The season 2020 - 2021.

Discussion in 'Norwich City' started by Cromercanary, Jul 7, 2020.

  1. Golden Eadie 2

    Golden Eadie 2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    316
    I would think the trophy would be most important to the players, the chance of putting that medal on the mantlepiece only comes about a very few times in most players careers.
     
    #1181
  2. Farked19

    Farked19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    1,595
    With 18 points up for grabs for the third place team and a 17 point lead I think promotion is guaranteed.
     
    #1182
  3. carrowcanario

    carrowcanario Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,254
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    It might be most important to the players, but surely the issue is what is most important to the long term development of the club. How does a player having a medal on their mantlepiece, benefit the club ? This sort of question is the difference between the finite & infinite game that Webber talks about. What were the clubs objectives this year ? I would guess winning promotion was high on, the list, but winning the title was probably much lower down. There is a massive difference between the 2. The benefits of winning promotion are clear, playing in a higher league next season, financial, marketability etc. The costs of not winning promotion are massive and would have put us back several years, but the cost of not winning the title ? Once we achieve things on our list of priorities we need to work down the list. Is winning the title more important than say preparing our campaign for next season to stay in the PL, by maybe for example developing Sorensen, instead of Skipp . It could be argued that winning the title is an important part of our preparations for next season, due for example the motivating effect on team, or the effect it may have on us getting quality loans in the future, if we suddenly stop playing Skipp. If having won promotion, we decide to place other things, such as player development, ahead of winning the title and this made the difference next year between staying up or relegation, the club would certainly choose staying up next season over a title win this. For the players what's more important, for the likes of Skipp, Tettey, Vrancic it's almost certainly a title medal, but for Sorensen for example its less clear, Medal v chance to establish yourself as Skipp's replacement in the starting 11.
     
    #1183
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  4. Cromercanary

    Cromercanary Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    7,266
    ---^ ---- Very eloquently put canario ---^--- <ok>
     
    #1184
    RiverEndRick likes this.
  5. DHCanary

    DHCanary Very Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    14,921
    Likes Received:
    3,764
    In terms of form, we have to play the teams 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 18th, which includes a title rival and 3 play-off contenders. Some good performances here would be a really promising sign ahead of next season.

    Watford play the teams 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 19th, with one less play-off contender to play. So easier fixtures, but easy enough to make up 8 points?

    Avoiding defeat against them is probably the most important thing!
     
    #1185
    Oxcanary likes this.
  6. robbieBB

    robbieBB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    769
    Those who say "less" when they really mean "few"
    Are a smallish minority, in a word, few
    Do these few all say "many" when "more" it should be?
    That's so much less likely than more (seems to me)
    But the more we hear "less" and the less we hear "few"
    The few become many and the many become few
    It matters less and less when it should matter more
    But nobody cares, they just think it's a bore!
     
    #1186
  7. DHCanary

    DHCanary Very Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    14,921
    Likes Received:
    3,764
    Annoyed at that slip, I'm usually pretty good on that!
     
    #1187
    robbieBB likes this.
  8. ncgandy

    ncgandy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,881
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Is it a slip? I thought 'fewer' only applied if it was more than one?
     
    #1188
  9. Golden Eadie 2

    Golden Eadie 2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    316
    Promise to make fewer mistakes in the future DHC or we'll think less of you.
     
    #1189
    DHCanary likes this.
  10. robbieBB

    robbieBB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    769
    <laugh> <applause>
    I originally wrote and posted that on here about nine years ago, at which time Royalbarclayfan used to entertain us with his limericks and other verses.
    "Plus ça change ..........." (bit like our defence <whistle>)
     
    #1190

  11. Canary Rob

    Canary Rob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,884
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Actually, ncgandy is correct and you are wrong Robbie - where the countable noun is singular then it is correct to say less, ie:

    “one less play-off contender” (as DH wrote)
    vs
    “two fewer play-off contenders”

    are the correct formulae.

    This is a common mistake made by those who think they are correcting a mistake!
     
    #1191
  12. robbieBB

    robbieBB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    769
    I grovel -- but on the up-side Rob, you won't now be able to accuse me of never being prepared to admit I'm wrong!
    And actually, I am yet to be convinced that I am wrong. Given that "contender" is a countable noun, I need chapter and verse please for the claim that singular (v plural) use requires "less" rather than "fewer".
     
