: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:33 am  

The funny thing about all this is that if we went through the rest of the season losing just these 3 games, then it would be deemed a success would it not?

It's unfortunate that we have had 3 losses, back to back, at the beginning of the season, and it looks bad, 3 losses anywhere else, it wouldn't even be an issue.

We won our last game, Leeds didn't, Hull didn't etc. So our current form is better than theirs.

I'm feeling quite positive.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:59 am  

debaser wrote:

We won our last game, Leeds didn't, Hull didn't etc. So our current form is better than theirs.

I'm feeling quite positive.

Sorry to rain on your parade but Hull and Leeds form is still better than ours

WWWWL is better than DLLLW

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:21 am  

debaser wrote:

The funny thing about all this is that if we went through the rest of the season losing just these 3 games, then it would be deemed a success would it not?

It's unfortunate that we have had 3 losses, back to back, at the beginning of the season, and it looks bad, 3 losses anywhere else, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Indeed.

Consider these run of results

2003
London (h) L 12-22
Hull (a) W 26-20
Wolves (a) W 24-20
Wigan (h) L 22-35
St.Helens (h) L 0-35

2005
St.Helens (h) L 4-66
Hudds (a) W 38-20
Widnes (h) D 25-25
Leeds (a) L 26-36
Wakefield (a) L 34-44

And we all know what happened in those years.
As you rightly point out, the poor run is accentuated with is been at the start of the year.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:31 am  

Roofaldo wrote:

Sorry to rain on your parade but Hull and Leeds form is still better than ours

WWWWL is better than DLLLW

OTOH, by the theory that "You're only as good as your last game" . . .

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:52 am  

Roofaldo wrote:

Sorry to rain on your parade but Hull and Leeds form is still better than ours

WWWWL is better than DLLLW

Ok, I will change that to PRESENT form then.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:02 am  

I did think of forming the OT, thinking that O comes between N and P, but decided that its a bit close to OTT which would give the wrong impression and also clashes with Off Topic.

The Neutral Tendency sounds good being neither positive or negative, but unfortunately is abbreviated to NT and would cause confusion with the other NT.

"Usually Positive But Not Delusional Tendency" probably best sums up my mood but UPBNDT isnt very snappy. Any other suggestions?

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:17 am  

Cibaman wrote:

I did think of forming the OT, thinking that O comes between N and P, but decided that its a bit close to OTT which would give the wrong impression and also clashes with Off Topic.

The Neutral Tendency sounds good being neither positive or negative, but unfortunately is abbreviated to NT and would cause confusion with the other NT.

"Usually Positive But Not Delusional Tendency" probably best sums up my mood but UPBNDT isnt very snappy. Any other suggestions?

The Indifferent Tendency? T.I.T

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:20 am  

The government will be so proud of this self categorising.

They'll be getting some consultants in to set up the relevant databases as I type.

: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:49 pm  

Completely out of context wrote: ...too much of the positive tendency may be maladaptive whilst too much of the negative tendency may be malignant.

Completely out of context wrote: ...too much of the positive tendency may be maladaptive whilst too much of the negative tendency may be malignant.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:40 pm  

Oh it's all gone quiet on here,
Yes it's all gone quiet on here..................