Football 2014/15

[adam1234]

I don't think that any professional player should be smoking in this day and age really.

Also going back to the likes of Socrates is ridiculous it was a completely different game then. Fitness levels were no where near what they are now.

Edited September 5, 2014 by adam1234

[ThomThomDrum]

Difference being to all those is that smoking does affect the rates at which we can exercise.

If you're gonna' complain about a discussion don't get yourself involved in it in the first place.

Im not complaining about the discussion, I simply take issue with your "educated guess", as I frankly think its quite stupid to believe that Wilshire and Rooney are under-performing because they smoke(d).

You have seen a few pictures of them smoking and you can conclude this? Eh, no. You know nothing of their smoking habits only that they had/have one..........

[thetime]

I don't think that any professional player should be smoking in this day and age really.

they shouldn't smoke , drink, eat, breathe.

Unprofessional twats..

[kwassa1]

Im not complaining about the discussion, I simply take issue with your "educated guess", as I frankly think its quite stupid to believe that Wilshire and Rooney are under-performing because they smoke(d).

You have seen a few pictures of them smoking and you can conclude this? Eh, no. You know nothing of their smoking habits only that they had/have one..........

That's why it's called an educated guess. It's educated in the sense there's proof of them smoking. Yeah there may only be a couple of pictures but would it be so inexcusably wrong of me to guess that they've smoked more than those in the pictures?

It's also educated in the fact their on field energy levels (later affecting performance levels) don't quite seem to be what they once were.

Sorry if you don't see that as an educated guess. Because in terms of logic that seems fairly reasonable to me.

[adam1234]

they shouldn't smoke , drink, eat, breathe.

Unprofessional twats..

Nope they just shouldn't smoke! I can understand players having an occasional drink and have no problem with that. It is relaxing, fun whatever an individual gets from drinking.

What does a non smoker get from having a fag? What's the point? It is terribly bad for your

health.

And yes they should be more professional with the money that they are on than to smoke, especially at that level.

[ThomThomDrum]

Sorry if you don't see that as an educated guess. Because in terms of logic that seems fairly reasonable to me.

Im sorry but you are suffering from an obvious logical fallacy in that argument. Sorry if you dont see that.

[kwassa1]

Im sorry but you are suffering from an obvious logical fallacy in that argument. Sorry if you dont see that.

Go on explain my logical fallacy. Because it just comes off as you being inadequate of acceptance to a different point of view to yours. Edited September 5, 2014 by kwassa1

[ThomThomDrum]

Go on explain my logically fallacy. Because it just comes off as you being inadequate of acceptance to a different point of view to yours.

Your logical fallacy is what as known as the fallacy of the converse whereby your affirm your argument because of a consequence.

Smoking can affect aerobic performance. A footballer smokes. This footballers performances are perceived to be less energetic than previous, thus their performance is less energetic due to his smoking.

An argument in this manner is invalid becuse smoking is not the only condition which can affect the performance and energy levels of a player

[kaosmark2]

Borini could be interesting if he gets the chance to play, given how hard he supposedly fought to stay at the club. Is his ability as big as his love of his pay packet? Prolly not.

FIFY

[kwassa1]

Your logical fallacy is what as known as the fallacy of the converse whereby your affirm your argument because of a consequence.

Smoking can affect aerobic performance. A footballer smokes. This footballers performances are perceived to be less energetic than previous, thus their performance is less energetic due to his smoking.

An argument in this manner is invalid becuse smoking is not the only condition which can affect the performance and energy levels of a player

Smoking is not the only condition which it could be, but it's the most logical considering what we know about what smoking does to the body.

You seem to be forgetting that in the term 'educated guess' comes the word 'guess'. And don't reply with something like 'don't make a guess then' because if everything was clear for us to see this world would be a boring place.

From this discussion it just seems you are a litigious human being.

[ThomThomDrum]

.

From this discussion it just seems you are a litigious human being.

I did not know this was a legal debate!

From this "discussion" it just seems you are very quick to jump to conclusions based on very little information (or should I say evidence! )

[kwassa1]

I did not know this was a legal debate!

