Match Thread: Liverpool v Atalanta

[Nineteenx]

@19 I think it’s much more to do with the fact that our forward class is significantly below the Prime Salah - Mané - Bobby level.

I mean where would we be this season with that attack. Almost certainly not needing so many miracles late wins. Far more capable of getting results v Arsenal and United etc.

Not easy to replace that fabulous front 3 though to be fair to the club.

Hence I posted those results v Napoli across from 2019 - was to highlight that even with that team, the cast and setup we struggled v Napoli and would have done so v Real as we did v Atletico.

The classic Klopp game is going to find it tougher to get results against sides that can adapt their game - better more technical sides with intelligent managers.

In this set up that’d be Bobby playing right across the line as the 9 furthest forward & Mane & Mo trying to play tappy crappy dropping off all the time to try & get involved too far away from goal to get half the return they used to so no, we wouldn’t be any better off because we wouldn’t be playing to their strengths

We’ve gone from false 9 two up to No9 two deep

[BOBPAISLEYFAN]

Well if we're talking irony, you presented a definition for conspiracy and then couldn't offer up if an example met the criteria of the definition, which is a bit bemusing.

You sir, once again are being slightly disingenuous…

This forum is about all things Football related, not inho a platform for political debate.

So my comments regarding conspiracy was purely relating to Referees in the PL and not regarding the probability and prevalence of the proven real life conspiracies that have and continue to take place in the real world.

The definition of the word conspiracy that I referred to was for the record courtesy of Google, it was certainly not my definition, and was I believe relevant to the comments I made regarding why Referees are so poor.

I just stated that my position in this regards, was based purely on probability and so on that basis, I believed that unconscious bias was a far more probable explanation than any conspiracy theory.

The fact that you decided and wanted to make more of my conspiracy comments than I did, is not really my problem. I have a brother who also likes to try and take me down rabbit holes regarding a whole host of conspiracy theories all the time and tbh, unfortunately I really don't have any appetite for that kind of discussion because, in my experience, there really is no end to it…hence my lack of engagement in this regard.

[CCTV]

You sir, once again are being slightly disingenuous…

This forum is about all things Football related, not inho a platform for political debate.

So my comments regarding conspiracy was purely relating to Referees in the PL and not regarding the probability and prevalence of the proven real life conspiracies that have and continue to take place in the real world.

The definition of the word conspiracy that I referred to was for the record courtesy of Google, it was certainly not my definition, and was I believe relevant to the comments I made regarding why Referees are so poor.

I just stated that my position in this regards, was based purely on probability and so on that basis, I believed that unconscious bias was a far more probable explanation than any conspiracy theory.

The fact that you decided and wanted to make more of my conspiracy comments than I did, is not really my problem. I have a brother who also likes to try and take me down rabbit holes regarding a whole host of conspiracy theories all the time and tbh, unfortunately I really don't have any appetite for that kind of discussion because, in my experience, there really is no end to it…hence my lack of engagement in this regard.

Ah yes, your probability based assessment of football Refereeing without reference to anything.
0 references to unconscious bias studies.
0 reference to a worked out methodology.
0 presentation of probability in a mathematical format.
0 responses when requested on 1 article.
You seem like someone who talks about things you have little understanding about.
A difficulty accepting your own declared bias. As said emotive language and different standards of proof. Instead of accepting you had a bias you then replied that you had little understanding of this area at all.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/german-chancellor-helmut-kohl-made-bid-to-influence-irelands-neutrality/29869826.html

For me that falls clearly on the conscious realm of choice and a conspiracy, need only examine the changes here over the 30 years of darkness and the 10 years since.

You provided a definition for conspiracy theory & unconscious bias (ignoring genetic predispositions in unconscious biases)

Conspiracy Theory : A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Unconscious Bias : Unconscious bias is when we make judgments or decisions on the basis of our prior experience, our own personal deep-seated thought patterns, assumptions or interpretations, and we are not aware that we are doing it.

I offered this article for conspiracy v unconscious bias producing results discussion.

