Printable View
Hmm, not sure about that. Runnarsson made a couple off excellent saves in the first half, including saving a one on one.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
I thought he may have been brought in as perhaps he could organise his defense better than Alnwick, whose shot-stopping has been top drawer so far this season. The second half showed that's not the case. More likely it was because the loan deal was on the basis that Runnarsson would be no.1 keeper. Alnwick has every right to feel aggrieved
You are arguing against something you have invented yourself. I am not saying they are always right, I am saying if you take enough seasons (a large enough sample), the teams that are favoured at the start of the season will tend to do better than those that aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
If you think that isn't true then you shouldn't be 'man shouting at clouds' on ccmb because you could easily be a millionaire by now, you have found a goldmine..
It isn't 'what the bookies say', its what the market has collectively decided the probability is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
If you know the market is wrong, go make some risk free easy money...
Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Advocaat
I think there's an argument he could have done better with each of the 3 goals, no matter how many great saves a goalie makes when you can say that he's not had a great game. And as you mention, no evidence he organized the team any better than Alnwick, in fact I think it looked decidedly dodgy any time Ipswich put a ball into the danger area.
Overall, I totally agree that I think with Alnwick we get at least a point, and I worry that decision to replace a player who has done nothing wrong and has been one of our best players this season (especially as he sat for so long to get the #1 shirt in the first place) has the potential to be a distraction in the dressing room - especially if we don't get a result against Swansea. Let's hope that isn't the case.
Oh, right! That's what you meant when you said: "We have played away against 3/4 of the favourites to win the league..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
It's all clear now. You weren't trying to suggest City's opposition in the away games thus far must have been really tough as they were high on the bookies' pre-season lists. I imagined that.
Yeah we have, it doesn't mean they will win the league though? The market sets a price, people either back or lay at that price, it moves and over time expectations are tested. Based on those odds, they are likely to have been difficult games. Its hardly ground breaking anyway, two of them were relegated from the Premier League last year and we know how massive that gap is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
This isn't difficult to understand, I would have thought you would be able to get it. I can guarantee you that you will not find a better predictor than betfair odds for a market with this level of liquidity (partly because people who have access to other sources, models etc, want to make as much money as possible and therefore everything is already built into the price).
I will leave you now to celebrate another city loss..
I get it. Perfectly. I know exactly what you were trying to convey with your initial mention of the pre-season market regardless of any of the waffle that followed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
:thumbup:
Just watched the extended highlights of the first half. Based on chances the game seemed pretty even but Meite really should have scored from Tanner's cross and I'm not sure Grant was offside as there was a defender who looked just as deep (at the top of the screen) when the header came in.
Thought Grant was offside on first viewing, but became less convinced with every replay shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by PontBlue