fabianski

a poor keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game. That doesn't mean you are a bad keeper if you concede more than one a game

massive contradiction makes no sense

a poor keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game. That doesn't mean you are a bad keeper if you concede more than one a game

massive contradiction makes no sense

Thats because he made it up

Carps, come on now. I know you struggle but this is ridiculous souloftheseas standards. Let me help....

Person A: "Hey everyone look at my bank account im rich"

*bank states person A has £2*

Person B: "I think a rich person would have more than £2 mate".

(Are you suggesting the person B is telling person A that anyone that has more than £2 is constituted as rich?"

Why use a silly analogy when the issue is what makes a bad keeper. You said it was conceding more than a goal a game. Weirdly you said I'd fabricated this and asked for a quote, which I gave you. If you retract this as you were wrong then fair enough

a poor keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game. That doesn't mean you are a bad keeper if you concede more than one a game

massive contradiction makes no sense

Thats because he made it up

It's your post you mentalist

Carps, come on now. I know you struggle but this is ridiculous souloftheseas standards. Let me help....

Person A: "Hey everyone look at my bank account im rich"

*bank states person A has £2*

Person B: "I think a rich person would have more than £2 mate".

(Are you suggesting the person B is telling person A that anyone that has more than £2 is constituted as rich?"

Why use a silly analogy when the issue is what makes a bad keeper. You said it was conceding more than a goal a game. Weirdly you said I'd fabricated this and asked for a quote, which I gave you. If you retract this as you were wrong then fair enough

jesus christ.

I said if he was a bad keeper then he would have a worse record than he does. It really isnt difficult Carps. At no point did i ever state how many goals per game a bad keeper will concede only that you cant be a bad keeper if you concede less than a goal a game over 32 Premier League games.

Carps, come on now. I know you struggle but this is ridiculous souloftheseas standards. Let me help....

Person A: "Hey everyone look at my bank account im rich"

*bank states person A has £2*

Person B: "I think a rich person would have more than £2 mate".

(Are you suggesting the person B is telling person A that anyone that has more than £2 is constituted as rich?"

Why use a silly analogy when the issue is what makes a bad keeper. You said it was conceding more than a goal a game. Weirdly you said I'd fabricated this and asked for a quote, which I gave you. If you retract this as you were wrong then fair enough

jesus christ.

I said if he was a bad keeper then he would have a worse record than he does. It really isnt difficult Carps. At no point did i ever state how many goals per game a bad keeper will concede only that you cant be a bad keeper if you concede less than a goal a game over 32 Premier League games.

No, you wrote this you f*cking idiot
"A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game"

So you did state what qualified as a bad keeper i.e. more than a goal a game

You're arguing with yourself as I've just quoted your posts back to you

And i stand by it.

A goal a game is fabianskis record, if he was a bad keeper then he would have a worse record... Which is a goal a game. But i didnt state what it would be just what it would be more than, where that threshhold lies isnt up to me. But its obviously more than Fabianskis 1 per game.

Which part of that is confusing you dear?

I refer you back to the "you need more than £2 to be rich" example - which of course doesnt mean anything like you are rich if you have mire than £2

According to bbc sports web site

Arsenal have said farewell to reserve goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski, 29, who has joined Swansea on a free transfer, but statistics prove he was their least reliable keeper since 2003.

And i stand by it.

A goal a game is fabianskis record, if he was a bad keeper then he would have a worse record... Which is a goal a game. But i didnt state what it would be just what it would be more than, where that threshhold lies isnt up to me. But its obviously more than Fabianskis 1 per game.

Which part of that is confusing you dear?

I refer you back to the "you need more than £2 to be rich" example - which of course doesnt mean anything like you are rich if you have mire than £2

So now you stand by a quote you categorically denied making at one point
Oh I'm not confused, just revelling in your contradictory posts and you arguing with yourself

It's my favourite thread since your "Everton are a big club, no a small club, no a big club" episode

Guilty as charged m'lord

And i stand by it.

A goal a game is fabianskis record, if he was a bad keeper then he would have a worse record... Which is a goal a game. But i didnt state what it would be just what it would be more than, where that threshhold lies isnt up to me. But its obviously more than Fabianskis 1 per game.

Which part of that is confusing you dear?

