Irrelevant Nick KP

You really have to work on your comma use, mate. It's driving me crazy. Look, two independent clauses (that is, parts of a sentence that could grammatically stand on their own) cannot be joined by a comma. A comma is used to join a dependent clause to an independent clause if the def. comes first. For two independent clauses, you have to use conjunctions or a semicolon. Considering we already know that Pardew would win hands down, I don't see the point in working it out to the pound. OR I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound when we already know that Pardew would win hands down. OR I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound; we already know that Pardew would win hands down. The content of your posts is bad enough without having to look at those awful superfluous commas staring out at me like tiny wisdom teeth and tearing into my cerebral cortex. Sort it out.

I still don't see the point in working it out to the pound, when we already know that Pardew would win hands down.

Alex, we don't need to know, thank you.

ewerk then we'd have to work out exactly how much had been spent, but that info is hard to find. However, in this case, it is obvious that Pardew would win, because of one particular transfer, namely that of Carroll. But if you want exact figures, I repeat, very hard to find the necessary info.

Do you ever read Barbara Cartland?

Yes, that is indeed my conclusion, alex. But I can draw an 'indication' from it, and that indication is that both managers are quite even. Which I consider to be food for optimism. Since we all know that Hughton was doing an excellent job, that also means that Pardew appears to be doing an excellent job too. But remember, only indications, not conclusions.

I posted it because I think it plays a part in the discussion about who is better of Hughton or Pardew. At the moment it suggests that they are very even, nothing else. And notice, I say 'suggests' not proves. I am only after the truth. I hope Pardew is better, since he is the current manager, but in no way do I think this stat proves anything of the sort, and I never have.

Mark Twain was a wonderful writer, but he was wrong about statistics being lies (he was living at a different time, and was attacking people who use statistics to prove something not true). If we lose to WBA, Hughton will have won, and I will publish the stat then too. But no matter what happens against WBA, it's far too close to call between Hughton and Pardew, and only an idiot would believe anything was proved by that stat. And what's more, only an idiot would believe that my publishing this stat automatically means I think it proves something.

: The statistic is not a lie. But if you say it shows that Pardew is better than Hughton, then THAT would be a lie. But I haven't said that at all.

sammy no, if you relaxed more, and were a bit more patient, you'd see that I present my conclusion after each statistic, and my conclusion last time was that it was 'very close'. Can you not see that? There is no way that anyone could say Pardew was probably better than Hughton based on that stat. The only thing that is indicated by that stat is that the 2 managers are fairly even, but even that is only an indication and not proved at all. I'm publishing the stat, because I believe it's fairly interesting, and I believe there are plenty of people who are intelligent enough to see that this stat doesn't prove enything, just suggests things. Now have a cup of tea, calm down and listen to some Enya.

But is this not a reflection also of when we played these teams and the fact 2nd time round they had the added pressure of being relegation fodder? So therefore it renders the whole argument useless. sammynb, who said it was an argument? It's certainly an observation, but if it's an argument, it has to be an argument for something. You're jumping to conclusions.

Hello, 'ello, 'ello, is Chrsitmas Tree in the mood for a verbal disupute?

Well, at least he's not Michael Owen.

I am not going to answer that question, but unlike politicians, I tell you directly that I'm not going to answer it.

Do you like making Chinese lanterns?

The idea of playing a match abroad can be debated. But even if you don't agree with that idea, its stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the stupidity of each team playing 3 times against one of the the other teams, while playing 2 against all the other teams. And this man runs football in England!!!

seconded What do you like Des O'Connor? :lol: :D

Do you like Anthony Hopkins? :D :lol:

Let's not forget Ranger. He came on and had an assist. I've been very critical of him, but fair play to the man.

Premier League matches 2010-2011 Hughton 1.19 points per match (16 league matches) Pardew 1.24 points per match (21 league matches) Very close. Pardew needs 1 point in the match against WBA, to seal victory in this little battle (for what it's worth, this stat)

The Premier League is run by a man who wants a 39th match (to be played abroad). This would involve an exciting lottery to see if we got an easy opponent, or a difficult opponent in the 39th match. Is it a total embarrassment for the very rich Premier League that its chief supports this idea?

zzzz

More proof that money doesn't buy happiness in football. You do know I was being sarcastic right? they were ecstatic. Well, it didn't take Chelsea fans many years to lose the happiness from winning domestic trophies, and the same will happen to City fans.

More proof that money doesn't buy happiness in football.

I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe next year. Up the Toon! Ewerk, Pulis did put on a suit, but got changed a minute before the match. On the radio this morning, he said that was his plan. He considers the pitchside to be work-area.