Ratings Vs Dover

[Old_pie]

I shall bare that in mind.

None of that on here please. The vision of posters' naked minds is not a pretty one so please bear that in mind when posting.

[navypie]

None of that on here please. The vision of posters' naked minds is not a pretty one so please bear that in mind when posting.

Oops. I was using my phone, not that I am using that as an excuse.

[laddo]

Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and typos (when in a rush) are all fine Navy. Only a select 'special' few on here point them out. They seem to get a real kick out of it#IQchallenge

I'm sure everyone else just ignores them or works out what was actually meant, all by themselves.

[maddogslater]

You'll have to remind me of the question, because I must admit I pay minimal attention to your posts.

To busy stalking laddo's posts. Yes that's another thing, pay more attention when I post and remember it's quality not quantity.

[Elite_Pie]

To busy stalking laddo's posts. Yes that's another thing, pay more attention when I post and remember it's quality not quantity.

So what was the homework question?

[sidders]

I agree with most of those ratings, but I remember saying at the game that I'm glad I didn't have to choose the MOM because nobody stood out. What disappointed me most was that when they dropped very deep in the last 10 minutes, we didn't throw men forward (I'm thinking throwing either Rawlinson or Lacey up front) and put the ball in their box. It's always a bit of a gamble, but it's a gamble worth taking. I'm always going on about only gambling when the odds are in your favour, but in situations like yesterday they definitely are in our favour. By that I mean rather than settle for a draw, take a risk and go for the win, because the reward is double the loss. Even if it backfires in half the games and succeeds in the other half, it is still worthwhile. As an example, take our 7 draws at home this season which have yielded 7 points. Even if we had gambled and lost 4 and only won 3 games, we would have gained 9 points. I know drawing some games is inevitable, but I'm just putting forward a principle.

Sadly, I think Ardley would rather 'respect the point' than take a risk.

Whilst you speak more sense than 90% of the posters on NCM, Elite, I can't believe that you are unaware of the fatal flaw in your argument above. Notts have to be aware that gambling for the 3 points and not settling for 1 also has implications for the opposition. It's probably worth the tactical gamble you are advocating if you're playing the bottom 3 in the league, but to take a chance of giving away 3 points to teams that are within a few points of Notts in the table would be poor strategy and could prove dangerous at the end of season.

[Elite_Pie]

Whilst you speak more sense than 90% of the posters on NCM, Elite, I can't believe that you are unaware of the fatal flaw in your argument above. Notts have to be aware that gambling for the 3 points and not settling for 1 also has implications for the opposition. It's probably worth the tactical gamble you are advocating if you're playing the bottom 3 in the league, but to take a chance of giving away 3 points to teams that are within a few points of Notts in the table would be poor strategy and could prove dangerous at the end of season.

While that could be sometimes seen a flaw sid, I don't think it is in our current position. If the risk was about relegation or mid table, then I agree that the risk factor has to be mitigated. But when we're talking about top 7 or mid table, then it's a risk that has to be taken.

[maddogslater]

So what was the homework question?

There never was a question, it was obviously a dig at you for making a fool of yourself ( you're doing a good job on here with your kooky idea) and then trying to wriggle out of it by not knowing the penalty kick law on the thread re Rose missing the pen.

[Elite_Pie]

There never was a question, it was obviously a dig at you for making a fool of yourself ( you're doing a good job on here with your kooky idea) and then trying to wriggle out of it by not knowing the penalty kick law on the thread re Rose missing the pen.

Well, "kooky idea" is certainly a retro phrase. Although trendy in the 60s, a bit embarrassing now! At least you have the honour of being the first (and hopefully last) person to ever use "kooky" on here. If you go back to that thread, I wasn't commenting specifically on the penalty law, but more on whether it hit the post and came back into play or whether it hit the post and then their keeper and came back into play. I though I'd explained that on the relevant thread, but if it makes you wet your pants to think otherwise then be my guest.

[laddo]

There never was a question, it was obviously a dig at you for making a fool of yourself ( you're doing a good job on here with your kooky idea) and then trying to wriggle out of it by not knowing the penalty kick law on the thread re Rose missing the pen.

Not everyone does maddog, but I hear his spelling and grammar are excellent.