Liverpool FC Forum

[Effes]

Our next 3 games are Stoke and Villa at home and then Bolton away.

These are defo 3 winnable games. Win these 3 and suddenly the picture doesn't look too bad.

Let's not forget -- there wont be many teams who win at Whit Hart Lane this season.

[kunilson]

Well its obvious we haven't got out of pre-season mode. We looked lazy and un-imaginative, completely different to the team that finished last year so strong.

But as long as we can be there or there-abouts come October we still have a good chance this year. we have a decent run of games now....one at a time and it things will be better.

can't throw it all away before december, or it will be very annoying

[stmichael]

As poor as we were the other day I'll look at us again and assess after five games. Nothing we do, or our rivals is really relevant as a barometer of performance or setup for the rest of the season in the first few games imo.

Our next six fixtures are all very winnable, that's all I'll say.

[we all dream...]

As poor as we were the other day I'll look at us again and assess after five games. Nothing we do, or our rivals is really relevant as a barometer of performance or setup for the rest of the season in the first few games imo.

Our next six fixtures are all very winnable, that's all I'll say.

Yeah I agree with that. If we win the next 6 games then we will be well set 18 out of 21 would be an above average start to the season for us.

I'm just worried that we won't be able to do that, we looked very poor on Sunday. I'm hoping for a resounding win against Stoke to get us up and running and increase my moral.

[bigmick]

If we win the next fifteen games I reckon we'll be top, probably by more than a couple of points .

[we all dream...]

If we win the next fifteen games I reckon we'll be top, probably by more than a couple of points .

[heimdall]

If we win the next fifteen games I reckon we'll be top, probably by more than a couple of points .

If we win the next 37 matches I think we'll win the league. 

[LFC2007]

Perhaps therein lies the problem, Rafa (and others) doesn't appreciate how many wins and points it takes to win the league and thinks "let's see how it goes". Result - five seasons without the league and soon to be six, seven, eight etc

It isn't the stats or counting and calculating, it is preparing yourself for the size of the task. Are we to hope suddenly the standard drops within the top four, or the rest suddenly start beating the mancs and Chelsea and hope for the best?!!?!? It takes 27 wins these days to be there or thereabouts, that is a shedload of wins and we've only managed 25 in the Premiership which isn't enough these days. We seem to have taken the approach of seeing how it goes, but it's better to set our sights on 90 points and end up overshooting than seeing how it goes and then finding out mid February that even winning 10 out of 11 will only get us second - much less and we'd have come third. Or put another way, better to have too many points than not enough.

The harsh reality is we might have missed our chance last season and now not have the squad/players to matter whether we play to a plan or meander along in hope. I bet fergie looks to win every game knowing that he will lose or draw a few, but needs to win 70% + Their ruthlessness against the weaker sides is a great tactic, effected successfully 23 times out of 24 against last season's bottom 12. They had a pretty ordinary record against the better sides, but that didn't stop them. They lost more games than we did for the second season in a row and won the league title.

So unless your bravado bull is a backward way of saying we need to win every game, and trust me it could have been said with a lot less words if that is what you meant, I don't see how we're going to win the league if the people that matter - manager and players - take the same attitude. It comes over less professional, win every game and take the bull by the horns, and more "let's see how it goes chaps, if we win we win"

Oh and we were "in proper contention pretty much all the way", but the bottom line is that once the mancs got their noses in front they weren't going to let us catch up. They did what we can't seem to, won, won, won, won and won some more until they'd won so many in a row they had come from seven points behind to 10 in front. They then lost two, we closed to within four points and they matched our last nine games in terms of wins and points. Simply put, you can't afford to let the mancs get in front, I'd like to plan for X wins in a row but it's easier to go out, try and win every game while accepting some defeats and draws as inevitable, but aim at 27+ wins knowing that come the end of the season that will be right up there - 27 wins, 9 draws and 2 defeats = 90 points and would have won us the title on GD. QED

