Posts by iceman006

funny that grammar is the one which caught the attention when it is the data which is asked for i dont really think all-around matters in a vaccuum the question is how much of a player's all around game contributed to the team's wins

oh my 7 or 8 matches too small of a sample size to form a relevant conclusion, are you sure you have a phd? 8 matches is only 21% of the epl, only 36% of the turkish volleyball league, 10% of the nhl, 9.7% of the nba, 4.9% of the mlb etc. the reason why it is small is because every team no matter how strong or weak you are can have 8, 10 and 15 games of fantastic or abyssmal type of play after that those who overachieved will regress to the mean and there is no way of knowing how strong a team is if we only base it on a few games we need to see them play more to determine how consistent will their performance be how many games? may be a minimum 30-35 games in every year? maybe you are an expert in other fields but please dont sell me that "i have a phd" crap and talk like a sports analyst when your data is too small to even be taken seriously

by the way i already ignored you so just make a 1 million word reply which i wont be able to read anyway

the gloating is not about the favorite team losing, if that were the case then last season i should have said "oh vakifbank are cheaters that's why they won "

what a joke kim hill deserves an award when zhu ting played better than her the whole tournament while hill only played well in the final

congratulations to usa they were clearly the better team than china not only in this match but in the whole year

Quote from raylight

That 1 circumstance is called intelligence in both senses of the word.

yeah intelligence without enough data

"they are emotonally fragile" yeah yeah a team who got 50-3 and lose the 54th game is mentally fragile while a team who is 42-11 but got lucky in the next 2 games is clutch oh the genius of the reasoning

if healthy.... ah! the team who likes to skip tournaments that's not the best that's called being low on stamina

so if they're not who is?

loser? can someone define that to me please

who for me is the best team i this tournament who i can say with 100% confidence? mmn none unlike if this was the turkish league, russian league

since were at it the only teams who i consider as the absolute best against their peers are china of the 80's and cuba of the 90's the teams after that? they're only relatively best

nyahahahha great observations base on a few games and will say their theory is correct because of a single event, wait brazil is not the perfect team? who is the perfect team then? usa who has been the team of the year 2 times (2011-2012) in 10 years? russia who is the team of the year in 2006? or maybe italy who is the team of the year in 2007? caused you know if a team like brazil is not a perfect team then that make other teams quite pathetic

well you know if they had a 6 wins 5 loss record then i wouldnt call them the best, good thing i saw the sentence "for me" which mean that the post is full of illusions and no solid evidence

great so a fan here felt that his theory was vindicated due to 1 circumstance

games are not drama, of course because 1 game series are luck

wow great analysis of the whole tournament based on a semis match by the self proclaimed expert, oh the sensationalism

wow 1 bad game and it's a curse

if usa wins the gold it will only be a formality since they were the best team in 2011 and 2012 so this gold in 2014 (if they ever win) is an official recognition that they werent able to get 2 years ago.

the low competition killed brazil's shape, oh my people really only look at 1 phenomenon out of a thousand situations and then they will make conclusions it's like studying a country's economy and make an analysis based on 1 sector