From this "discussion" it just seems you are very quick to jump to conclusions based on very little information (or should I say evidence! )

No it's just you having an inclination to disagree.

That may be, but if you think you've seen the only fags he's smoked then you're obnubilating your view for your own purpose.

[ThomThomDrum]

No it's just you having an inclination to disagree.

That may be, but if you think you've seen the only fags he's smoked then you're obnubilating your view for your own purpose.

No where have I suggested that the only cigarettes any footballer has smoked are those the media have reported on. But based on the limited media reports of footballers smoking you actually conclude that their smoking habits are such to affect their performances. Ignorant really. You dont have a clue of the extent of their habits and to what extent it maybe affecting their performances.

This logically deduced educated guess crap can be applied to my sarcastic "educated guesses" above in the same manner you apply it to yours. For example money acting as a demotivater. There is a theory within management that money can act as a motivator, but only up to a point. In this school of thought too much money can actually act as a demotivater as employees/staff/footballers can psychologically "rest on their laurels".

So we all know these footballers are making an awful lot of money. A "logical educated guess" thus could conclude that these footballers are simply resting on their laurels and cant be arsed being energetic on the pitch that they once busted a gut on before they got their current contracts. However, such an argument falls foul of the same fallacy that yours does

[kwassa1]

No where have I suggested that the only cigarettes any footballer has smoked are those the media have reported on. But based on the limited media reports of footballers smoking you actually conclude that their smoking habits are such to affect their performances. Ignorant really. You dont have a clue of the extent of their habits and to what extent it maybe affecting their performances.

This logically deduced educated guess crap can be applied to my sarcastic "educated guesses" above in the same manner you apply it to yours. For example money acting as a demotivater. There is a theory within management that money can act as a motivator, but only up to a point. In this school of thought too much money can actually act as a demotivater as employees/staff/footballers can psychologically "rest on their laurels".

So we all know these footballers are making an awful lot of money. A "logical educated guess" thus could conclude that these footballers are simply resting on their laurels and cant be arsed being energetic on the pitch that they once busted a gut on before they got their current contracts. However, such an argument falls foul of the same fallacy that yours does

Of course. But you have absolutely no evidence in the slightest that he's 'rested on his laurels'. Whereas I have seen photos of him smoking and from that made a guess (I've removed the 'educated' cos it'll only just irk you in some capacity, although it should still be there). Yours isn't educated because there is no evidence at all.

Don't use this in any relation to this discussion, but I'm putting it out there that he's also been pictured doing the legal high that is laughing gas.

[adam1234]

Sturridge out for the season according to twitter? Anybody have any info on this or is it BS

[thetime]

Sturridge out for the season according to twitter? Anybody have any info on this or is it BS

Rule of thumb pay no attention to rumours on Twitter.

Edited September 5, 2014 by thetime

[ThomThomDrum]

Of course. But you have absolutely no evidence in the slightest that he's 'rested on his laurels'. Whereas I have seen photos of him smoking and from that made a guess (I've removed the 'educated' cos it'll only just irk you in some capacity, although it should still be there). Yours isn't educated because there is no evidence at all.

Don't use this in any relation to this discussion, but I'm putting it out there that he's also been pictured doing the legal high that is laughing gas.

And you have no evidence that he smokes to an extent that it will affect performance

[kwassa1]

And you have no evidence that he smokes to an extent that it will affect performance

That's where the 'guess' part comes in, in 'educated guess'. Sorry if your ignorance blinds that.

Either way, you've- still- yet to come up with something as logical as my idea as to why he isn't producing the energy (and then performance) as he used to.

Edited September 5, 2014 by kwassa1

[ThomThomDrum]

That's where the 'guess' part comes in, in 'educated guess'. Sorry if your ignorance blinds that.

Either way, you've- still- yet to come up with something as logical as my idea as to why he isn't producing the energy (and then performance) as he used to.

You really dont seem to understand this at all.

