Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A
The Mail Bag

Above and below

Comments (9)

Just a thought about our apparant inability to beat anyone above us in the league...

Arsenal haven't beaten anyone above them in the league this season. Neither have Man U.

The point i make is that the more teams below us we beat, the further we will rise. Hence, there will be more and more teams below us and less potential games to win against teams above us! But who cares if we're top?!
Jon Sellick, Crosby     Posted 10/12/2007 at 09:58:52

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Colm
Applying similar logic, win all our games, we'll win the League!
James Elworthy
1   Posted 10/12/2007 at 10:10:21

Report abuse

The logic is quite simple finish above the so called big 4 and we will win the league.
Tony Hawkins
2   Posted 10/12/2007 at 12:41:31

Report abuse

I don’t see the logic in Arsenal not beating anyone above them when they are top of the table!!!

Lee Spargo
3   Posted 10/12/2007 at 12:46:45

Report abuse

The logic is that the higher you are in the table, the less potential there is to beat a team above you, because there are fewer of them, and more potential to beat those below you, because there are more of them. simple really.
Scott Cattaneo
4   Posted 10/12/2007 at 13:43:07

Report abuse

Plus - by beating these teams you are a direct contibutor to their prediciment of been lower in the league.
Robbie Kirkham
5   Posted 10/12/2007 at 14:24:30

Report abuse

It pisses me off this cry of well we’ve beaten nobody above us what a load of bollocks did these people who say this really expect Spurs, Bolton even Boro to be were they are? seems to me people are looking for things to moan about you can only beat wot is in front of you.
Andy Callan
6   Posted 10/12/2007 at 15:05:05

Report abuse

Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the radical suggestion that logic ought to tolerate inconsistency. Relevance logic and paraconsistent logic are the most important approaches here, though the concerns are different: a key consequence of classical logic and some of its rivals, such as intuitionistic logic, is that they respect the principle of explosion, which means that the logic collapses if it is capable of deriving a contradiction. Graham Priest, the main proponent of dialetheism, has argued for paraconsistency on the grounds that there are in fact, true contradictions
Jon Sellick
7   Posted 10/12/2007 at 17:09:03

Report abuse

Andy Callan, that’s awesome!!
El-ray Jackson
8   Posted 10/12/2007 at 17:25:09

Report abuse

What the hell are you on about? Now please can we have that in English. I have studied French for years, and i definitely havn’t come across anything like that!!!!!!!
Brendan McLaughlin
9   Posted 10/12/2007 at 18:49:39

Report abuse

Certainly can’t disagree with that Andy.

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.