"German chancellor Helmut Kohl made bid to influence Ireland's neutrality

Irish Independent
Irish News
German chancellor Helmut Kohl made bid to influence Ireland's neutrality
Helmut Kohl: former German chancellor fought for euro

Brian Hutton
Fri 27 Dec 2013 at 14:13

German chancellor Helmut Kohl told then Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald it would be possible to change Irish people's "irrational" insistence on neutrality, newly declassified files reveal.

In notes marked "especially confidential", Mr FitzGerald suggests a new relationship with Britain over Northern Ireland could be one way to get around Irish people being "emotionally" attached to the "obstacle".

The leaders met in the Federal Chancellery in Bonn on December 1 1983.

When their secret discussions turned to the European Community, the Taoiseach said Irish people had always been very "community-minded" and had done everything possible to advance the idea.

"However, in Ireland there was one problem about which he would wish to talk to the chancellor," an official notes of Mr FitzGerald's remarks at the top-level tete-a-tete.

"Ireland was emotionally attached to military neutrality.

"Any party would find it difficult to move in this particular area with about 85% of the people supporting the idea.

"Ireland wanted to be part of the whole movement forward enthusiastically, but we did not want to trip over this particular obstacle." Notes of the meeting, just released into the National Archives under the 30-year rule, show the German chancellor told the Taoiseach it would be possible to change Irish people's minds on the neutrality, to advance the European project.

"Mr Kohl said that it would seem possible to find a solution to this problem - some way, which could perhaps help the Irish people change their views," the record of the meeting states.

The chancellor goes on to point out that the British had a professional army while Germany had a conscript system for its defence forces.

Conscription gave German people a very practical understanding and personal experience of serving their country, he said.

While he could understand the fear of many groups about involvement in a military alliance, he went on to speak about the German experience in two world wars, and how he did not need a lecture about war.

Chancellor Kohl told Mr FitzGerald that the Yugoslavian communist leader Josip Broz Tito, who fought the Nazi occupation in the Second World War, had told him personally to keep Nato strong.

The Taoiseach replied that Ireland too had experienced war, pointing out the Civil War was not that long ago.

Mr FitzGerald said the original decision for Ireland not to join Nato had nothing to do with its objectives but was because it protected existing borders and "Irish people, with their country divided and occupied by another Nato member, could not serve in an organisation with this objective in its chapter".

"This type of argument was now much weaker," he is noted as saying "What was supporting the Irish attitude was a great deal more irrational.

"There was one context in which things could, perhaps, develop. That was in the context of a new relationship with Britain over Northern Ireland."

Asked by Mr Kohl about the chances of that happening, Mr FitzGerald said the position in Northren Ireland was getting "very dangerous" because of the alienation of Catholics from government institutions and security forces.

The Taoiseach said it was important to recognise the identity of Protestant Unionists and the dignity of the Catholic minority.

Possible solutions were a unitary State, or federal or confederal State, with joint sovereignty between Britain and Ireland, he claimed."

You exited at this point, as you've said, you know little about the area and seem to stick with your feelings rebranded as probability. The rabbit hole of public record.
I carried on as is my want, I don't find these discussions difficult. Even if branded a racist or some silly other tag.

Football has ran a blm campaign due to the sad passing of George Flyod. A man who died with a toxic level of fentanol in his body, which has claimed 120,000 lives in the USA last year. It was sad although he is not a very good example or role model for black youth.

In contrast the pl hasn't found the grooming gangs scandal to be worthy of a campaign in response to an estimated 100,000 girls some as young as 10-11 being gangraped, drugged up, recorded and uploaded to the Internet etc etc because they are white and do not fit with the dominant racist desires.
Had they been bames targeted by whites they'd have had great social capital in football pr campaigns.

It is the football authorities and culture which has made that decision. The sports governance.

I'll have one more post for the var thread, for me not you as your interests seem to be limited.

[CCTV]

Football it seems has a moral conscience and obligation, until it doesn't serve its own ends.

It's an interesting take on where the boundary should be drawn.