A footballer smoking cigarettes is limited "evidence" of anything, the same way a footballer earning a lot of money is limited evidence of anything.

Yet you use the fact that studies show smoking to affect aerobic abilities as a way to conclude that this is what is happening to a footballer who under performs.

The same way someone who wants to use the same poor argument structure can say that demotivation increases the more you pay someone too much money and thus paying these guys too much is affecting their performance

There is no evidence that anyone is resting on their laurels, the same way there is no evidence that anyone is smoking enough to affect performance

Both can be called "educated guesses" from a "logical" point of view, but both arguments are fallacious for the same reasons.

If you do not see this I kind of feel sorry for you

Anyway Im off to enjoy my Friday night..................

[kwassa1]

You really dont seem to understand this at all.

A footballer smoking cigarettes is limited "evidence" of anything, the same way a footballer earning a lot of money is limited evidence of anything.

Yet you use the fact that studies show smoking to affect aerobic abilities as a way to conclude that this is what is happening to a footballer who under performs.

The same way someone who wants to use the same poor argument structure can say that demotivation increases the more you pay someone too much money and thus paying these guys too much is affecting their performance

There is no evidence that anyone is resting on their laurels, the same way there is no evidence that anyone is smoking enough to affect performance

Both can be called "educated guesses" from a "logical" point of view, but both arguments are fallacious for the same reasons.

If you do not see this I kind of feel sorry for you

Anyway Im off to enjoy my Friday night..................

I'll let you off cos you aren't grasping something and we're now in a cyclical discussion.

Same, enjoy

[mrtourette]

That's why it's called an educated guess. It's educated in the sense there's proof of them smoking. Yeah there may only be a couple of pictures but would it be so inexcusably wrong of me to guess that they've smoked more than those in the pictures?

It's also educated in the fact their on field energy levels (later affecting performance levels) don't quite seem to be what they once were.

Sorry if you don't see that as an educated guess. Because in terms of logic that seems fairly reasonable to me.

It's a guess, there's nothing educated about taking a very small amount of information (an individual has been seen smoking on two occasions) and making a massive leap in assuming that the amount that they smoke affects their play.

There's also nothing educated about thinking that their 'energy levels don't quite seem what they once were'.

You're assuming, not making educated guesses.

Edited September 5, 2014 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

That's where the 'guess' part comes in, in 'educated guess'. Sorry if your ignorance blinds that.

Either way, you've- still- yet to come up with something as logical as my idea as to why he isn't producing the energy (and then performance) as he used to.

There's absolutely no evidence that he isn't 'producing the enegy' (whatever the fuck that means) other than it seeming that in your opinion he doesn't seem to be performing as well as he used to. Energy and performance are not inextricably linked, there are a number of reasons why he may not be performing as well (in your opinon) as he used to (in your opinion) perform,but just because they arenlt known you dismiss them and say that it has to be the smokign because that's the only thing that we know? Nonsense. You're making massive leaps and assumptions, joining three dots together and saying 'look, if you squint it could be a snake'.

[Gucci Piggy]

Yeah I don't think Wilshere seems to have lowered energy levels at all.

His biggest problem is that he still plays like a 19 year old, and hasn't developed his game much at all since he was that age. Now I'm not one of the people who have written him off, or think he needs a Ramey-esque upturn this season, because he's a very naturally talented player; his ball control is impeccable. He just needs to work on developing his game, as he doesn't offer too much to the team at the moment, however the building blocks are definitely there.

[GodlikeYeezus]

I think Wilshere seems more apprehensive taking players on, I remember him breezing past players when he burst onto the scene. I still think he's a great player and if someone of his ability came onto the scene now they would still get the same appreciation Wilshere did, he just hasn't improved his game too much.

[kwassa1]

It's a guess, there's nothing educated about taking a very small amount of information (an individual has been seen smoking on two occasions) and making a massive leap in assuming that the amount that they smoke affects their play.

There's also nothing educated about thinking that their 'energy levels don't quite seem what they once were'.

You're assuming, not making educated guesses.

Alright pal.