What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Liverpool thread

jurgen

Busy ****
Jul 5, 2008
6,711
17,170
Oh dear what a sad little man.

He should have just come out and said 'my wife left me because my genitalia would embarrass a dormouse' rather than pumping the anger at his all his shortcomings into that load of shite. At least he'd be at peace with himself.
 

sly1

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2004
451
1,270
Wow if you thought the penalties in our game had been forgotten - some blokes written his life’s work to carry on crying. Even explains that in the first paragraph...

https://tomkinstimes.com/2018/03/big-free-read-are-refs-biased-against-foreign-players-a-look-at-how-to-win-a-penalty-in-the-pl/

This could have been interesting. Unfortunately, the person who wrote the article simply does not possess the necessary skills (or, I suspect, intelligence) to perform the analysis that he is attempting.

For example, take his initial claims regarding the percentage of penalties awarded to British players vs. foreign players.

"So, as I said, you’d expect 41.5% to be more-or-less the number of penalties conceded by British Isles players, within a small margin of error, seeing as they comprise 41.5% of the players used.
The result? 41%, or within half a percentage point of being spot-on. Freakily accurate, you’ll agree. That suggests the calculation is fair and unbiased. It could be a coincidence, but it meets with a logical conclusion, too.
So, the number of penalties awarded to British Isles players should also be c.41%, clearly? It’s the same maths, just at the other end of the pitch."

He doesn't appear to be aware that the method of analysis that he is trying to invent from scratch is, in fact, very well developed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing). Even if penalties are awarded perfectly fairly, the exact proportion of penalties awarded to British/foreign players will almost certainly not be identical to the exact proportion British/foreign players in the league. You cannot say whether or not something is wrong unless you calculate how likely the result is to happen if things were fair.

(As a very quick calculation, I reckon that if there were equal numbers of foreign players and British players, after 66 penalties, you would expect there to be about a 44%/56% split of penalties).

"So, from that admittedly brief list, British Isles players can be said to dive more frequently than foreign ones, given that they comprise four of the six players with multiple bookings for simulation, whilst the only players to receive three in the past three seasons are England/ex-England internationals."

So, he firstly argues that referees are unfairly awarding British players penalties due to their own bias, but then assumes that the referees are correct to book British players for diving. In other words, when referees agree with him, it is proof that he is right; when referees disagree with him, it is proof that they are wrong. It's classic conspiracy theorist logic.

I cannot be bothered to go through his whole post, but it is clear that he simply isn't capable of figuring out whether Liverpool have been fairly or unfairly treated. Even if he was completely fair an unbiased, he wouldn't be able to actually work it out.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,314
Sky said:
The former Liverpool and England defender will be suspended from his duties as a football pundit for the rest of the season. A review will take place prior to the beginning of next season to establish whether Carragher is fit to return.

A statement from Sky said: "Following an internal review, Sky has suspended Jamie Carragher for the remainder of the football season.


"Jamie has taken full responsibility for what has happened and we will ensure he gets the help he needs to guarantee something like this never happens again.

"Before the start of the next season we will sit down with Jamie to discuss whether he is ready to return to his role."
 

Gbspurs

Gatekeeper for debates, King of the plonkers
Jan 27, 2011
26,945
61,824
Sounds like he'll be back for the new season.

Utter madness, can't see how he should be able to keep his job.

You genuinely think a man should lose his job for spitting out of his car window in a non work environment?

The worlds gone mad.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,314
You genuinely think a man should lose his job for spitting out of his car window in a non work environment?

The worlds gone mad.
It seems to be the norm these days, everyone wants their pound of flesh... especially when its someone wealthy in the public eye.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2004
6,944
19,929
You genuinely think a man should lose his job for spitting out of his car window in a non work environment?

The worlds gone mad.
In his position yes, what sort of person goes around spitting on strangers (never mind the provocation or the fact he was in a car so could have closed his window and cranked up his radio)

Either shows massive anger management issues or a clear lack of respect for other people. He is a figure head of SkySports’ biggest brand and carries a lot of responsibility to act accordingly.
 

ardiles

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
13,228
40,308
You genuinely think a man should lose his job for spitting out of his car window in a non work environment?

The worlds gone mad.

When you work in a high profile job, earning much more that the average national wage, you are expected to behave better in public. Some people (including children) may look up at you as a role model and as such, this behaviour is unexceptable.

Losing his job at his current employers doesn’t mean that he will be jobless for the rest of his life.

It’s a lesson he has to learn and others to observe and learn from it to.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,721
I don't think he should be sacked.

Maybe a baying mob should batter him with celery stalks before covering him in tar and feathers, sitting him on a plank and carrying him through Liverpool city centre while people throw Cadbury creme eggs at him. After that he should be taken to the nearest ducking stool, (conveniently for me, there's one not too far away) and given a soaking in that. After that 12 hours in the stocks while thousands of people file past gobbing on him. These should be chain smokers, capable of hawking up some real proper lung oysters. Then he should be put against the nearest wall and shot.

So no sacking, but a resignation by default.
 

diamond lights

active member
Aug 31, 2012
1,442
5,657
I don't think he should be sacked.

Maybe a baying mob should batter him with celery stalks before covering him in tar and feathers, sitting him on a plank and carrying him through Liverpool city centre while people throw Cadbury creme eggs at him. After that he should be taken to the nearest ducking stool, (conveniently for me, there's one not too far away) and given a soaking in that. After that 12 hours in the stocks while thousands of people file past gobbing on him. These should be chain smokers, capable of hawking up some real proper lung oysters. Then he should be put against the nearest wall and shot.

So no sacking, but a resignation by default.
Seems reasonable, A&C.

Great to have a voice of moderation when the whole world seems to be over-reacting.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,314
Losing his job at his current employers doesn’t mean that he will be jobless for the rest of his life.
And that's because what he did doesn't make him unemployable, Sky obviously share this view.
Why should they sack him just to see him go and work for a competitor?

The problem is forums/twitter/the internet in general offer people the platform to judge others anonymously....even though a hell of a lot of people like to come across as whiter than white, as though they've never in their lives done, said, or even thought something bad when the red mist descends....when in reality thats just not the case.
 
Top