Shrimpsvoices

Excluding the 3 teams on minus points there is a strong case based on our league performances that we should be joint bottom of the rest. We currently have 3 points but if you analyse each of our match performances based on `deserved returns' then it is hard to argue against the following:- 1 pt v Wycombet (fair), 0 pts v Rotherham (fair), 0 pts v Bury (unfair we should have had 1 pt), 0 pts v Dagenham (fair), 3 pts v Shrewsbury (unfair we should have had 1 pt), 1 pt v Barnet (unfair we should have had 0 pts). A total of 3 pts instead of 5 would leave us joint bottom with Barnet. Of course if you choose to confuse effort with football (which we produce very little of) then you could argue otherwise but anyone who has been around football long enough knows relying on effort alone is at best a short term fix.
Word coming out of Grimsby is that the powers that be were unconvinced about the quality of players respected manager Buckley had assembled despite the usual manager speak about gelling and time etc. One spokesman had commented that although he did not believe they would go down they did not want a season entrenched at the bottom end of the table which they envisaged will happen if they do not change the manager.
A lot of supporters (SV's is not reflective of the majority view) are unconvinced about the current Morecambe squad but we owe it to Sammy to stay loyal. However here is a bit of mischief - if you were offered the following hypothetical choice how would you vote? i.e. Sack the manager now and your team will not be relegated or stick with the manager and you will go down.

If you're doing a "deserved points" table, then it only makes sense to compare us to other teams "deserved points"

Personally I'd argue that we "deserved" a point against Dagenham, but there you go

Good luck working that one out!

That's the funniest post I've read on here yet. Great to have a good long laugh once in a while. Cheers mate!

And keep smoking that wacky backy!

Sorry to upset you Negative Ned but we will not get relegated (i know you would be happy if we did) Take a look at the first ten games last season we only had 13 points plus if we win on saturday we will only be 1 point worse off than last wear after 7 matches total disaster dont think so

....and some of you accuse ME of being bloody negative!

I can't believe you all keep biting. Its just someone on the wind-up. He even calls himself Negative Ned i.e. in his name he's admitting his posts are on the negative side. Stop falling for it!

Can we have some new smilies to reply to posts like this with ??

Negative Ned wrote:Excluding the 3 teams on minus points there is a strong case based on our league performances that we should be joint bottom of the rest. We currently have 3 points but if you analyse each of our match performances based on `deserved returns' then it is hard to argue against the following:- 1 pt v Wycombet (fair), 0 pts v Rotherham (fair), 0 pts v Bury (unfair we should have had 1 pt), 0 pts v Dagenham (fair), 3 pts v Shrewsbury (unfair we should have had 1 pt), 1 pt v Barnet (unfair we should have had 0 pts). A total of 3 pts instead of 5 would leave us joint bottom with Barnet. Of course if you choose to confuse effort with football (which we produce very little of) then you could argue otherwise but anyone who has been around football long enough knows relying on effort alone is at best a short term fix.
Word coming out of Grimsby is that the powers that be were unconvinced about the quality of players respected manager Buckley had assembled despite the usual manager speak about gelling and time etc. One spokesman had commented that although he did not believe they would go down they did not want a season entrenched at the bottom end of the table which they envisaged will happen if they do not change the manager.
A lot of supporters (SV's is not reflective of the majority view) are unconvinced about the current Morecambe squad but we owe it to Sammy to stay loyal. However here is a bit of mischief - if you were offered the following hypothetical choice how would you vote? i.e. Sack the manager now and your team will not be relegated or stick with the manager and you will go down.

Ned, I'm very disappointed. You usually at least back up your gloomy posts with decent arguments.
With this one you've given us little scope for anything other than complete disregard.
To take it at all seriously we'd have to accept your version of the 'deserved' results as indisputable fact. I don't - I think we deserved the point at Barnet and many would argue we deserved a point v Daggers (both their goals were down to our mistakes, we had more actual chances than them otherwise). I also think we deserved to beat Shrewsbury. Others would argue we could have deserved a win at Bury - you can argue them all but it's not - as you imply, clear cut.
We'd also, as campdave says, have to ignore the 'deservedness or otherwise' of the points all those around us have achieved. You also state as fact that this board is not reflective of the majority view inside CP. You can't possibly know, unless you've spoken to every fan. That kind of comment makes you look silly.
And worst of all is the 'choice' you have deigned to offer us - which is a ridiculous one.
How about: Sack your manager now, get rid of half our players and plummett into oblivion OR keep the current manager, see the team get better and better in coming weeks and months and end the season fighting for the play-offs?
Answers to both are patently obvious but neither is a meaningful question to ask.