Yes, in hindsight the obviousness of Feynman's conjecture is inherent in the simplest idea of coupling between two systems. Taking one of the objects as fixed in space then, if a second object moves in circles about the first, the two objects are coupled in some way. Circular or cyclical motion in two dimensions is the generic form taken by most simple coupled systems when two objects are involved and implies that π is involved and further two dimension circular motion maps onto unimodular complex numbers like ei θ with θ arbitrary and so e the base of natural logarithms is also involved. Such unimodular complex numbers are also the basic constituent of the mathematical description for quantum states in general. Yes certainly obvious, but not so fifty years ago when a smokescreen of deep complicated and little understood theoretical structures obscured the obvious except for the very few individuals such as Feynman with penetrating insight.

The connection of α with π is much deeper than the fact that π accurs in the formula for α(n1,n2) given above. We can define two simple but very significant generalizations of π , πi(n) and πo(n) which will be called π-in and π-out and having values which depend on an integer parameter n. π can be defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to twice its radius, C/(2r). Given any n-sided equilateral polygon P(n) it will have a small radius ri(n), the distance from its center to the center of a side, and a large radius ro(n), the distance from its center to a vertex. Thus analogously to the way π is defined, two generalizations of π can be defined by dividing the perimeter length of the polygon by 2ri(n) or 2ro(n). This gives the two integer dependent generalizations of π with properties following,

πi(n) = n tan(π/n),

πo(n) = n sin(π/n),

πo(n) < π < πi(n),

πi(∞) = πo(∞) = π.

Inspection of the formula for α(n1,n2) reveals that it can be expressed in terms of the first generalized π as,

α(n1,n2) = cos(π/n1)πi(n1 × n2)/(n1π).

Thus if n2 goes to infinity

α(n1,∞) = cos(π/n1)/n1.

This last formula gives a very accurate first approximation for the values of the coupling constants. It was in fact discovered before the two parameter exact formula was found.

Thus the relation between the coupling constants and the generalized π can be put into the more tidy form,

α(n1,n2)π = α(n1,∞)πi(n1 × n2). ...........................†



The important part played by polygons in this theory is a consequence of quantization. Motion round a polygon must occur with directional jumps, whereas motion round a circle can be taking place classically with a continuously changing direction of motion.

Much more detail about this area of research and the formula †, the very important part played by special relativity and the implications for high energy physics together with downloadable files on the subject can be found on my website in the Mathematics Department at Queen Mary College London. The downloadable files on my website contain accounts of how some of the very important results from what is called the standard model for particle physics can easily be obtained from this theory. A very simple theoretical formula can be obtained for Weinberg's weak-mixing angle θW. The mass ratio of the W and Z gauge bosons can be obtained. Another application is the use of the accurate formula for the fine structure constant to produce a method for finite renormalization.

An interesting recent contribution to finding an accurate value for α has been presented by Michael Wales. He claims that there are good reasons for the ratio of an electron's time in a Bohr orbit to an internal electronic time to have the definite integral value NW = 2573380, such that

α = NW -1/3 ≈ α(137,25).

As you can see in:



Thus, (Chelsea x nx2 (C/2R) ) = title win.

In conclusion, therefore, we need to beat Stoke.

[GRAHAM01]

Perhaps therein lies the problem, Rafa (and others) doesn't appreciate how many wins and points it takes to win the league and thinks "let's see how it goes". Result - five seasons without the league and soon to be six, seven, eight etc

It isn't the stats or counting and calculating, it is preparing yourself for the size of the task. Are we to hope suddenly the standard drops within the top four, or the rest suddenly start beating the mancs and Chelsea and hope for the best?!!?!? It takes 27 wins these days to be there or thereabouts, that is a shedload of wins and we've only managed 25 in the Premiership which isn't enough these days. We seem to have taken the approach of seeing how it goes, but it's better to set our sights on 90 points and end up overshooting than seeing how it goes and then finding out mid February that even winning 10 out of 11 will only get us second - much less and we'd have come third. Or put another way, better to have too many points than not enough.

