'If i saw someone holding a knife, running towards someone shouting "i'm going to kill that " & i turn round & say, i think that crazy dude with the knife shouting "He's going to kill that " is going to kill that other dude, and he ends up killing him, although it wasn't confirmed at the time that he would kill him, i would still have been right by saying he would, wouldnt i?'

Yes you would - because you PREDICTED it! How many times do people say 'I'm going to kill him'? How often does that result in a murder? What is the likelihood of someone saying that, going on to commit murder? Very, very small. That doesn't mean if they do commit a murder that the likelihood of someone saying they will commit murder not committing a murder is less true!

Go back to my baby scenario which you seem to be ignoring completely! Or schrodinger's cat scenario - you also seem to ignore!

You are using history as a part of your argument to prove that Liverpool should be considered, or you have every reason to be considered, as genuine contenders, but i think you'll agree that after reading Ripley's analysis of where teams have/haven't finished whilst being in Liverpool's position, the the evidence is pretty much stacked up against your theory, and confirms mine.

Liverpool will always be 'contenders' in the loose sense of the word. They'll always be in contention for domestic silverware.

Chicken - jump that shark!!!!

Monkey Planet

Liverpool will always be 'contenders'

====================

You have just summed up everything i have been saying right there.

In short, a Liverpool fan's view is not the majority, which would inevitably determine a genuine contender to that of a hopeful contender by its own loyal fans.



That comment alone has possibly just undone all the good work, and debating points, CutMe & TOOR have put forward throught this debate. Well done.

Chicken - And you've just demonstrated your knack of misrepresenting someone else's post to suit your own ends. My post, in it's entirety, is a fair, objective point of view on the subject.

Monkey

Your post, in it's entirety, is a fair, objective point from a Liverpool fan's view on the subject, more like.

As you even said it yourself. Thats fine. But it does contradict everything TOOR & CutMe were trying to prove.

For the Chicken, here's my post - in full - : "Liverpool will always be 'contenders' in the loose sense of the word. They'll always be in contention for domestic silverware."

True, our league form dipped badly which meant a genuine push for fourth place fell way short. We will be aiming for it again, just like last season, which put's us in contention for a CL spot.

2 cup finals, one cup. Domestically, that puts us in the frame as 'contenders' for silverware. However way you look at it AND whoever you support.

The shark is long gone......

This debate was never about being contenders for silverware though.



But claiming Liverpool will always be contenders is a very niave thing to say. Reading between the lines you are passionate that your beloved club will always be there, or there abouts. Unfortunately though, these things dont solely depend on passion of fans, but they depend on talent, and eras that clubs go through.

At the moment Liverpool are the weakest they've been for a long time, and they are no longer guaranteed to be genuine contenders for 4th. They werent last season & they wont be next season.

I don't think Liverpool are the weakest they've been in a long time at all. I think new players were bought and along with the 'older' players, have been played in a system which hasn't suited them and played out of position throughout the season. I expect a new manager to fix this.

Chicken

Still ignoring the baby/cat analogies?!

'You are using history as a part of your argument to prove that Liverpool should be considered, or you have every reason to be considered, as genuine contenders, but i think you'll agree that after reading Ripley's analysis of where teams have/haven't finished whilst being in Liverpool's position, the the evidence is pretty much stacked up against your theory, and confirms mine.'

Not at all! Evidence is a build up of proof - to use just yours would be ridiculous - as would using just mine! You need to use it all, which, unlike you, I did. And on balance of ALL the evidence - Liverpool were quite blatantly still contender at that point

CutMe,

I'm not ignoring your earlier posts, i just thought that using scenarios that are non-football related kind of takes the debate away from reality (& i'm aware i used examples of this too).

I just dont see that historic data is as relevant as the latest/current evidence we have to hand.


TOOR,

You claim that you dont consider Liverpool to be their weakest in a long time. What other reason would you give then, for their last couple of seasons, if this is not the case. Have other clubs got stronger, is it a bit of both (others getting stronger & Liverpool weaker) or are they just extremely unlucky to finish 6th then 8th?

Liverpool are weaker than we've been in a while.

However I think people think we're a lot weaker than we are. There were a lot of changes to the squad, injuries to a side with little depth (one of our biggest weaknesses and a problem many other sides don't have), and a fairly big lack of confidence in front of goal from players who historically hads little problem putting the ball away.

We're no where near the side we were 3 years ago. But I also don't think we're a low as soome of you are hoping. We beat all the top sides at least once, played a couple of them off the park, and reached two cup finals.

You like ignoring that bit and just keep shouting "8th, 8th, 8th" purely for banter purposes.

redconn

I'm not ignoring the cup comps, although i'm not sure being cup finalists is particularly a good way to rate a season. You as Liverpool fans should be aiming much higher than simply reaching a cup final (or 2). I sometimes have to think long & hard who losing finalists are from certain years & neither do i feel they warrant any credit.

In saying that, i congratulate you on the CC win.

'I'm not ignoring your earlier posts, i just thought that using scenarios that are non-football related kind of takes the debate away from reality (& i'm aware i used examples of this too).'

