[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=48362.msg1467615#msg1467615 date=1327160819]
[quote author=dmishra link=topic=48362.msg1467582#msg1467582 date=1327157141]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=48362.msg1467543#msg1467543 date=1327152519]
[quote author=dmishra link=topic=48362.msg1467273#msg1467273 date=1327088177]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=48362.msg1467256#msg1467256 date=1327085864]
We're not under-performing though.
We've signed a load of average players and now we have a very average squad, who are performing averagely.
We're the new Aston Villa.
[/quote]
Absolutely.
[/quote]
That is just such mindless drivel it's spellbinding.
We've underperformed massively; a team that's consistently matched the mancs, city, chavs and Arse but sitting in 7th place......... and we're not underperforming against the rest of the league? Unbelievable drivel. Maybe if we'd only fluked one result against a top team in the last year - but we've done it against pretty much all of them for 12 months. Given some of the crap that get's posted on here it says a lot that this rubbish actually draws attention.
[/quote]
Which part? The new Villa? Read mine and Squiggs' posts at the top of the page.
If you're talking about underperforming, I can't think of a single player who's underperformed. We're a side stocked with mid-table talent in midfield and attack, who're performingly consistently at the level of their talent. The two world class players we have have never been on the pitch at the same time together; and the few other players who're not as talentless as the rest (Maxi, Bellamy and Shelvey) don't get as much playing time as the mid-table plodders.
Had the facts above been a little different, I might have agreed about the underperformance. Given that we consistently roll out with the Adams and the Downings, I don't see how we can complain about underperformance.
[/quote]
I got about as far as the second sentence and fell asleep. By that stage you'd used the word underperformed twice and had my doubts it was going carry anything new.
Here's how it works. By definition the 7th best team should beat teams ranked 8 through 20 and get beat by teams 1 through 6. That's the text book definition. Real world, of course, is slightly different whereby team 7 will have the odd poor performance against a lower team and, on occasion, get a better than expected result against one of the teams above. That's real world. An underperforming team would be one that either beats or outplays all teams ranked 1 to 6 but can't drag itself above 7th. An underperforming team would be one which is the 2nd team in the league during the second half of the season, invests 100m into the team and then can't manage to drag itself into the top 6 let alone the top 2.
Stop me if you can see where any of this applies to your currently nominated "non-underperforming" team.
[/quote]
Really? Let me simplify it for you - you look at the players you roll out with every week, and see if your position in the league table is an adequate reflection of where you should be with that crop of players. If it is, your side isn't underperforming.
See if that helps you determine whether we've been 'underperforming' or not.
What a pointless debate on semantics really. We're a mid-table side currently, and we will be as long as we roll out with the same set of players we've been rolling out with so far. Deal with it.
