Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Oct 16, 2016 21:54:01 GMT
Rubbish game. I don't think anyone from either team played well. It was like watching Sunday league. To call for player gassings is a little bit premature. We're in a really strong position and we've had one bad game. Got to suck it up and move on. At least we got a point. Pretty much sums it up... Have the EIHL changed the rules of winning the game to 'which team can make the most screw-ups'? If so, we won the first period hands down, then Belfast came back strong in the second... the third was pretty much even. Doesn't come anywhere near to being "the worst game ever seen", but it was decidedly poor all round. Not impressed at all.
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 16, 2016 23:14:37 GMT
Rubbish game. I don't think anyone from either team played well. It was like watching Sunday league. To call for player gassings is a little bit premature. We're in a really strong position and we've had one bad game. Got to suck it up and move on. At least we got a point. Pretty much sums it up... Have the EIHL changed the rules of winning the game to 'which team can make the most screw-ups'? If so, we won the first period hands down, then Belfast came back strong in the second... the third was pretty much even. Doesn't come anywhere near to being "the worst game ever seen", but it was decidedly poor all round. Not impressed at all. TBF I've only been going a couple of years so my sample size is lower, but it was the worst I'd seen. I've seen worse performances by Panthers, I've see worse from varying oppositions, but I've never seen both teams as poor as that on the same night.
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
Threads: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,593
|
Post by BigLad on Oct 17, 2016 11:48:50 GMT
Awful first two periods. Turnovers and icings galore.
Picked up in the third when Panthers finally started to get going.
Such a frustrating loss. Still no idea how that puck found its way past Mika!
|
|
Lawman
Pat Casey
Stretford End King
Posts: 237
|
Post by Lawman on Oct 17, 2016 16:04:04 GMT
For 55 minutes that looked like a training session for 2 very poor teams
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Oct 17, 2016 16:32:40 GMT
So long as it's just one bad game and we still get a point it could be a lot worse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 17:10:05 GMT
This was one game. Normally when you get two evenly matched teams they cancel each other out and don't want to make any high risk plays hence why it was very uninspiring..both these sides are quality rosters make no mistake. I doubt either team will perform at that level again
|
|
|
Post by PantherB on Oct 17, 2016 18:29:58 GMT
We made pretty much every mistake we could've done since the start of the season in that game. We've been on a great streak, the win streak might be dead but the points from game streak isn't.
It was a very poor game, entertainment and hockey wise. Neither team played well but i do feel if we'd have not hashed a few of the slapshot's/one timers and passes during PP's we'd have secured both points without OT. I don't remember a single one timer connecting fully.
Very disappointed but law of averages was slowly getting higher and higher in favour of a loss and Belfast just gave it that little bit extra to ensure the victory.
As for all of the stuff about releasing players, we're 3 guys down and have been for a few weeks, we're tired. Everyone has contributed in one way or another, playing out of position, playing different roles etc.. No one deserves the bullet. Whilst the loss was disappointing, it's not the end of the world and hopefully we come back from Spain with Lawrence and Lee back in the lineup along with no new injuries. We've got a great team, it was simply a blip what we saw on Sunday and i'm confident we'll come back from Spain both successful and heading into our next games with high morale.
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 17, 2016 19:45:07 GMT
Very disappointed but law of averages was slowly getting higher and higher. Time to be a pedant, but the law of averages doesn't work like that. We don't become any more likely to lose because we've won lots. The analogy would be flipping a coin, if you flipped 100 heads in a row, it's still the same odds of the next toss being a head as it is a tail.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Oct 19, 2016 10:45:07 GMT
Very disappointed but law of averages was slowly getting higher and higher. Time to be a pedant, but the law of averages doesn't work like that. We don't become any more likely to lose because we've won lots. The analogy would be flipping a coin, if you flipped 100 heads in a row, it's still the same odds of the next toss being a head as it is a tail. Factually 100% correct, and I'm all for pedantry in things like this, but to the layman, that's not how it seems. I'd thus be interested in the answer to this question. Team A have won 10 straight, team B's winning streak is one game, after 9 losses. Who's "more likely" to lose the next game they play? The above comment would suggest that the answer is team A (after 10 wins the "law of averages is getting higher") which I'm not sure anyone would, if asked, say...? Anyway, I'm off to read "Statshot", book which combines two great interest of mine...
|
|
deke
Robert Lachowicz
Posts: 432
|
Post by deke on Oct 19, 2016 12:09:57 GMT
We have a really good team. One or two need to start performing, mainly Carter. He got motm last game but tbh wasn't particularly good. Players I have liked so far ate brown betteridge kalus Laurence Lee and wiikman all have been particularly consistent and playing to a good standard. Particularly pleased with ollie. Big critic of him before this season thought hr looked lightweight and not up to it. Didn't look like he was sure what he was doing at times. This season? Much better looks determined and up for anything throws hits drives to the net and has generally improved his whole game. However Laurence has been awesome hope he is back soon and back to form. At times he has been untouchable.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Oct 19, 2016 15:45:12 GMT
Carter probably got MOM just for scoring! Sounds odd to say that generally but with a game and performance like that it was either him or Paws.
I'd have gone for Paws personally.
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 19, 2016 19:46:20 GMT
Time to be a pedant, but the law of averages doesn't work like that. We don't become any more likely to lose because we've won lots. The analogy would be flipping a coin, if you flipped 100 heads in a row, it's still the same odds of the next toss being a head as it is a tail. Factually 100% correct, and I'm all for pedantry in things like this, but to the layman, that's not how it seems. I'd thus be interested in the answer to this question. Team A have won 10 straight, team B's winning streak is one game, after 9 losses. Who's "more likely" to lose the next game they play? The above comment would suggest that the answer is team A (after 10 wins the "law of averages is getting higher") which I'm not sure anyone would, if asked, say...? Anyway, I'm off to read "Statshot", book which combines two great interest of mine... It's because we as humans love creating patterns and rules to try and explain random sequences, even if no such pattern exists! It's actually quite an interesting theme in pyschology how humans try and impose this order on things which are by their nature random and chaotic as a means of trying to control the world around us.
|
|
|
Post by Kovalchuk17 on Oct 20, 2016 9:53:12 GMT
Factually 100% correct, and I'm all for pedantry in things like this, but to the layman, that's not how it seems. I'd thus be interested in the answer to this question. Team A have won 10 straight, team B's winning streak is one game, after 9 losses. Who's "more likely" to lose the next game they play? The above comment would suggest that the answer is team A (after 10 wins the "law of averages is getting higher") which I'm not sure anyone would, if asked, say...? Anyway, I'm off to read "Statshot", book which combines two great interest of mine... It's because we as humans love creating patterns and rules to try and explain random sequences, even if no such pattern exists! It's actually quite an interesting theme in pyschology how humans try and impose this order on things which are by their nature random and chaotic as a means of trying to control the world around us. It's not just humans... they have experimented with birds, dropping feed into a bowl at completely random intervals and the birds (think it was doves) would create dances & routines in an attempt to influence the feed dropping in.
|
|