Again, as with your previous 'by that time it will be no consolation to us' comment a few weeks ago, I ask what are you suggesting? It sounds to me (again) as though you want the manager to be sacked now.
Do you?

And, by the way, I don't mind 'biting' - just like Ned enjoys giving his input, I enjoy the debate, WUM or not.

as I agree with Mr Coops, that it is good for the debate, I'm usually happy to respond, WUM or not.

But almost everything has already been said, except... I think we were very unlucky not to beat Wycombe who were on the back foot for much of the game, so that's another two points added.

So, hypothetical question...

Would you rather we were looking at Shrimper's (and my) 'hypothetical points won' table, which places us firmly in a play off spot, but you'd have to be happy, or would you prefer Ned's 'hypothetical points won' table which places us in a relegation battle, but you can moan and rant as much as you want?

That's not fair at all.
Ned makes the rules, not you two.

I loved the "SV is not reflective of the majority" approach, Quite correct, nobody has ever said it was.
"A lot of supporters are unconvinced about the Morecambe squad"? There are plenty on here that remain to be convinced yet this is not reflective of the majority, so the majority must therefore be happy! At least that's how I intertpret it!

"Football, (which we produce very little of)", hehe like that one, what are playing then? Ker-Plunk?
He's a good lad, and keeps it interesting on here but I have to say it is getting just a teeny bit obvious!
Patronising or what ?

Negative Ned wrote:If you analyse each of our match performances based on 'deserved returns'

Wycombe - Two players were unfit if they'd played we'd have won - 3pts

Rotherham - We were put at a disadvantage by the wind. We'd have won if it was less windy - 3pts

Bury - If the player's coach hadn't been diverted via Twiss's family home after reading in the press that 'he lived just two minutes from Gigg Lane' then the players would have been able to train longer on the long grass at Bury. And we'd have won - 3pts

Dagenham - They fielded two alien beings who took over their hosts for a day and played rather well I thought. Without their intervention a clear and decisive win - 3pts

Shrewsbury - 3pts

Barnet - Paul Fairclough's forehead was over moisturised and the glare caught Garry Hunter's eyes as he was about to shoot. This outrageous gamesmanship denied us a clear win - 3pts

In summary, top of the League, arise Sir Sammy, trebles all round!

Utter B****x even the factual statement:

Negative Ned wrote: We currently have 3 points

is incorrect as we have 5 points

Posh wrote:

Negative Ned wrote:If you analyse each of our match performances based on 'deserved returns'

Wycombe - Two players were unfit if they'd played we'd have won - 3pts

Rotherham - We were put at a disadvantage by the wind. We'd have won if it was less windy - 3pts

Bury - If the player's coach hadn't been diverted via Twiss's family home after reading in the press that 'he lived just two minutes from Gigg Lane' then the players would have been able to train longer on the long grass at Bury. And we'd have won - 3pts

Dagenham - They fielded two alien beings who took over their hosts for a day and played rather well I thought. Without their intervention a clear and decisive win - 3pts

Shrewsbury - 3pts

Barnet - Paul Fairclough's forehead was over moisturised and the glare caught Garry Hunter's eyes as he was about to shoot. This outrageous gamesmanship denied us a clear win - 3pts

In summary, top of the League, arise Sir Sammy, trebles all round!

An absolute brilliant assessment of our season to date.

Now if only I'd thought of that......

Shrimper wrote: I also think we deserved to beat Shrewsbury.
I ask what are you suggesting? It sounds to me (again) as though you want the manager to be sacked now.
Do you?

No I dont want the manager to be sacked especially as I was one of the original signatures on the letter asking the Chairman to get Sammy retained on a permanent deal.