I refer you back to the "you need more than £2 to be rich" example - which of course doesnt mean anything like you are rich if you have mire than £2

So now you stand by a quote you categorically denied making at one point

no, i stand by a quite that i denied meant anything other than what i said it did.

Oh I'm not confused, just revelling in your contradictory posts and you arguing with yourself

and yet still there has been no contradiction.

It's my favourite thread since your "Everton are a big club, no a small club, no a big club" episode

mine too you look like a doughnut.

Again - if you said you were rich because you had £2 and i said you a rich person will have more than £2 stashed away.... You are telling me that you take that sentence as if you have more than £2 then you are rich

What a plank

Guilty as charged m'lord

well at least you admit it, this is soulofthesea/pembroke al/swansealad standards carps

no, i stand by a quite that i denied meant anything other than what i said it did

What does that even mean?

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game

You've admitted that's the criteria that makes a goal keeper bad or not. So therefore you believe Fabianski is a better keeper than Marhshall

no, i stand by a quite that i denied meant anything other than what i said it did

What does that even mean?

it means that i didnt deny saying the words, i deny that it means anything other than what I say it means.

The example again. If i say to someone stating he is rich due to his wealth of £2 that "a rich man has more than £2".... Im not stating anyine that has over £2 is rich - which is essentially what carps is saying that I said

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game

You've admitted that's the criteria that makes a goal keeper bad or not. So therefore you believe Fabianski is a better keeper than Marhshall

read above, you are falling into the same trap as carpe. I didnt set the criteria for what makes a keeper bad.

The exact translation to another situation to what i said word for word is "a rich man will have more than £2" when debating if someone is rich due to their £2 "fortune".

Im amazed people are thinking that statement means anyone with more than £2 is therefore rich. It means nothing of the sort.

no, i stand by a quite that i denied meant anything other than what i said it did

What does that even mean?

it means that i didnt deny saying the words, i deny that it means anything other than what I say it means.

The example again. If i say to someone stating he is rich due to his wealth of £2 that "a rich man has more than £2".... Im not stating anyine that has over £2 is rich - which is essentially what carps is saying that I said

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game

You've admitted that's the criteria that makes a goal keeper bad or not. So therefore you believe Fabianski is a better keeper than Marhshall

read above, you are falling into the same trap as carpe. I didnt set the criteria for what makes a keeper bad.

The exact translation to another situation to what i said word for word is "a rich man will have more than £2" when debating if someone is rich due to their £2 "fortune".

Im amazed people are thinking that statement means anyone with more than £2 is therefore rich. It means nothing of the sort.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense to the point you keep making so I don't know why you keep repeating yourself. The point is you literally said "A bad keeper is someone who concedes more than 1 goal a game" not "Fabianski is obviously not a bad keeper as he has conceded less than 1 goal a game" the two sentences are completely different.

Another example.....

Ruud van Nistelrooy scores on average 2 goals a game.

A thread appears on it and the discussion gets on to if he is a poor striker or not.

His goals to game ratio is discussed in relation to whether he is a poor striker. Which is 2 goals a game remember.

Someone says "a poor player will be scoring less than 2 goals a game mate"

................

How anyone can think that means that you are poor unless you score more than 2 goals a game ill never know. But this forum is mad as a box of frogs.

Another example.....

Ruud van Nistelrooy scores on average 2 goals a game.

A thread appears on it and the discussion gets on to if he is a poor striker or not.

His goals to game ratio is discussed in relation to whether he is a poor striker. Which is 2 goals a game remember.

Someone says "a poor player will be scoring less than 2 goals a game mate"

................

How anyone can think that means that you are poor unless you score more than 2 goals a game ill never know. But this forum is mad as a box of frogs.

No the correct term would be a "poorer play will be scoring less than 2 goals a game" not a "poor player will be scoring less than 2 goals a game".

no, i stand by a quite that i denied meant anything other than what i said it did

What does that even mean?

it means that i didnt deny saying the words, i deny that it means anything other than what I say it means.

The example again. If i say to someone stating he is rich due to his wealth of £2 that "a rich man has more than £2".... Im not stating anyine that has over £2 is rich - which is essentially what carps is saying that I said

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game

You've admitted that's the criteria that makes a goal keeper bad or not. So therefore you believe Fabianski is a better keeper than Marhshall

read above, you are falling into the same trap as carpe. I didnt set the criteria for what makes a keeper bad.

