obvious holes in the squad it would be nice to know who is responsible, did the board refuse to sanction purchases, did the manager turn them down, did we buy others when the manager didn't want them?  This can cause frustration for the fans as you've no idea if the manager has his hands tied by the club or if he has a blind spot in the squad.

It is an investment for the owners though.  Nobody is saying we should pump 10's of millions, but for example, it was clear we were short a couple of players (at least) last summer.  I've no problem if we had a long term plan and the board explained that.  Might have meant a rubbish season but knowing it's allocated for means it's one the fans could have got behind but they didn't do that.

They genuinely believed we should have stayed up last season and gambled on Allardyce.  Offered him a 7 figure sum, paid God knows what on wages to him, had to pay Bilic off, then managed to find money down the back of the sofa in January.  If that money was available why not use it in the summer and give us the best chance.  Or if the squad wasn't good enough, concede that it'll be tough and plan for it.

Instead we get this middle ground of mismanagement.  We didn't spend enough in summer, but Lai still expected Premiership football. That's why he's getting accusations of being cheap.  You don't call someone who doesn't have a lot of money, but manages it well, cheap, but someone who refuses to spend the going rate on something but still expects a top quality product will get called it.  Lai wanted a Premiership squad but expected to spend Championship money.

I'd argue it's not that we always do everything on the cheap - it's that we seem to do things badly.

2
General Football & Sports / Re: EURO 2020
« on: June 20, 2021, 10:06:00 PM »
Do you not think the players we picked against Scotland should have been good enough to beat Scotland we only managed one shot on target ?

Yeah, but I think the tactics set us up so the first thing we looked to was to not lose.  And, to be fair, it never felt like we were going to lose - they had 1 decent effort that the keeper saved comfortable and the only other risk was a set piece or corner.  It's not like we couldn't get out of our half or anything.

The issue we had was slow build up play letting Scotland get back and get organised.  It's simlar to under Allardyce, if you play 5 at the back and your wing backs don't get forward, you've got a 5 man defence.  Throw in 2 defensive minded midfielders - we're suddenly asking 4 attackers to take on all of the Scottish defence.  And when those 4 attackers include a not fully fit Kane, plus Sterling who couldn't trap a bag of cement, you're going to struggle.

We had enough options to change it - we could have gone 4 at the back, we could swapped out Phillips for Grealish instead of taking Foden off, Sterling should never have come out for the second half yet lasted the entire game, Sancho should have made an appearance, as should Bellingham.

So yeah, on paper, man for man, you'd say we had the better side - we didn't have the better manager though and we played into Scotland's hands.  Tactically, if there's one thing Scotland would have wanted England to do it would be for us to be slow moving the ball and that's exactly what we did. 

Personally, I think when looking at the other group, it wouldn't surprise me if Southgate is happy with a draw and for us to finish second. 

3
General Football & Sports / Re: EURO 2020
« on: June 20, 2021, 08:56:31 PM »
Cowardly tactics are weighing us down.

Southgate was a defender in teams where for big games it's about keeping the goals conceded to a minimum.  His best achievement was taking Boro down.  He couldn't be more unsuited as player, or as a manager to this crop.

Playing against Scotland, at Wembley, and we set up with no attacking intent.  How Sterling stayed on the pitch I don't know, leet alone Sancho not coming on at all.

4
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: New Manager Thread
« on: June 09, 2021, 11:35:51 AM »
I dont think you will be seeing anyone in our strip putting a pass anywhere near Periera next season unfortunately, he wont be here!

With our team's standard of passing, and the chance we might face him in a cup, there's always a chance.

5
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 08, 2021, 02:25:51 PM »
if you scroll through a couple posts back I’ve included the information on a study on non medical interventions, an actual one not a “fact check” website. Before ridiculing it or me I suggest you read my post which has plenty peer reviewed references

Instead of using air quotes around fact check, can you point out where you think the studies mentioned, and the quotes from the people involved are wrong please?

6
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Matheus Pereira
« on: June 07, 2021, 02:05:32 PM »
Would be mad to sell him for £15m unless he's kicking an absolute stink up to leave.  Even at £15m he's a bargain.  If someone had said we could sign someone as good as he is for £15m this summer we'd snap their hand off.

7
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: New Manager Thread
« on: June 04, 2021, 09:40:29 PM »
Maybe we were in for Wilder but a better option has shown interest and that's why there's a delay and movement?

