I think there's an issue of cause and causality here.

As YG (and myself) are aware, the information saints have previously put out about Walsh was true at the time, there's a possibility that he falls tomorrow, re breaks it and doesn't play again. However, that's somewhat unlikely, certainly no more likely than any other player. That doesn't mean that Saints were wrong when they said he could make the start of the season, and the invalidity of that statement is no basis to assume of further false statements by saints.

Thank you. You're spot on. It really isn't difficult to understand.

It isn't perfectly reasonable though. It's ignorant, stubborn and extremely frustrating.

It'll be interesting to see the squad when named tomorrow. We're gonna have to play a forwards game, and hopefully tire them out up the middle, with no proper halves.

No. And I haven't accused Saints of wilfully false statements. However, nor is the invalidity of previous statements, or any genuine intent behind them, a basis to assume that further statements must therefore come to pass.

There are only two positions here :

1) Previous statements, although well intentioned, proved inaccurate. I have some doubt about current predictions proving accurate. I hope they do, but past events suggest unreliability of such predictions.
2) Previous statements, although well intentioned, proved inaccurate. I am absolutely certain that the current prediction will prove accurate. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be an idiot.

Personally, I don't think position (1) is unreasonable. Jumping up and down shouting at people who express that view suggests a lack of perspective.

I see. Well, let's hope your absolute confidence is better placed than the club's earlier confidence.

I'm not jumping up and down?

By taking the position of (1) your assuming 1 of 2 things; either, you think Walah is more likely to another setback than other players, or that the Saints medical team have allowed the coaching staff to be over eager with putting out their estimates. Either way, with the number of negative rumours Walsh seems to constantly generate, I can certainly understand when frustration creeps in. Past events affecting current situation is called Gamblers Fallacy btw



As it currently stands the only facts that matter is that Walsh is currently in full training with the first team, working on getting back up to match fitness, and there is nothing to suggest that there will be any further setbacks, or that the current return date is over optimisitc (on the contrary, it looks on the cautious side imo)

I have to say Roy, the assumption here is that Saints first statements were inaccurate.

The point being made against your assumption is that they were not inaccurate.

for example

I will be in work tomorrow. This is an accurate statement.
However, in the morning I find that my car does not start, or I crash the car. Then I will be late or not make work at all.

It does not make the original statement inaccurate. It means the orginal statement did not account for all possibilities.

There is a difference. An inaccurate statement would suggest either incompetance or misleading tendancies.
Where as the others are arguing it was not inaccurate, it was accurate at the time.

To be fair the club generally get asked by the press when will Walsh be back and they say 2nd Week of April.

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

What you are adovcating is a different response to casual questioning.

When is Walsh back?
Walsh is due back on the 2nd Week of April.
We have rated this at 70% likely to be back on this date, the other 30% takes into account
A 10% chance that his fitness is not up to speed and so may not be able to last a full match
A 5% chance that his injury under duress may break again
There is a 2% chance that another player will keep him out of the team due to form
Then we have the following that Walsh's
Odds of getting canonized: 20,000,000 to 1
Odds of injury from fireworks: 19,556 to 1
Odds of injury from shaving: 6,585 to 1
Odds of injury from using a chain saw: 4,464 to 1
Odds of injury from mowing the lawn: 3,623 to 1
Odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1
Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1
Odds of being killed on a 5-mile bus trip: 500,000,000 to 1
Odds of being killed sometime in the next year in any sort of transportation accident: 77 to 1
Odds of being killed in any sort of non-transportation accident: 69 to 1
Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1
Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1
Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1
Odds of being considered possessed by Satan: 7,000 to 1
Odds of getting hemorrhoids: 25 to 1

These odds are Saints best calculation at this time of Walsh coming back on the 2nd Week in April and are subject to change as are all things and by tomorrow the odds will have shortened or lengthened dependant on many factors some stated here and some not. etc etc etc


When we are asking any question about the future. Any answer is open to chance and risk, in which case you have to assume it is beholdant on the user of that information to take into account that other possibilities exist.

