Sabster said:Damocles said:You don't know anyone with an IQ above 150. 150 is the top millionth of a percentile in the world. Those people are usually great leaders in their field.
Even if you did (which you don't), IQ doesn't mean intelligence, especially on a sport based science such as football.
I class myself as pretty knowledgeable. I am a scientist by nature, I use logic to draw conclusions, I have graded the works of others in my particular field; as football is considered, I played for a professional team at youth level, and have coached various age groups whilst watching several different leagues.
I think that De Jong is the absolute best anchorman in the world.
If you don't rate him, I'm not going to ask about your intelligence, but rather question your understanding of the game.
Mate do the maths, IQ is a normal distribution with mean 100 and S.D. 15. That lets z= 3.1
Phi(3.1) = about 0.001 which is about 1 i every 100000. Considering i study maths at Cambridge I don't think that percentage is that unreasonable.
-- Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:06 pm --
kippaxblue76 said:Read again. Good and useful is good enough for us? So if he is just good and useful i ask you again why didn't Mancini replace him?
Because we can't have world beaters in every position.
Correct, if we're going to play 7-2-1 every week and play anti-football, then De Jong will be the man to build the team around. In more open games he looks like a dinner lady in a playground full of kids!Sabster said:He played brilliantly today no doubt.
But for me he still lacks pace and a physicality that the best DMs have.
In a a more open game he would get found out (commiting himself, lack of pace and poor positioning) but in games like this he is brilliant.
Sabster said:Damocles said:If that's the case, why do 99% of your posts originate from Lancashire?
I would guess because (I am assuming you are a mod), that your IP adress analyser is fucked up.
The majority of my posts would have come from my house outside of london.
Neil McNab said:Correct, if we're going to play 7-2-1 every week and play anti-football, then De Jong will be the man to build the team around. In more open games he looks like a dinner lady in a playground full of kids!Sabster said:He played brilliantly today no doubt.
But for me he still lacks pace and a physicality that the best DMs have.
In a a more open game he would get found out (commiting himself, lack of pace and poor positioning) but in games like this he is brilliant.
Sabster said:Damocles said:You don't know anyone with an IQ above 150. 150 is the top millionth of a percentile in the world. Those people are usually great leaders in their field.
Even if you did (which you don't), IQ doesn't mean intelligence, especially on a sport based science such as football.
I class myself as pretty knowledgeable. I am a scientist by nature, I use logic to draw conclusions, I have graded the works of others in my particular field; as football is considered, I played for a professional team at youth level, and have coached various age groups whilst watching several different leagues.
I think that De Jong is the absolute best anchorman in the world.
If you don't rate him, I'm not going to ask about your intelligence, but rather question your understanding of the game.
Mate do the maths, IQ is a normal distribution with mean 100 and S.D. 15. That lets z= 3.1
Phi(3.1) = about 0.001 which is about 1 i every 100000. Considering i study maths at Cambridge I don't think that percentage is that unreasonable.
-- Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:06 pm --
kippaxblue76 said:Read again. Good and useful is good enough for us? So if he is just good and useful i ask you again why didn't Mancini replace him?
Because we can't have world beaters in every position.
Arry is Bent said:SABSTER- "DE JONG LACKS PHISICALITY"
After that absolutely absurd comment, you really ought to be banned.