match thread (image) [FT] Rangers 1 (Morelos 18) - 2 Malmo

[craig 5,199]

2 hours ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

From my memory it was obvious. We were well beaten in all departments until we scored the first against Braga. 

 

Please define "obvious". If Salaka's shot goes in we could have rallied and got another. There are no certainties in football when there are 1 or 2 goals in it. 

Man Utd, 1999 CL final.  Game was done….  That’s the perfect example right there

[ranger_syntax 4,330]

5 hours ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

From my memory it was obvious. We were well beaten in all departments until we scored the first against Braga. 

 

Please define "obvious". If Salaka's shot goes in we could have rallied and got another. There are no certainties in football when there are 1 or 2 goals in it. [sic]

You asked if the outcome of the Braga match was obvious at 0 - 2.

 

I said the outcome, a 3 - 2 win for Rangers, was not obvious at 0 - 2.

 

Still not obvious why you want to discuss that match.

Edited August 11, 2021 by ranger_syntax

[ranger_syntax 4,330]

2 hours ago, craig said:

No it isn’t.

 

So any game you don’t attend you also shouldn’t have your opinion taken seriously.

 

Not everyone can attend every game. It’s effectively saying you’re a better supporter simply because you were at the game.

 

To be honest, unexpected much better of you mate [sic]

You're fighting a straw man.  I don't know what you get out of that.  As an act of kindness I will attempt to clarify my very simple point.

 

It's quite obvious that to complain about fans leaving early when not attending at all is almost always worth ignoring.  The only time that I would take that seriously would be if it came from a person who tried, and failed, to buy a ticket.  I suspect that the poor fellow didn't try to attend last night.

 

Should I take opinions on other matters seriously? Who knows? I'm not making any general claim about that.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

You asked if the outcome of the Braga match was obvious at 0 - 2.

 

I said the outcome, a 3 - 2 win for Rangers, was not obvious at 0 - 2.

 

Still not obvious why you want to discuss that match.

I believe the point was that, at 0-2 the outcome was “obvious” in that Rangers would lose the game…. Which didn’t then happen.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

You're fighting a straw man.  I don't know what you get out of that.  As an act of kindness I will attempt to clarify my very simple point.

 

It's quite obvious that to complain about fans leaving early when not attending at all is almost always worth ignoring.  The only time that I would take that seriously would be if it came from a person who tried, and failed, to buy a ticket.  I suspect that the poor fellow didn't try to attend last night.

 

Should I take opinions on other matters seriously? Who knows? I'm not making any general claim about that.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

You're fighting a straw man.  I don't know what you get out of that.  As an act of kindness I will attempt to clarify my very simple point.

 

It's quite obvious that to complain about fans leaving early when not attending at all is almost always worth ignoring.  The only time that I would take that seriously would be if it came from a person who tried, and failed, to buy a ticket.  I suspect that the poor fellow didn't try to attend last night.

 

Should I take opinions on other matters seriously? Who knows? I'm not making any general claim about that.

World class snidery. Gentlemen we’re in the presence of a master. ?

Edited August 11, 2021 by Bill

[ranger_syntax 4,330]

50 minutes ago, craig said:

I believe the point was that, at 0-2 the outcome was “obvious” in that Rangers would lose the game…. Which didn’t then happen.

Strange point to make. The outcome was a Rangers win.

 

Can you tell me why that has any relevance to this discussion?

[Thinker 887]

11 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Strange point to make. The outcome was a Rangers win.

 

Can you tell me why that has any relevance to this discussion?

https://www.drugs.com/condition/asperger-syndrome.html

[craig 5,199]

2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Strange point to make. The outcome was a Rangers win.

 

Can you tell me why that has any relevance to this discussion?

If you can’t understand the point being made and why it’s relevant then I’m not sure what more can be said.

 

But I’ll show an act of kindness and try to clarify the simple point being made.

 

When you stated “It was quite clear to me, and presumably many others, that we were not going to turn this around” someone responded about the Braga game, essentially asking if the outcome of that game was likewise obvious.

 

The point being made was that, at 2-0 to Braga very, very few people expected us to turn it around - ergo, the outcome was “quite clear”….

 

Except it wasn’t.  And that’s what the point was.  Even if people thought the outcome last night was obvious, it COULD have been different.

 

But I also fear we are now heading in tangents with respect to the thread.

 

And apologies for being facetious in the first two paragraphs ?

 

 

[craig 5,199]

2 hours ago, Thinker said:

https://www.drugs.com/condition/asperger-syndrome.html

I’m not sure if you’re aiming that at @ranger_syntaxor me ?