As you can see, in the end the answer 2nd week of April is an off the cuff comment and does not give a full answer as a full answer would require a full legal document every time a simple question is asked.

Don't Fancy them odds much

I feel like I'm in a bizarre alternative universe where the meaning of the same words differs between you and I.

My line is that I have doubts about Walsh's return. Those doubts are precisely because of the unknowables to which you refer above. The club may, in all good faith, predict a return in mid-April, but then encounter an unforeseen issue. I entirely accept this. That's why I have doubts. Doubt, in this case, means a lack of certainty. Hence, all my original comment ever meant was that I am becoming increasingly concerned/doubtful of Walsh's imminent return to a Saints shirt. The fact that previous predictions have turned out to be wrong - however well-intentioned - merely confirms that a doubtful approach is a reasonable approach. I have never said he is definitely not going to return. Nor have I said that the club is lying. I have merely expressed doubt.

On the other hand, Mr Giraffe is absolutely certain that because the club has said Walsh will return in April week 2, then that will happen. In his view, my doubt is completely misplaced because the club has spoken, and therefore there can be no doubt. This is a fact as inevitable as the force of gravity. Anyone who expresses doubt - as I did - is therefore an idiot.

So I agree that there can be no certainty. And I agree that there are unforeseen possibilities. And thus I agree that while the club has said Walsh should be back very soon, they cannot guarantee that any more this time than they could last time they made a prediction which did not come to pass. I agree. It's not me who is denying this eminently reasonable position. It's the other guy who denies even the slightest possibility that Walsh's return might be delayed, with a faith in the club's statement bordering on the religious. What's even more bizarre is that, even after you have at great length set out just why there can be no certainty regarding comebacks, the guy who has posted that such a return is absolutely certain, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot, is applauding the very post which proves his position to be indefensible !

This is a very weird experience. We can argue some more semantics if you like, but let me put it to you like this :

1) Is there a possibility that Walsh may not return in week 2 April, for any reason at all, forseen or unforseen ?
2) Is Walsh's return in week 2 April a cast-iron certainty which will definitely happen no matter what ?

1) is my position
2) is Mr Giraffe's position

According to your last post, it's me you agree with, not Mr Giraffe.

What a load of rubbish. You are misquoting me. I have never said that his return mid-April is a cast iron certainty. You have based your entire reply on that incorrect piece of evidence.

My only argument is that your comment about losing faith in Walsh ever playing for us again was a complete miguided over-reaction.

So we have an exchange like this :















At no point did I say that he was definitely not returning. Yet you accused me of being an idiot, making things up, and saying he'll never play for us again. So basically, you read something which expressed reasonable doubt about Walsh's return, and immediately indulged in some ad hominem attacks based on something which wasn't ever actually said. Good work.

Are you sure you want to carry this on ?

So, anyway, rumours are that ROby and Greenwood will be playing.

The good news we desperately needed. It's great to see us heading into yet another derby with no halfbacks in sight though ...

Hohaia and Wilkin is significantly stronger than Wellens and Flanagan like last time!

You're doing it again. When I have I claimed you said he was definitely not returning? You keep making things up to suit your argument. Stick to what has actually been said and not what you're imagining.

YG v RH = The unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

My head hurts!!

Haha.

It's boring me. To keep it really simple, he said he's lost faith Walsh will ever play again and I said he's an idiot and he's overreacting. Next minute we have 4 pages of him misquoting me and making stuff up.

We've always got Wilkin and Hohaia

It's better than Flash and Turner tbh ... probably

Only Marginally

Who is Hulk Hogan and who is Andre the Giant?

Read Mr Haggerty's last post, where he quotes you, towards the end. Is his quote correct, or what you say above? Both cannot be right, can they?

Which quotes are you referring to?