    #1192
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  13. RiverEndRick

    RiverEndRick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    5,825
    According to Google either is correct:

    "The strictly correct phrase is “one fewer thing to worry about”. Things are countable by number. However, correct grammar and common usage don’t always agree. The accepted, ungrammatical, phrase is “one less thing to worry about”. So, there you have it. One less thing to worry about."
     
    #1193
  14. Canary Rob

    Canary Rob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,884
    Likes Received:
    2,539

    As an example, see here:
    https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0304.html

    That’s just one style manual, but I think the vast majority of styles go with that route - and common English usage is to say “one less [singular thing]”.

    I agree with RER, though, that we should always remember that one of English’s beauties is that it’s very flexible and (actually this is applicable to all languages) it evolves quickly. That means it’s very dangerous to correct anyone’s grammar, and sometimes even spelling, because if enough people are doing it a certain way and it is understood as mutually intended, that actually just means language has evolved.

    The French try to stop this by mandating correct usage, rather than accepting the dictionary as a changing record of usage. But then they are French.

    Unfortunately for you, Robbie, I don’t think your post really is a very gracious admittance that you are wrong, given your caveat. The reason you are wrong is not because your alternative version is wrong, but rather because your criticism of DH’s usage was wrong (as both are acceptable). So you remain on the “never admits to being wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence” list, I’m afraid. This Wikipedia quote made me laugh as it is so apposite:
    Some prescriptivists argue that even the extremely rare and completely unidiomatic[6]"one fewer" should be used instead of "one less" (both when used alone or together with a singular, discretely quantifiable noun as in "there is one fewer cup on this table"), but Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage clearly states that common usagedictates "one less" in all cases.[2]
     
    #1194
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
    RiverEndRick likes this.
  15. robbieBB

    robbieBB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    769
    This is typical of American English with its drive to simplify the nation's lingua franca (a similar thing is happening in the case of US Spanish incidentally). As Winston Churchill said, the UK and US are "two nations divided by a common language". I can vouch for that from my own experience, and I'll wager Canary Spring and others will too.
     
    #1195
  16. Canary Rob

    Canary Rob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,884
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Cambridge Dictionary is hopefully British English enough for you and specifies “plural” nouns. Oxford online does the same.

    I’m not trawling through any more though, because despite the overwhelming evidence, I am sure you will still find a way to convince yourself you were right all along.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/less-or-fewer

    https://www.lexico.com/gramatica/less-or-fewer
     
    #1196
  17. robbieBB

    robbieBB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    769
    No, if the Cambidge Dictionary is unambiguous on the matter, that settles it. I'll take the OED as additional confirmation too!
     
    #1197
    Canary Rob likes this.
  18. Canary Spring

    Canary Spring Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    I have to admit when I first started reading football forums it could be tough at times. Some of that was football lingo, and some was the British language.
     
    #1198
    RiverEndRick likes this.
  19. RiverEndRick

    RiverEndRick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    5,825
    Having lived in the US until I was 24, I came to the UK in 1971 and ended up staying on permanently. When I arrived 'received pronunciation' and the 'Queen's English' were very emphatically present. Announcers on the BBC followed both to the letter. Today neither is the case. The British public has moved on and so has usage. BBC announcers commonly use less instead of fewer or the other way around and though it irritates me, having a particular interest in language and literature, it's also not one of the big ones, not being what Wiki calls a 'prescriptivist'.

    I've always found the British obsession with not splitting infinitives more than a bit artificial when it interferes with natural emphasis. Star Trek's "to boldly go" raises horror, but would anybody say that 'to go boldly' possesses the same emphasis? There are times where an exception to normal usage can be justified by the effect made, such as Robert Frost's "something there is that doesn't like a wall". 'One fewer plate on the table' feels stilted to me. 'One less plate' sounds more natural and it's what I would use. It seems 'prescriptivists' see it differently.
     
    #1199
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
    Canary Spring and DHCanary like this.
  20. Hairy Mary Quite Canary

    Hairy Mary Quite Canary Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,037
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Sorry to take you all way from this grammar tangent however, it's PoTS time. Several worthy potential winners this season. Hopefully less :emoticon-0105-wink: Spurs fans will get involved to swing the vote. As good as Skipp, Pukki, Air-uns and Hamleys have been, for me it's Football Heaven all day long.

    https://www.canaries.co.uk/Our-Club/pots/
     
    #1200
    DHCanary likes this.

Share This Page