Bazdavies79

His passing accuracy was joint best with 3 other players at 88% and he committed one foul.

He was on for 20 mins. The foul was in a dangerous area. I also remember him losing the ball when he should have looked for a pass. It wasn't a terrific cameo.

When he came on at Anfield, I thought he was giving the ball and free kicks away a bit cheaply.

An even less popular comparison, he reminds me of a young John Terry.

I've explained this already.

There is only ever one possible outcome.

The only reason we don't know the outcome ahead of time is that we don't have the level of knowledge about the situation that is needed to do so.

Think of it like predicting the weather, they take measurements and then model what should happen based on them. Their models aren't perfect, so they often get things wrong. If the models were perfect then we'd never have an incorrect forecast, but having that perfect model is simply not possible. Not only do we not have the computational power to create it, we don't have a high enough understanding of how everything interacts. The fact that our standard model in physics doesn't work on the quantum level for instance, is one thing that would hold back ever being able to achieve that perfect level of knowledge.

I know what you mean, but I don't think you've understood my proposal. I'm questioning the premise that there can always only be one possible outcome.

Only a fool does the same thing twice expecting different results

If you take the coin flip, and look at one single reaction out of the fuckton of others in play. At the fundamental level, where there are no other influences left, all hands have been played, will you have arrived at the point where there can only be one possible outcome?

I don't think you understand what's being said here.

There are no 50/50's, how are there? What is a 50/50 scenario? It's one where you say "It could be this or this" if you flip a coin, you'll say it's a 50/50, is it? No, it's a 100/0, because which side it lands on is directly related to how hard you flip it, at what point of the coin the force is applied, how far until it lands, and a metric fuckton of other things. That you don't know which side it's going to land on doesn't mean it's actually a 50/50, it just means you don't know, so you assume it's a 50/50 because well, it could land on heads or tails. The fact is that it's only going to land on one of them, and if you had perfect information about the scenario, you'd be able to say which it was before it was even flipped.

If you believe every action can only have a single possible reaction, the theory works.

You wouldn't. If you take what TheDon posted to be an accurate scenario, the only way 2 outcomes would prove to be statistically identical would be if the outcomes where identical. If there were 2 different outcomes, they would be statistically different and you could predict which would chosen. When you get to the kind of degree of accuracy TheDon is talking about (which is basically perfect accuracy, a perfect representation of the everything to the smallest degree in a closed system) statistically identical is identical.

I'm not sure how much I would completely agree with the idea (I think there is a degree of chaos in everything that would prevent a perfectly predictable model of everything ever existing, should such a thing be considered even vaguely possible) but if you assume it is, you can't have different statistically identical outcomes in that situation.

I don't think it's possible to not have a 50/50 scenario, unless the universe doesn't play by it's own rules.

He should have put Gabby in on one counter attack but ended up doing nothing. Equally he put the ball on a plate for Weinman who should have scored. He also put Benteke in with a nice little chip, Benteke fluffed it. He got stuck in at times, but his bread and butter passes were a bit hit and miss. He could have scored and had two assists on another day. All in all he had an up and down game.

If we could perfectly map and model a brain we'd be able to tell exactly how you'd react to a specific situation.

What if you came up with two statistically identical possible outcomes.

Did quite well today, holds the ball up quite well and is a handful in the air. I don't think we're going to see him beating any players with skill though.

Played well today, was key in the build up for the goal, and was there to put it in the net too.

I did, and I'm contesting the view that he was the best of a bad bunch. To me the best players last season were Given and Petrov without a doubt.

I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about attackers only, given I said it, and my whole argument was based on attacking stats.

What, last season? Apart from a good short patch he was dire, particularly when Bent and Petrov were out near the end and we needed someone to step up.

Read my posts on page 22.

Not should be sold no. Just by no means a certain keeper. Like I said, vast improvement needed for me.

I think it's quite evident everybody needs to up their game from last season, but Gabby was at least the best of a bad bunch.

Last season everybody was shit and should have done better. But at least Gabby had a brief purple patch of scoring and creating which helped us stay up and put him on top of the pile of shit. A weak link that should be sold?

While I cant argue with the stat (although I havent actually looked into it), this does not really excuse him from criticism/potential sale. Last year was appauling - and Gabby being the most potent striker (with Bent injured for a lot of it) is the very least I would expect. That does not hide the fact that at times, the lad has joined other senior players at times in 'taking the piss' and quite frankly - being a disgrace, if the rumours of turning up late/not supporting managers are true.

Well 'most potent striker' isn't quite true, he was the most potent attacking force of all the attacking players in the squad. I don't listen to rumours, he did the job of scoring/creating goals better than anyone else in the squad and that's the bottom line. Top assists, second most goals.

I like that people go to this without mentioning he had only one more G+A in 11 more games than Bent. Potent might not be the word you were looking for.

I do not think advanced metrics have made it to the world of football yet, but when they do you will realize how inefficient an offensive player Gabby is.

That being said, I like the way he is playing now. Several of our goals have come from him backing a defender down, holding him off the receive the ball from midfield, and the distributing the ball well with his back to goal.

Now if he could just hit the ball well with his front to goal, we might have something.

I think he would be last seasons second most potent attacking threat if you go by ratio. He assisted one of Bent's goals as well.

From what I've seen I think he has the potential to make it at the top level of the game. I wonder how he's getting on.

Make O'Neill aware that Gabby is available in January and then use the revenue plus whatever Lerner makes available in January to buy a CB, LB, CM and winger.

You want to sell last seasons most potent attacking threat?

He was still our most potent attacking threat last season, if you look at goals + assists combined.

The article doesn't mention that the reason she was beating him with a stick was his failure to adequately memorise tracts from the Koran.

I wonder whether that was the reason.

Great strike last night.

Ba? Meh

Bit of a weird hypothetical. Are the opponents starting with ten? Who is the opponent? You'd take a striker off in a 10 v 11 normally, probably Benteke. Or, are you asking who is the weakest player in the first team squad? I don't rate Clark very much.

Really? Didn't think many believers posted in it.

I'm not referring to any particular group.