The exact translation to another situation to what i said word for word is "a rich man will have more than £2" when debating if someone is rich due to their £2 "fortune".

Im amazed people are thinking that statement means anyone with more than £2 is therefore rich. It means nothing of the sort.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense to the point you keep making so I don't know why you keep repeating yourself. The point is you literally said "A bad keeper is someone who concedes more than 1 goal a game" not "Fabianski is obviously not a bad keeper as he has conceded less than 1 goal a game" the two sentences are completely different.

Incorrect. When quoting, quote exact otherwise you can manipulate it.

The discussion was if he is a "poor" keeper which was the adjective used by carpe. I replied with (and this is word for word"

"A poor keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game" which is vastly different to "you are a poor keeper if you concede more than a goal a game" - capiche?

Another example.

Person A... "Im an olympic standard runner, i did the 100m in 30 seconds"

Person B... "An olympic standard runner will do it in less than 30 seconds"

It is a direct comment in relation to the other persons record not a benchmark for what makes an olympic sprinter.

No the correct term would be a "poorer play will be scoring less than 2 goals a game" not a "poor player will be scoring less than 2 goals a game".

No, that wouldnt be correct at all. "Poorer" is relative. Bale is poorer than ronaldo - doesnt make him "poor".

The discussion was if he was poor. Hence why i said a poor keeper will have a worse record. However due to me giving his record of a goal a game instead of just saying "his record" it has made some mentally challenged people think that is now the benchmark for what makes a poor keeper

Roathy,I note you have ignored the post from grange end star?? Is it because the STATS say he was the least reliable keeper at arsenal since 2003 thats the trouble when you use stats,they can come back and bite you on the arse!! BBC statement not mine.

Roathy,I note you have ignored the post from grange end star?? Is it because the STATS say he was the least reliable keeper at arsenal since 2003 thats the trouble when you use stats,they can come back and bite you on the arse!! BBC statement not mine.

What stats are they? Unless i know what stat then I cant comment can I?

Im going on what stats we know and - All we know is he conceded less than a goal a game in the Premier League, arsenal fans are gutted he has gone, arsenal wanted him to stay and he continued his goal a game conceding record the rest of his matches spanning even across the champions league against the likes of Bayern Munich.

Thread on Arsenal site:-

http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopi ... p=35369141

Difficult to get excited about any GK really. It is funny how players leaving a club tend to be shit and those coming in are always better

Not really funny, he was labelled as shit long before yesterday and instead signed Aesenals number 2 who has 23 clean sheets in 78 games and concedes a single goal per game on average.

Oh you edited. 78 games over 7 seasons, many of which were domestic cup games. So out of interest how many clean sheets were against lower league opposition? Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to rubbish him, quit frankly I'm not bothered about him either way, just getting some context to your stats.

No idea. Doesnt matter really, common sense tells us they are going to be decent opposition in there. 32 of those games were in the Premier League (and so will many of the cup games be against prem opposition) where the conceding ratio is the same as well as 11 (i think) clean sheets.

Of course there will be decent opposition in there, but probably as many lower league teams. Therefore the clean sheet record loses some credibility. Having said that, as usual stats can be very misleading, especially with GK as a clean sheet could be more down to the 10 in front of him. A GK could also play a blinder yet concede, as we found many times with Marshall.

70+ games over 7 seasons is poor so it will be interesting to see how he performs week in week out. Can't fault getting him on a free though so nothing to lose

The games against lower opposition (which will be the minority of games that record makes up) will have a weakened defence in front of him, so it evens out.

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game.

Arsenal wouldn't offer him 50k a week and have the chance to turn down other top european and english teams should he be a bad keeper, again thats just common sense really

Let's simplify it for you. If a keeper concedes an average of 1.1 goals per game, are they a bad keeper?

Difficult to get excited about any GK really. It is funny how players leaving a club tend to be shit and those coming in are always better

Not really funny, he was labelled as shit long before yesterday and instead signed Aesenals number 2 who has 23 clean sheets in 78 games and concedes a single goal per game on average.

Oh you edited. 78 games over 7 seasons, many of which were domestic cup games. So out of interest how many clean sheets were against lower league opposition? Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to rubbish him, quit frankly I'm not bothered about him either way, just getting some context to your stats.