The harsh reality is we might have missed our chance last season and now not have the squad/players to matter whether we play to a plan or meander along in hope. I bet fergie looks to win every game knowing that he will lose or draw a few, but needs to win 70% + Their ruthlessness against the weaker sides is a great tactic, effected successfully 23 times out of 24 against last season's bottom 12. They had a pretty ordinary record against the better sides, but that didn't stop them. They lost more games than we did for the second season in a row and won the league title.

So unless your bravado bull is a backward way of saying we need to win every game, and trust me it could have been said with a lot less words if that is what you meant, I don't see how we're going to win the league if the people that matter - manager and players - take the same attitude. It comes over less professional, win every game and take the bull by the horns, and more "let's see how it goes chaps, if we win we win"

Oh and we were "in proper contention pretty much all the way", but the bottom line is that once the mancs got their noses in front they weren't going to let us catch up. They did what we can't seem to, won, won, won, won and won some more until they'd won so many in a row they had come from seven points behind to 10 in front. They then lost two, we closed to within four points and they matched our last nine games in terms of wins and points. Simply put, you can't afford to let the mancs get in front, I'd like to plan for X wins in a row but it's easier to go out, try and win every game while accepting some defeats and draws as inevitable, but aim at 27+ wins knowing that come the end of the season that will be right up there - 27 wins, 9 draws and 2 defeats = 90 points and would have won us the title on GD. QED

Yes, in hindsight the obviousness of Feynman's conjecture is inherent in the simplest idea of coupling between two systems. Taking one of the objects as fixed in space then, if a second object moves in circles about the first, the two objects are coupled in some way. Circular or cyclical motion in two dimensions is the generic form taken by most simple coupled systems when two objects are involved and implies that π is involved and further two dimension circular motion maps onto unimodular complex numbers like ei θ with θ arbitrary and so e the base of natural logarithms is also involved. Such unimodular complex numbers are also the basic constituent of the mathematical description for quantum states in general. Yes certainly obvious, but not so fifty years ago when a smokescreen of deep complicated and little understood theoretical structures obscured the obvious except for the very few individuals such as Feynman with penetrating insight.

The connection of α with π is much deeper than the fact that π accurs in the formula for α(n1,n2) given above. We can define two simple but very significant generalizations of π , πi(n) and πo(n) which will be called π-in and π-out and having values which depend on an integer parameter n. π can be defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to twice its radius, C/(2r). Given any n-sided equilateral polygon P(n) it will have a small radius ri(n), the distance from its center to the center of a side, and a large radius ro(n), the distance from its center to a vertex. Thus analogously to the way π is defined, two generalizations of π can be defined by dividing the perimeter length of the polygon by 2ri(n) or 2ro(n). This gives the two integer dependent generalizations of π with properties following,

πi(n) = n tan(π/n),

πo(n) = n sin(π/n),

πo(n) < π < πi(n),

πi(∞) = πo(∞) = π.

Inspection of the formula for α(n1,n2) reveals that it can be expressed in terms of the first generalized π as,

α(n1,n2) = cos(π/n1)πi(n1 × n2)/(n1π).

Thus if n2 goes to infinity

α(n1,∞) = cos(π/n1)/n1.

This last formula gives a very accurate first approximation for the values of the coupling constants. It was in fact discovered before the two parameter exact formula was found.

Thus the relation between the coupling constants and the generalized π can be put into the more tidy form,

α(n1,n2)π = α(n1,∞)πi(n1 × n2). ...........................†



The important part played by polygons in this theory is a consequence of quantization. Motion round a polygon must occur with directional jumps, whereas motion round a circle can be taking place classically with a continuously changing direction of motion.

Much more detail about this area of research and the formula †, the very important part played by special relativity and the implications for high energy physics together with downloadable files on the subject can be found on my website in the Mathematics Department at Queen Mary College London. The downloadable files on my website contain accounts of how some of the very important results from what is called the standard model for particle physics can easily be obtained from this theory. A very simple theoretical formula can be obtained for Weinberg's weak-mixing angle θW. The mass ratio of the W and Z gauge bosons can be obtained. Another application is the use of the accurate formula for the fine structure constant to produce a method for finite renormalization.

