The Fish

Wouldn't want a ban for whataboutery now, would I?

Bored bored bored.

Top right has 100% just dropped a rip snorter of a fart.

Missed it in it's entirety, don't suppose any of you lurkers know if there's a highlight package doing the rounds on the world wide web?

I'm endlessly keen to learn, unlike some other people I won't mention.

Why, is your vision based on movement?

I did not know that. Crack on, dear boy.

Yes. I wouldn't listen to a new Gary Glitter song either.

Isn't Franco a big ol' sex pest?

Going Pro, or selling out? You Decide!

It's a matter of trust.

That's bullshit for geography nerds. DON'T PATRONISE ME!

For the longest time I thought their insanity was confined to the dozen or so people who keep the NUFC thread at the top of the first page. But scanning through some of the other threads there's just varieties of insanity on show throughout. The fetishisation of the hooligan culture of the 80s, the thinly veiled misogyny and bigotry, the revisionism of their distant and near history. There's plenty of examples of chumming up to other fanbases until some link to Newcastle is found, or that team defeats Sunderland. You might think that RTG is just standard for online football communities, but I've been on plenty of message boards for other clubs and honestly, it's only really Everton that really rival it for nonsense.

I'm not patronising you, I'm condescending to you. I'm not annoyed, not really. I enjoy a tete a tete. Also, as an aside, the only thing I remember from geography is how an oxbow lake is formed.

I think you focus too much on the individual. xG is better for team analysis. Also, a high xG without context isn't the be all and end all, better when you compare it to goals scored or league average or whatever. Saying Mbappe has a high xG isn't saying he's necessarily a good striker, just that he gets a lot of good opportunities. If he's scored 30 goals from 18.674 xG then that's really impressive, if he's scored 5, it's less so.

Concise, but not comprehensive or clear. e.g. " to levels scarcely hard to believe," if something is scarcely hard to believe, that means it's fairly easy to believe? It doesn't tell me formation, shape, or style. The only things I can take from that is that the players create and use space, also they run around a lot. C- Needs to show working out.

Craig, Sorry but that's bollocks. I've tried to find out what they don't understand and then explain it, but for some it's not about misunderstanding, it's that they don't like it. Similar but not the same as your position. You think stats should only be used to provide support to a narrative (which roughly aligns with my view), they think they're bollocks. I've no issue with your position, I do have an issue with people dismissing the value of statistical analysis. It's a huge part of football now, from elite clubs all the way down to commentary. To dismiss it, or call it bollocks is folly.

Careful, Toonpack and Spongebob will be on your case.

Aye, Henderson has played getting onto 5 times as many games for Liverpool as he did for Sunderland. Pickford has played more games for fucking Bradford than he has for Sunderland.

I'm just glad she's now acknowledging it's happened.

Poes Law.

USA have dismissed a case against Saudi Arabia for the murder of Khashoggi. So, that's that all cleared up.

I've only seen two other people so consistently wrong; CT and Wolfy. Are you happy sitting at that table?