spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 2:42 pm
Or simply holds a differing view to you.
They are also able to hold a debate without abuse or insults because someone sees things differently to you
Tell me how many home games or away games each team plays over a season?
It matters not if in first half of season you play an extra home game, it evens itself out over the season so you play same number of games home and away.
So if you played all your home games first and your last 23 games of the season were all away you don't think this would make any difference to performance? Why do the fixture people bother about trying to balance out fixtures if it doesn't make any difference?
Cashflow
PS I was talking about one more game at home or away in half a season - not all 23 games
In 23 games it’s not possible to have an equal number of home and away games so if you are arguing about whether one game makes a difference you are arguing about nothing, because it’s always going to happen.
However balancing fixtures out is not just cashflow is it.
Order of games makes a difference. Ask any manager whether he would rather finish a season with two easy home games or two tough away games?
Why is getting the home leg second in a two leg tie seen as an advantage, and given as a reward for topping groups in Europe if the order of games isn’t seen as crucial.
It’s is an arguable point whether playing your tough games first is a disadvantage or not (I think so) but not balancing a fixture list can penalise some teams more than others.
So if you played all your home games first and your last 23 games of the season were all away you don't think this would make any difference to performance? Why do the fixture people bother about trying to balance out fixtures if it doesn't make any difference?
Cashflow
PS I was talking about one more game at home or away in half a season - not all 23 games
In 23 games it’s not possible to have an equal number of home and away games so if you are arguing about whether one game makes a difference you are arguing about nothing, because it’s always going to happen.
However balancing fixtures out is not just cashflow is it.
Order of games makes a difference. Ask any manager whether he would rather finish a season with two easy home games or two tough away games?
Why is getting the home leg second in a two leg tie seen as an advantage, and given as a reward for topping groups in Europe if the order of games isn’t seen as crucial.
It’s is an arguable point whether playing your tough games first is a disadvantage or not (I think so) but not balancing a fixture list can penalise some teams more than others.
PS I was talking about one more game at home or away in half a season - not all 23 games
In 23 games it’s not possible to have an equal number of home and away games so if you are arguing about whether one game makes a difference you are arguing about nothing, because it’s always going to happen.
However balancing fixtures out is not just cashflow is it.
Order of games makes a difference. Ask any manager whether he would rather finish a season with two easy home games or two tough away games?
Why is getting the home leg second in a two leg tie seen as an advantage, and given as a reward for topping groups in Europe if the order of games isn’t seen as crucial.
It’s is an arguable point whether playing your tough games first is a disadvantage or not (I think so) but not balancing a fixture list can penalise some teams more than others.
You have just proved my point
Your point seems to be that teams play 46 games a season, 23 home and 23 away. Congrats on figuring that out and letting us all know.
Was trying to have a bit more of nuanced conversation about whether the order fixtures are played can be ad- or disadvantageous but I guess i am wasting my time.
In 23 games it’s not possible to have an equal number of home and away games so if you are arguing about whether one game makes a difference you are arguing about nothing, because it’s always going to happen.
However balancing fixtures out is not just cashflow is it.
Order of games makes a difference. Ask any manager whether he would rather finish a season with two easy home games or two tough away games?
Why is getting the home leg second in a two leg tie seen as an advantage, and given as a reward for topping groups in Europe if the order of games isn’t seen as crucial.
It’s is an arguable point whether playing your tough games first is a disadvantage or not (I think so) but not balancing a fixture list can penalise some teams more than others.
You have just proved my point
Your point seems to be that teams play 46 games a season, 23 home and 23 away. Congrats on figuring that out and letting us all know.
Was trying to have a bit more of nuanced conversation about whether the order fixtures are played can be ad- or disadvantageous but I guess i am wasting my time.
You have more chance of having a nuanced conversation with a highly autistic pigeon than you will with this tedious pillock.
Your point seems to be that teams play 46 games a season, 23 home and 23 away. Congrats on figuring that out and letting us all know.
Was trying to have a bit more of nuanced conversation about whether the order fixtures are played can be ad- or disadvantageous but I guess i am wasting my time.
You have more chance of having a nuanced conversation with a highly autistic pigeon than you will with this tedious pillock.
Are you capable of either
1. Ignoring me like you claim to have done, but seem to post about me with the frequency of a stalket
Your point seems to be that teams play 46 games a season, 23 home and 23 away. Congrats on figuring that out and letting us all know.
Was trying to have a bit more of nuanced conversation about whether the order fixtures are played can be ad- or disadvantageous but I guess i am wasting my time.
You have more chance of having a nuanced conversation with a highly autistic pigeon than you will with this tedious pillock.
Are you capable of either
1. Ignoring me like you claim to have done, but seem to post about me with the frequency of a stalket
Are you capable of either
1. Ignoring me like you claim to have done, but seem to post about me with the frequency of a stalket
2. Making a post without abuse
What’s a stalket?
That ignore function is working well for you I note
When you reply to people directly they get a notification. When I click on that notification it takes me through to the message.
So I’m a “stalket” whose victim repeatedly makes direct contact with me. Almost as if I’m not a “stalket” at all.
Anyway, I’ve now learned that I can see if it’s you who the notification is about so I’ll make a note to ignore the inevitable response that you send to this.
Thanks for continuing to prove that you are indeed a tedious moron.
FrankOFile wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:29 pm
Why don’t some people use the ‘foe’ option and stick to it?
Because the “foe” option only really does half a job. It doesn’t actually block the person who you “foe”, so they can still see what you post and respond directly to it. And if they do reply directly to what you’ve posted with some inane nonsense you get a notification still. It’s not until you click on this that you realise it’s from some clown you want to ignore. By then it’s too late and you’ve seen the comment that posted.
It’s also useless when someone you’ve foed decides to trash a thread by being a pedantic bore. It becomes really hard to engage with the thread because all you see is a load of collapsed comments from the “foe” (which you still have the ability to open).
If there were a button which meant than I never have to read what Spen posts again and he loses the ability to reply directly to my comments with trite rubbish I’d happily click it.
FrankOFile wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:29 pm
Why don’t some people use the ‘foe’ option and stick to it?
Because the “foe” option only really does half a job. It doesn’t actually block the person who you “foe”, so they can still see what you post and respond directly to it. And if they do reply directly to what you’ve posted with some inane nonsense you get a notification still. It’s not until you click on this that you realise it’s from some clown you want to ignore. By then it’s too late and you’ve seen the comment that posted.
It’s also useless when someone you’ve foed decides to trash a thread by being a pedantic bore. It becomes really hard to engage with the thread because all you see is a load of collapsed comments from the “foe” (which you still have the ability to open).
If there were a button which meant than I never have to read what Spen posts again and he loses the ability to reply directly to my comments with trite rubbish I’d happily click it.
