So Doyle isn't in a poor run of form... He's just $hite. Now I understand.
Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2011, at 11:45 AM, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au> wrote: > I'm intrigued by player form having been proven to not exist. I felt I've had > some periods of form over the years (OK, once) and have seen what I assumed > to be this in other players, both professional and ones I've played with. > When a player has a particularly fruitful period that is above his normal > recognised levels, what is this put down to? In my case it could probably be > linked to drinking less beer in the main but there have been other times > where I don't think I've done anything differently, but have felt I've hit a > bit of 'form'. > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of paul > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:38 AM > To: Nsw Wolves > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I would contend that you have no idea what your talking about! > We have all played football at various levels and know how it should be > played. Wolves are not playing or trying to play good football, end of. MM > out! > Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra > From: Steven Millward <millward....@gmail.com> > Sender: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:31:42 +1100 > To: <nswolves@googlegroups.com> > ReplyTo: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > I have to confess I get frustrated by the apparent lack of logic that's > applied to football support. There are many people on here have excellent > analytical abilities and yet it gets unused in the face of what seems more > like superstition and knee jerk emotion. Rog for example applies a great > deal of analysis to backing horses. Marcus works in insurance, where > actuaries are the backbone of the business and are some of the highest paid > statisticians in any profession. > > I took it upon myself to analyse wages versus position last season and found > a correlation stronger than I have ever found in 15 years of analysing > business problems and relationships. I then found that someone more skilled > than me had already done it, which is why I'm going to read his book. > > The example you give below seems to fall in the superstition camp. We all > form qualitative assessments of managers and how good they are. I would > contend that none of us know what we are talking about when it comes to > assessing managers, and in any case they have little impact on league > position. > > You also mention "form". Player form has been proven not to exist, in > football and any other game. Another superstition based on humans being > pattern seeking and never seeking to rigourously justify it. > > I guess this is how most superstitions start. > > > > > On 19 December 2011 11:10, LEESE Matthew <matthew.le...@rms.nsw.gov.au> wrote: > > The conspiracy theorist in me thought my 'ban' was down to my movement away > from the pro-Mick camp but then realised if that were the case the list would > have 2 active posters. Gave it some more (reasoned) thought and worked out it > was probably down to the fact our email addresses have just been changed at > work and so I was likely not recognised by the server. Shame, I'd fired off a > couple of super witty responses to comments last week that never got through. > > Mark Hughes eh? Interesting one. I had an interesting converstaion with > Elliot on Saturday (really, I did!) about how I wouldn't mind Bolton's poor > form continuing and getting Owen Coyle at Molineux. I had no answer to his > very sound argument that it is pretty ridiculous to be saying 'Not happy with > our current manager, would like to swap him for the one that's currently got > his team bottom of the league'. Despite my extra sobriety now compared to > Saturday, I still don't have an answer, but I do quite like him and > particularly the style of football he gets his teams playing. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Paul Hart > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 11:00 AM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: [NSWolves] Welcome Back Matthew > > > Why were you bannned Matthew ? > Did you dare to ask for the head of MM > > Has anybody else heard the rumour > That Mark Hughes was at the Stoke > game ??? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > Before printing, please consider the environment > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to > be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain > legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or > lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) > is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or > attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you receive this e-mail > in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the > sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are > not the intended recipient. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > > Before printing, please consider the environment > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to > be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain > legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or > lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) > is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or > attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you receive this e-mail > in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the > sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are > not the intended recipient. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