8
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 02, 2021, 11:04:24 AM »
Covid is obviously very nasty if you are past your natural expectancy and have a serious illness to boot but then thats old age. We all die. On average thats 80. Covid takes you at 82 with an existing serious health issue on average.

I just don't get this view.  It's clearly not exclusively reserved for those at that age.  Like I said earlier, I know someone who was put into an induced coma, in his 30's, because of covid.  If the hospital had other patients taking up the beds he would have died.  It's not just the death rate, it's those who need hospital treatment to survive - if you don't lockdown then there's more strain on the services, that means fewer people get the treatment they need, that means more and more people die.  That's without taking into consideration the effects of long covid, the mental health damage that would be done to people losing loved ones in an entirely preventable manner.   Unlike those that have died, the economy will recover, there's more damage being done to the economy by our leaders under the B word than is being done due to covid.

And really - who are we to say "sorry, you're 80+, just tough that you're going to die from this disease - I want to go to the pub"?  So many people have died and have direct experience of a loved one dying, it seems massively insensitive to be just like "well, they're old, it happens".  I'm just not ok with sacrificing our elderly to this disease and if the price I have to pay is wearing a mask and not going on holiday for a year or two - I'm perfectly fine with that.  We haven't destroyed life - we've had a few limitations put on us.  Amazing how many people hark back to the "Blitz Spirit", yet when it comes to wearing a mask or not playing football it's something impossible to do.  Those same people would be flicking their lights on during the Blitz "they 'ay going to tell me what to do"  :D

(There's some interesting articles on why government spending is not like having a household bank account, that's a trick that successive governments want you to believe.  When you can print your own money - like we do - then it's nothing like that at all.  I'll try and dig them out.)

9
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 02, 2021, 09:52:26 AM »

Very hard to make direct comparisons between different countries. That's why i looked at the USA and even that wouldnt be a perfect comparison. Every state is like it's own country obviously so it's as close as you can get and like i say lockdown didn't alter anything but empty the economy of those who have locked down. Life goes on as normal now for the non-lockdown states but those states that were locked down as now in the proverbial. Same amount of deaths but now they aint got a pot to **** in and years of hardship to come.

Only 7 states did not issue stay at home orders for the public.  And out of those 7 only 1 didn't get business to shut.  And all 7 shut schools.  So that's literally 1 state out of all america that didn't lockdown - and even then that one did shut schools.  The state that was closest to 'no lockdown' was South Dakota.  They still declared a state of emergency, limited indoor gatherings to 10, and notified high risk citizens to stay at home.

And if you look at how those states have done, despite being low population density states, they've done pretty bad.  South Dakota is 9th in the list of deaths - there's only 4 more states with lower population density than South Dakota, yet still ranks in the top 10 for deaths per 100,000.  Here's an article questioning South Dakota's approach...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/08/kristi-noem-hails-south-dakota-coronavirus-success-story-using-badly-cherry-picked-numbers/

I'm not sure where you're getting the pot to **** in data from and how you're comparing that to the states that you think didn't lockdown? 

It's still a bit odd though that you're having to dig into a few states in America to find a "no lockdown" success story.  What about all the countries that did lockdown? 

10
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 02, 2021, 09:32:55 AM »
I'll tell you one thing we can say about Sweden and their approach. Their infection rate per million is higher than that of the UK.

Extrapolate their infection rate across the UK demographics of age, population density, ethnicity, multi generational households, enduring health conditions etc. and I think it's fair to assume our infection and death rates would be far higher than they have been.

What scares me is that there may be people out there who may think we should have followed the Swedish approach despite the glaringly different demographical makeup of both countries.

Half my company is Swedish so I talk to Swedes every day (3 guys over there have had covid and one is currently off sick with it).  It's much easier to compare to Denamrk, Finland, Norway, etc as their demographics are a lot closer and it's clear it's done worse.  There's a lot of complaints over their handling of it, especially in regards to care homes.

There's also been a lot of misinformation about what the Swedes have done.  A guy I play football with is a massive anti-vaxx\anti-lockdown nutcase - to the point where he's disowned his own, elderly, parents for having the jab (he literally ran down the street after their car calling his mom an 'evil bitch' for choosing to have the vaccine).  He kept banging on and on about Sweden and how they've done nothing and they're perfectly fine.  Completely ignoring the fact that they have taken steps to lockdown and their rates are a lot higher than their neighbours.  Their lockdown has been milder than ours is the only thing but if they'd have gone tougher then they'd have had rates more similar to their Scandi neighbours.

