Minority Report v Stoke City

First of all, I was referring to this thread. That is where you made your quote and I did not think that you would be going back several weeks in order to find something to hold against me.

Secondly, why do you find the sections that you have highlighted condescending or delivered with an air of superiority. They were written about the BBS generally and not about you in particular. Why do you think that I had you in mind when I wrote that piece. I was trying to explain the reasoning behind Minority Report, and I have done so again in this thread. The logic behind Minority Report is that if you eliminate emotion from your thinking, you remove any bias that your emotion contains, and your are more likely to arrive at a reasoned explanation. Personally, I see nothing condescending or superior about this.

 

There is nothing there that I have not repeated again in this thread.

 

How long have you got?

Stoke had the majority of play for starters.

Our style of play upsets you.

You suggest we are a long ball team.

No mention of one of the goals of the season.

Or our managers intelligent use of substitutes and rotation.

Shall i go on?

 

Well I am shocked that you can't see it. It must just be me then. Oh wait a minute, no it isn't just me is it? What does your analytical superiority draw from that evidence?

Doesn't make a difference whether you have in this report or not- you still do it and I didn't have to go back far to find examples of it. You aren't suddenly a changed man! You don't need to make snide observations about fellow posters to make your point.

 

If you are going to call me arrogant in a current thread on the basis of something that I said many months/years ago, then there is no hope that you will ever forget past unintentional slights, and no hope that we can ever be on good terms.

 

You won't even acknowledge what you've said in past posts, so why would we not think that?

 

I did not look at the statistics before I wrote that Stoke had the majority of play, but it seemed to me that they had. When I did look, Stoke had 51%, so without wishing to split hairs, I was correct.

I do not like our style of play, but that is my opinion, and I have a right to that opinion.

VI calls us a long ball team, but he does not use that phrase.

Minority Report is a discussion about tactics. Styles goal was very good, but it was not tactical.

I have referred to Ismael's use of substitutes in the past. I do not need to do it in every report.

I see nothing in your list that could cause the deep offence that you so clearly feel. Are you sure you are as offended as you make out?

 

So will you continue to read Minority Report, even though you are clearly doing so only to tell me how much you dislike it?

 

This is a community on here, if you feel the need to make arrogant comments about how your fellow posters are effectively nodding dogs watching football and can't possibly be clever enough to see the game like you (a totally unnecessary point to make by the way when you're reporting on a football match), Titus Magee might decide to call you out on it, just as Titus Magee calls out anything else Titus Magee feels is out of order. That is how a community works, both on here and in real life.

 

Bang on. I posted last week that our opponents play as well as we let them, and I can expand that to,,, they get as tired as we make them!

 

Offended?

Are you telling me i am offended on behalf of RedRain?

 

Sorry, but you've just given me a fit of giggles. I think you should only refer to yourself in the 3rd person, for ever more from this point!

 

Titus Magee will take it into consideration.

 

Funny, but inaccurate. I do not refer to Red Rain in the 3rd person, I refer to Minority Report. Minority Report is what I write when I am writing match reports. I never use Minority Report to refer to anything else other than match reports, so when I say Minority Report, everyone knows that what I am about to say relates to a match report.

Anyway, you have had your fun. This is my final posting on this thread.

 

JackTatty agrees.

 

Interesting thread this!

I didn't have much to add and so have read but not commented, however I can't help but respond to this comment RR - apologies. Some time ago you posted a number of times explaining your view of why the owners buy young, develop and sell for a profit strategy was the only realistic option for Barnsley FC. As I recall they were posted during the first half of last season when we were struggling so badly. I apologise that I can't remember the common title that ran through them.

Quite a few people, including me, challenged you and proposed that there was a middle ground i.e. that adding 2/3 more experienced players at the expense of 4/5 youngsters would improve performances/ results and accelerate the development of said youngsters at equivalent cost. At the time you challenged hard and steadfastly refused to accept that middle ground was realistic. Given that, the irony of your 'middle ground' comment here is amusing - at least it is to me.

 

Comparing us with how Wimbledon in particular and Stoke is unfair imo. We are nowhere near as direct as they were. I believe their strategy was to get the ball forward asap (which we do) and launch balls into the box for the likes of John Fashanu to challenge for (which we don't anywhere near as much). I think we mix it up in the final third far more than they did.

 

I would guess that promotion to the Premier league is the aim for our owners to then swiftly sell BFC for a significant profit that's why selling Pinnock Moore Brown was part of the longer term growth strategy we see now rather than to line thier pockets.

 

Or let’s be genuinely objective and discuss whether 51% of possession is the same thing as ‘the majority of play’.
I’ve a mate who’s a Man City fan, he’s a retired ‘analyst’, we had a chat during one of our recent televised games and as a genuinely impartial viewer, he was impressed how totally dominated* Norwich, and was particularly impressed with Styles.

*29% possession - and an impartial observer described us as ‘dominating the game’. And yet you ‘a fan’ can watch us easily beat a team 2-0; with a style of football where ‘without the ball’ has become a byword, and you see that whilst we had 50% of possession and 4x as many shots on target, Stoke had the majority of play.

BBC Shows 50:50 possession for the game currently.

 

You've definitely spoke down to and been condescending to me in the past claiming that you know more about football than me, that you see the game in a more intelligent way to me and that I'm essentially a clueless idiot who just likes watching pretty football with no idea what's going on.