An interesting recent contribution to finding an accurate value for α has been presented by Michael Wales. He claims that there are good reasons for the ratio of an electron's time in a Bohr orbit to an internal electronic time to have the definite integral value NW = 2573380, such that

α = NW -1/3 ≈ α(137,25).

As you can see in:



Thus, (Chelsea x nx2 (C/2R) ) = title win.

In conclusion, therefore, we need to beat Stoke.

i think you dropped a 2 about mid way through but i have come to the same result 

[bigmick]

At Lfc's cheeky post.

Back on subject....Unfortunately after being a goal down at half-time Chelsea got back up to win 3-1 at Sunderland (another goal for Darren Bent), which was a top result for them I reckon. Twice in two matches now they've come from behind, one with an injury time winner and there's no better way of cranking up some momentum as we showed last season. Arsenal predictably (only after their wonder show at Goodison was it predictable though) went to Celtic and spanked their erse, so both of these two are well and truly up and running. The mancs will be ultra keen to ensure that Chelsea don't get away, as well as wanting to put us under maximum pressure straight away, so they WILL win at Burnley.

As of now, we are five points behind Chelsea (with a game in hand) who will now be buzzing, three points behind Arsenal who will be believing all kinds of wonderous things are possible, Three behind the Mancs with them having a penalty kick game tomorrow. The Stoke match is getting bigger all the time, we really really could do with a win here.

[Penguins]

One big problem is that we won't get 12 pts vs Chelski and manure this season and we still need to get around 90 pts to win.

All this means is that we need to be mch better vs lesser teams.
Sure, we lost last season too vs Spurs(even though we were the much better team that time) but we need to get pts this season where we didn't last season.

I have still not seen anything this transfer window that makes me confident we will get 6 pts vs the likes of Stoke and other teams that park the bus.

No knee jerk reaction, but the preassure is immense already with all our rivals probably having 6 pts after 2 games.
It's hard once you get behind the 8-ball...

[REDTILLDEAD]

If we win the next fifteen games I reckon we'll be top, probably by more than a couple of points .

Fukkin hell!......what are you on?...they way we played on sunday we will be lucky to 15 points from the next fifteen games!......never mind winning the next fifteen? no chance unless Rafa buys a class CB and a proven striker.

[KOPMATT]

is it really a top Quality CB thats needed first and foremost? I'm not disaggreeing so much as wanting to know why? We need someone to fill Alonso's boots and I know we have to wait to find out if Aqualini is the guy agreed, not much we can do about that right now, however we DO IMHO need a top drawer Striker not just to cover Torres but to play with him. We didn't need a CB last season as defensively we were very good however prone to conceding from set pieces which again seems to be our achilles heel. I personally was going in favour of Carra/Skrtel partnership but am now inclined to favour Agger with carra. We have i think improved at right back although i was reluctant to sell Arbeloa, having said that i would love to see Darby not Degen step in there should he have to.
I just think that there are far more important positions to strengthen the team rather than CB.

And have to agree with the reat of you guys here that the Stoke game is getting bigger for us by the day. If it wasn't big enough for us already?

[REDTILLDEAD]

I dont think we will see much of Agger this season...he is another one who seems to be injury prone...the latest on him is that he could be sidelined for up to 3 months?...once you start having problems with your back like Agger seems to then your always gonna be prone to this type of injury....thats what forced garry gillespie to retire early.

[KOPMATT]

I dont think we will see much of Agger this season...he is another one who seems to be injury prone...the latest on him is that he could be sidelined for up to 3 months?...once you start having problems with your back like Agger seems to then your always gonna be prone to this type of injury....thats what forced garry gillespie to retire early.

Ok thanx for that as i wasn't aware of the extent of Aggers injury. Point taken sorry guys.