I mean, nobody wants to lockdown - I see people talk like those of us who are in favour of it are somehow enjoying it or think it's a great thing to do, or that it's a magic bullet to fix covid that has no negative side effects.   We would much rather not have to lockdown but it's a case of it being the only option available to us that wouldn't result in thousands upon thousands of extra deaths.  Yes, it's tragic that people have lost jobs, that people have committed suicide and everybody wishes we could have avoided that - there simply wasn't an option that didn't have negative effects and lockdown was the one with the least.

11
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 01, 2021, 09:49:54 PM »

Why does data show there is little difference between areas that have locked down and similar areas that havent? Most deaths are from poor policy and yes the governments calls at the time do make me angry about how they acted, it was negligent at best. Better policies would have caused far less deaths and individual responsibility was needed from the vulnerable. Instead we just got a blanket lockdown because everyone was inept.

What data, can you link to it please?  I've seen graph after graph of from different countries and they all show the same pattern.  Lockdown.... 2ish weeks later... cases drop.  And in some case, lockdown eases.... cases go back up.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are countries where they've introduced a lockdown but people have ignored it - like how do you 'lockdown' a country as big as India?  But in general, it's worked exactly as you think it would.

https://fullfact.org/health/can-we-believe-lockdown-sceptics/

I agree with you about the policies being wrong, although I think we should have acted sooner and harder if we wanted to save the maximum number of lives - but lockdown was needed for a couple of reasons.  1) The government had left it so late we needed drastic action and 2) the public was happy to ignore when it was just advice.  Remember the "don't go to the pub unless you have to"?  Well, people went to the pub, still met up, had parties, etc - so we had to lockdown to stop this from happening. 

That was the difference in Sweden, they were better at following the advice - but when you look at their response now compared to scandi neighbours who did lockdown, it's resulted in way more deaths and it's come under massive fire in Sweden.  Remember, it's not just the UK, this has affected pretty much every country in someway and the majority have gone with the lockdown as it was the only way to prevent the spread while we got a vaccine out.  There's loads the government should have done better - even recently, we should have stopped flights coming in from India - and now we're seeing a rise in cases because we didn't.  Lockdown wasn't a mistake for me, it was not doing it sooner, and coming out of them too earlier.

Again, it's not just the saving the lives of people who get infected with Covid who would die from it, it was making sure there was beds and ventilators available to those who needed them who would recover from it - those who otherwise would have died.  A work colleague in his mid 30's got it, not underlying issues, not overweight - he ended up in an induced coma for 3 weeks. (He said it was like a movie, he went to sleep and woke up and 3 weeks later had passed like it was 2 minutes  :D).  Even now his fitness isn't back to where it was before he got it.

12
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 01, 2021, 09:36:24 PM »
No... I agree with you... hard work this.

That remains to be seen. As Gazberg says the modelling has proven to be wildly inaccurate. The point remains however, it would have to be Ebola levels of virulence and death to begin to justify the response.

What do you mean "it remains to be seen"?  In what way?  Are you saying lockdowns haven't prevented the spread of covid?  Are you saying the vaccine could have been produced quicker?  Are you saying the disease would have just vanished?  Every country that has implemented a lockdown has seen a reduction in cases, and then deaths, in 2+ weeks of the lockdown being initiated.  How hard the lockdown is has had an effect on how much of a reduction, that's why countries that locked down harder and earlier have seen lower death rates.

Gazberg's point about the modelling is missing the point of why the models exist and what their purposes are. 

In fact, to make this clearer, can you point me to the models that you think have been massively incorrect and therefore valid for criticism?


13
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 01, 2021, 09:33:10 PM »
Edit - Tuamigos -Every MODEL the pro-lockdown scientists have used has been way off. Maybe we should have used the models and advice from the anti-lockdown scientists?

If the government didn't send the elderly back to care homes with COVID the figures would be a lot lower.

The whole point of the models was to estimate what would happen if we did nothing - but we didn't do "nothing", we actually did something.  It's like saying to a child "if you don't brush your teeth you'll have severe decay by the time you're older".  Then the child brushing his teeth and going "what was he on about?  His prediction was wrong lol".

