• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Live Match Discussion 2018/19

Good to see inside five minutes that Forestieri is still a no necked wanker.
 
Tribute tonight to a lady who died last week, who hasl 4 beautiful children and fought for the last 7 years against cancer. My son plays in the same team as hers. RIP Hayley.
3bd80a7eb390bab16ce08854e49fc1fb.jpg
 
Does that make our result against West Ham look better or our result against United look worse?
 
Does that make our result against West Ham look better or our result against United look worse?
They have no bearing on eachother...
 
West Ham better if anything. United on a rocky path :p
 
West Ham looked decent against arsenal before playing us too.
 
Jesus Christ, what a goal from Sturridge that is.
 
Not sure how they don't. If West Ham finish top half then beating them is retrospectively more impressive than it was when it happened. Equally, if you beat a side that you think is good but turns out to underperform on the year, it doesn't look as good at the end of things.
 
Not sure how they don't. If West Ham finish top half then beating them is retrospectively more impressive than it was when it happened. Equally, if you beat a side that you think is good but turns out to underperform on the year, it doesn't look as good at the end of things.
Don't think you can be that simplistic with it, form isn't linear so you can't just decide on what's a good result/performance based on league positions. Even if West Ham won the league it wouldn't mean the teams that beat them early doors managed a phenomenal result because they were a very poor side when the season started.
 
Don't think you can be that simplistic with it, form isn't linear so you can't just decide on what's a good result/performance based on league positions. Even if West Ham won the league it wouldn't mean the teams that beat them early doors managed a phenomenal result because they were a very poor side when the season started.

That's probably fair.
 
Not sure how they don't. If West Ham finish top half then beating them is retrospectively more impressive than it was when it happened. Equally, if you beat a side that you think is good but turns out to underperform on the year, it doesn't look as good at the end of things.

We hammered Burnley with 30 shots on goal and they won their next game 4-0. Fucking hell Alan, I know you like to argue the most inane arguments but for fuck's sake, put some thought into your posts.
 
We hammered Burnley with 30 shots on goal and they won their next game 4-0. $#@!ing hell Alan, I know you like to argue the most inane arguments but for $#@!'s sake, put some thought into your posts.

That's really not a common thought in sport over there? It's all over the place in American football.

You beat the Pats early in the season? That looks great. If the Pats then lose 10 games and miss the playoffs? Suddenly that win doesn't look so good.

FFS, Booz, this high horse you're on lately is bewildering.
 
You judge each game on its own merits. We played West Ham and Burnley at perfect times when they were poor. Man Utd too to a similar extent. What they do after that in the season makes no difference.
 
You judge each game on its own merits. We played West Ham and Burnley at perfect times when they were poor. Man Utd too to a similar extent. What they do after that in the season makes no difference.

Like I said, probably fair, and maybe the longer season has taken that sort of narrative out of your media coverage of the sport. Here, though, especially in American football, you hear that sort of thing week in and week out when the talking heads try to decide who's better than who (on paper).
 
Back
Top