Now lets examine your statement "we deserved to beat Shrewsbury". Certainly not on the balance of play, possession, shots on target, territorial advantage etc. On effort yes and the ball ran kindly for us and we were due a win. Perhaps the teams fortunes will change, perhaps the team will be able to score more than 1 goal, let us hope so.

So by the rules based on balance of play, shots on target, possession and territorial advantage we didn't deserve to beat Shrewsbury but we did deserve to beat Dagehenham.
So we would still have the same points!

Negative Ned wrote:

Shrimper wrote: I also think we deserved to beat Shrewsbury.
I ask what are you suggesting? It sounds to me (again) as though you want the manager to be sacked now.
Do you?

No I dont want the manager to be sacked especially as I was one of the original signatures on the letter asking the Chairman to get Sammy retained on a permanent deal.

Now lets examine your statement "we deserved to beat Shrewsbury". Certainly not on the balance of play, possession, shots on target, territorial advantage etc. On effort yes and the ball ran kindly for us and we were due a win. Perhaps the teams fortunes will change, perhaps the team will be able to score more than 1 goal, let us hope so.

Yes, let's examine my statement shall we?

Try this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/1203158

.... or we could examine your statement about not wanting Sammy sacked and then wonder, if that's the case, why you make other statements that imply you do.

One could conclude that you just ride with the wind, happy to jump on any bandwagon when things are going well ("retain Sammy permanently" when we're winning) then jump off as soon as the road gets a bit bumpy (comments like "it will be no consolation to us if we sack him later in the season, because we might be in the Conference by then" and your latest choice of a 'hypothetical question' to put to us in this thread).

But of course if you only see things with one eye - a negative one - then you get a distorted view.

My eyes might be coloured by my rose-tinted glasses but at least they let me see the full picture.

Why did anyone even reply to this thread? It's like reading something written by a depressed child

ezz wrote:Why did anyone even reply to this thread? It's like reading something written by a depressed child

Is that somebody's new user name?

Negative Ned

but if you analyse each of our match performances based on `deserved returns'

I'm not too sure this is even a decent debate at all ???

Football results have never been determined by 'deserved returns'. Christ you'd have to re-write the history books if you based past results on that basis. What would you have a panel of judges similar to say boxing who assessed certain aspects of the match.

How many matches have we seen where you do or don't get what you deserve over a season ... no my friend its pure nonsense. Thats Football ...its a funny ol game.

Lets try and get inside the mind of somebody who would conjure up such an abstract notion as 'deserved returns' ....... somebody who may not want a certain team to do that well came to mind... WHO do you actually support Negative Ned deep down.

Here's hoping we get our 'deserved return' this coming Saturday

Rather than playing all these matches where teams collect or lose points that they don't deserve, perhaps the league table should be decided by simply placing all the teams in reverse alphabetical order.....

It would see Accrington relegated and us just sneaking into the play-offs!

I think the points should go to the manager who moans the most that their team played the best!!

I can't believe people still reply to this wind up merchant.

I love NN (as I shall now refer to him) (metaphoricaly of course). Every time he posts he causes debate on here and I think it's great. There is, of course, no justification for sacking Sammy now (or anytime this season). The only time there would be is in the event of relegation which if it were to happen he would lose his job deservedly. We're good enough to be lower mid-table so I can't see that eventuality occuring.

Negative Ned wrote:

I ask what are you suggesting? It sounds to me (again) as though you want the manager to be sacked now.
Do you?

No I dont want the manager to be sacked especially as I was one of the original signatures on the letter asking the Chairman to get Sammy retained on a permanent deal.

Hmmm

Didnt stop you here.

http://www.gnasher.co.uk/shrimpsvoices/viewtopic.php?t=4968&highlight=&sid=74811244748b8dc030fcfaaf9c6f9338

I love this old thread. It makes me smile and constantly reminds me of how lucky we are that nobody with any influence in the club takes any notice of you.

marky wrote:I love NN (as I shall now refer to him) (metaphoricaly of course). Every time he posts he causes debate on here and I think it's great.

I'm with you on that. Disagree with most of what he posts (whether he actually believes what he puts or is just winding us all up, I don't mind).
But the board's a much more lively place for the presence of Ned and others who have (or pretend to have) a different view to a lot of us - I defy anyone to deny that they open his threads with at least some anticipation of seeing something that will spark some interest.