It's absolutely beyond any scientific doubt that lockdowns have kept the death toll down.  To disagree with that is basically flat earth madness stuff.  Lockdowns were needed to prevent the spread of covid, to prevent covid deaths, and to prevent hospitals being full of covid patients and even more people dying because they couldn't get hospital treatment. 


14
Coronavirus Thread / Re: Coronavirus
« on: June 01, 2021, 09:28:03 PM »
There are 7.8 BILLION people on this rock and life has been suspended for all of them for over a year because 3 million have died? 55 million people die every year...

The response to this illness has been neither measured nor reasonable in any sense.

As for the point being discussed now regards delaying reopening for possible variants, it's embarrassing seeing these scientists front and centre in the national media predicting doomsday with less accuracy than Nostradamus.

On anti vaxxers I agree wholeheartedly. 👍🏻

You do realise that more would have died if the world didn't take those precautions?  Wait, of course you do, nobody could miss the point by that much.

15
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Hal Robson-Kanu
« on: May 28, 2021, 03:41:23 PM »
I don't even think it was that good a goal. Its one those punts that could go anywhere, top corner or into Row Z. He always tried his best for us, but deep down he must realise he was lucky to get a shot at the Prem League.

I think it was his goal for Wales that he lived off. 

16
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Our squad
« on: May 27, 2021, 03:30:55 PM »
Was 3rd choice for most of the last Championship season. Not sure if it's short memories or just that he's a likeable player.

I'm with you regarding Townsend, if you watch him when we're being attacked he's just all over the place positionally and it has loads of knock on effects for the rest of the defence and midfield.

Annoyingly though, he is most likely to be first choice next season.

17
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: New Manager Thread
« on: May 27, 2021, 02:14:20 PM »
If I were a Sheff Utd fan, I'd see it as a change for the better. The problem remains, how do you get a set of players taught to play one way (in this case dour 5-3-2) to completly change. Still, its probably better than watching the other way around.

True, and we tried to do that mid-season when we stuck Sam in charge.

18
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Luke Dowling
« on: May 27, 2021, 09:51:10 AM »
I would also ask the folk who voted for the 'ok given what he has to work with' option what they think of the fact he blew almost our entire transfer budget on two players who couldn't get a game.

More a damning indictment of the manager for me.  Diangana should definitely have been given more of a run out.  He criminally underused Robinson, and Grant's hardly been given a chance.

19
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: New Manager Thread
« on: May 27, 2021, 09:48:05 AM »
Yeah, not sure what the alternative is.  Bring in a manager who will want to stay here forever no matter who comes knocking?

20
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Matheus Pereira
« on: May 26, 2021, 09:36:40 AM »
His goal scoring record is also in a poor side struggling and hardly getting any possession of the football.

21
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: New Manager Thread
« on: May 25, 2021, 04:42:35 PM »
It's more like "mutual consent". Fans unhappy with style of play, ignoring youth players. Chairman saying they want someone to match their long term vision. He's been sacked.

Sounds like Sam when he left West Ham and Everton...

22
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Luke Dowling
« on: May 25, 2021, 10:45:17 AM »
My worry is that we get the cash for SJ and MP in but it's not really added to a war chest, just that the same amount will be available and the money will just be absorbed.  Obviously it would never happen, but would be nice for the club to say "we have a £15m budget plus whatever we get on player sales".

23
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Sam Allardyce
« on: May 25, 2021, 10:43:20 AM »
Yeah, definitely think the bottom 3 teams giving points away like toffees has helped.  Then if you look at the top all but Liverpool have bettered their points total from last year but Liverpool are 30+ pts worse off so that's helped a lot.

24
West Bromwich Albion FC / Re: Kieran Gibbs
« on: May 24, 2021, 07:10:37 PM »
I'd have still picked him ahead of Townsend.

25
West Bromwich Albion FC / Stats for the season
« on: May 24, 2021, 06:54:07 PM »
Found this website that has some interesting stats for the season for all teams...

https://fbref.com/en/comps/9/Premier-League-Stats

Pierera in the top 6 of players doing the most nutmegs.  8)

The passing makes brutal reading though.  Second last pass completion rate.  Attempted fewest short passes, fewest medium passes, surprisingly only near the bottom for fewest long passes.  Bottom for passes along the ground, for low passes, but second top for attempting high passes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 249