No idea. Doesnt matter really, common sense tells us they are going to be decent opposition in there. 32 of those games were in the Premier League (and so will many of the cup games be against prem opposition) where the conceding ratio is the same as well as 11 (i think) clean sheets.

Of course there will be decent opposition in there, but probably as many lower league teams. Therefore the clean sheet record loses some credibility. Having said that, as usual stats can be very misleading, especially with GK as a clean sheet could be more down to the 10 in front of him. A GK could also play a blinder yet concede, as we found many times with Marshall.

70+ games over 7 seasons is poor so it will be interesting to see how he performs week in week out. Can't fault getting him on a free though so nothing to lose

The games against lower opposition (which will be the minority of games that record makes up) will have a weakened defence in front of him, so it evens out.

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game.

Arsenal wouldn't offer him 50k a week and have the chance to turn down other top european and english teams should he be a bad keeper, again thats just common sense really

Let's simplify it for you. If a keeper concedes an average of 1.1 goals per game, are they a bad keeper?

No idea, never given it much thought. I'd suggest it's a pretty good record though.

I know I am posting on this thread but well done, a 3 page thread on Swansea signing a keeper.

Difficult to get excited about any GK really. It is funny how players leaving a club tend to be shit and those coming in are always better

Not really funny, he was labelled as shit long before yesterday and instead signed Aesenals number 2 who has 23 clean sheets in 78 games and concedes a single goal per game on average.

Oh you edited. 78 games over 7 seasons, many of which were domestic cup games. So out of interest how many clean sheets were against lower league opposition? Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to rubbish him, quit frankly I'm not bothered about him either way, just getting some context to your stats.

No idea. Doesnt matter really, common sense tells us they are going to be decent opposition in there. 32 of those games were in the Premier League (and so will many of the cup games be against prem opposition) where the conceding ratio is the same as well as 11 (i think) clean sheets.

Of course there will be decent opposition in there, but probably as many lower league teams. Therefore the clean sheet record loses some credibility. Having said that, as usual stats can be very misleading, especially with GK as a clean sheet could be more down to the 10 in front of him. A GK could also play a blinder yet concede, as we found many times with Marshall.

70+ games over 7 seasons is poor so it will be interesting to see how he performs week in week out. Can't fault getting him on a free though so nothing to lose

The games against lower opposition (which will be the minority of games that record makes up) will have a weakened defence in front of him, so it evens out.

Stats can always be squiffed however the more matches you have to look at the more accurate they will become. 78 games seems a decent amount of games to me. A bad keeper will be conceding more than a goal a game, and in fact his premier league record is less than a goal a game.

Arsenal wouldn't offer him 50k a week and have the chance to turn down other top european and english teams should he be a bad keeper, again thats just common sense really

Let's simplify it for you. If a keeper concedes an average of 1.1 goals per game, are they a bad keeper?

No idea, never given it much thought. I'd suggest it's a pretty good record though.

QED.

I'm glad the penny dropped for you

I know I am posting on this thread but well done, a 3 page thread on Swansea signing a keeper.

Have they?

I'm glad the penny dropped for you

So now you don't know if over a goal a game conceded makes a bad keeper?

I'm glad the penny dropped for you

So now you don't know if over a goal a game conceded makes a bad keeper?

I've never said I did know.

I said a bad keeper will have a worse record than a goal a game. Just as an Olympic sprinter will have a better 100m time than 30 seconds. What that threshold is, is another discussion all together.

I know I am posting on this thread but well done, a 3 page thread on Swansea signing a keeper.

Have they?

Indeed they have.

Makes it worse is one of our own opened the thread which opened the door for Roathie.

In fact the Marshall factor faded quickly.

I'm glad the penny dropped for you

So now you don't know if over a goal a game conceded makes a bad keeper?

I've never said I did know.

I said a bad keeper will have a worse record than a goal a game. Just as an Olympic sprinter will have a better 100m time than 30 seconds. What that threshold is, is another discussion all together.

Can a good keeper concede an average of more than a goal per game, over a relevant sample size of course? Let's say 2 seasons.

Absolutely.

Although to bring relevant for the thread... a keeper conceding on average 2 a game over 2 seasons for Arsenal with a normal quality squad? Unlikely to be good.