Not at all - I am applying the same logic to other scenarios as you seem to have difficulties understanding them in footballing terms (no dig ). Schrodinger's cat is an experiment which is regularly used to describe many situation - usually nothing to do with cats! It is about the observed - which is what we are talking about.

' I just dont see that historic data is as relevant as the latest/current evidence we have to hand.'

Robert Heinlein
'A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.'

History teaches us loads - it is the essence of form and betting! If United are not top near the end of the season, history tells us they finish strong. In fact if they aren't winning in a game, you still watch until the 90 + fergie time minute as history tells us they will still probably win! History tells us that a team 5 points of 4th may not get 4th but also tells us that Liverpool tend to come 4th - one of these trends was going to be broken - but this still means we were contenders. If we regularly came 7th then history would suggest otherwise as the odds would be stacked against us!

Thanks for the dig Chicken, but it isn't a response to my post. It's just a dig for banter purposes.

redconn

My post wasnt intended as a dig. I sincerely offered praise for winning silverware. I'm not sure what else i wrote that could be taken offensively either. For the record, you mentioned the 2 x cup finals - not me.





CutMe,

You seem to want to listen to Robert Heinlein's example of history, instead of the more important lessons to be taken from it, which was summed up perfectly in Ripley's post.

In short, when this debate started (to now) the liklihood of a team (Liverpool or A N Other) finishing in 4th from that position would be extremely thin.

There are many common phrases that are said/have been said by famous/respected people, a bit like the Titanic being "Unsinkable" for example. And look what happened there.

This is why we should stick to footballing facts, and the fact is (as mentioned above), from the position of where you were, to what was said then, and what i'm saying now, along with the proof we have of "history" in regard to positions in the league (not particular clubs) is consistent, which (and you can take this as a dig or not) is why you finished 8th - not 4th.

So you are cherry picking the bits of history that prove your point!

I think the previous two managers played a major part plus the likes of Spurs and City getting stronger.

CutMe,

So you are cherry picking the bits of history that prove your point!

==========================

Using the the far majority of history to prove a point is not cherry picking.

Using a quote from Robert Heinlein, is.

comment by Chicken (on a Basketball) ©™ (U1043)
posted 4 days, 2 hours ago

I dont think i said anything Wummy throughout, although i appreciate you were defending your club. I just hope next time i disagree with you over something, we can all act in a more reasonable way - and treat the site for what it is - a debating tool.

- - - - -

I have written a number of articles on the LFC board only to be called a WUM...while debate on the LFC board is better than the Spurs board IMO, any opinion that counters the "Big Club Liverpool are the best club in the world" attitude is met with unconsidered criticism and usually resorts to "what has Harry/Spurs ever won, LFC will always be bigger than Spurs" nonesense.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Chicken (on a Basketball) ©™ (U1043)
posted 4 days, 2 hours ago

I dont think i said anything Wummy throughout, although i appreciate you were defending your club. I just hope next time i disagree with you over something, we can all act in a more reasonable way - and treat the site for what it is - a debating tool.

- - - - -

I have written a number of articles on the LFC board only to be called a WUM...while debate on the LFC board is better than the Spurs board IMO, any opinion that counters the "Big Club Liverpool are the best club in the world" attitude is met with unconsidered criticism and usually resorts to "what has Harry/Spurs ever won, LFC will always be bigger than Spurs" nonesense.
----------------------------------------
You really have to do a bit of growing up. You intentionally go on the wind up, a lot. Yes you write some good points but you also sandwich it between windup comments.

Devonshirespur,

I know what you mean. Not once (when this debate started) did anyone consider that i might be right in what i was saying.

I predicted the outcome pretty much spot on, but nobody considered this could ever be true because of Liverpool's history. I dont ever get wound up with cyber insults but the insults did kind of prove one thing, and that was the fact they genuinely were in denial that their contention for Top 4 is no longer considered a threat.

I must admit, we were kind of getting somewhere with this debate but then in came Monkey with a somment that Re:summed up what you have said above:

"Liverpool will always be 'contenders".

Its almost as though, even if they have been off the scene for however long, some Liverpool fans will never accept they are no longer mixing with the elite.

Football often goes round in eras, and i have to say, Liverpool appear to have seen the best of their latest one. Can they re-build? We'll have to see but for now it would be nice if they accepted where they are at the here & now.

comment by Chicken (on a Basketball) ©™ (U1043)
posted 8 minutes ago
Devonshirespur,

I know what you mean. Not once (when this debate started) did anyone consider that i might be right in what i was saying.

I predicted the outcome pretty much spot on, but nobody considered this could ever be true because of Liverpool's history.
----------------------------------------------
Wrong. Many considered the prediction could be true and in fact if you had read articles on the Liverpool board at the time, many had given up on forth, however, still we were genuine contenders.

'Using the the far majority of history to prove a point is not cherry picking.
Using a quote from Robert Heinlein, is.'

No - you are using ONE bit of history! Just because you look at the SAME state over a number of years does not make it a lot of history!!

And the quote was just to reference the fact that you cannot ignore history - no need to just on it!

Just because you look at the SAME stat over a number of years does not make it a lot of history!!

==================

Of course it does.



The use of the same stat, for previous years is EXACTLY the type of history that proves what i was saying back in July.

I suggest you re-read Ripleys' post about it.