By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Please stop embarrassing yourself! I acknowledge the quality of our goals and ask a question of the fans who attended as to their view of how much the win was down to our quality and how much their deficiencies. I have also written positively about the result elsewhere.
Your reading of my post has little or nothing to do with its content, and everything to you with what's in your own head. As for my own feelings as a fan, I'll continue to say it and see it as I see fit.
I don't know about the latest crop, but I never really liked 'Mottie'. He reminded me of an overgrown Cub Scout, and rarely said anything interesting about the game. Barry Davies was far more intelligent and eloquent.
To answer my question, Chat GPT was interesting and helpful:
************************************************ 1️⃣ QPR works because of how the letters sound
“QPR” is said as: cue – pee – ar
Phonetically, that flows very smoothly: It alternates between consonant and vowel sounds. It doesn’t create awkward mouth movements. The rhythm is clean and punchy. It almost sounds like a single branded word rather than three separate letters.
2️⃣ WBA is awkward to say
“WBA” would be:
double-you – bee – ay
The problem is “double-you.” It’s long (three syllables). It’s clunky. It disrupts rhythm. It front-loads the abbreviation with a heavy sound.
So instead of a neat 3-beat rhythm like QPR (1–1–1 syllables), WBA becomes:
3 syllables – 1 – 1 It feels bulky and inelegant in speech.
3️⃣ English speech patterns matter
In spoken English, we prefer:
Short, punchy initials (QPR, PSG, LAFC) or shortened names (West Brom, Man Utd).
Because “W” is such a long letter name, English speakers tend to avoid starting abbreviations with it in speech unless the abbreviation is very established (e.g., BBC works because it’s symmetrical and rhythmic).
4️⃣ There’s also a historical factor
“West Brom” became the natural spoken shorthand early on. Once that sticks in football culture, there’s no need for the initialism to take hold verbally, whereas QPR didn’t have a natural two-word shortening like that. You wouldn’t really say “Queens Park” on its own — so the initials filled that space.
The same logic explains why we say “PSG” but not “SBV” or similar combinations. English speakers subconsciously optimise for flow.
********************************************
PS I'd still like to know when QPR was first written down, though, assuming the spoken name followed this and not vice-versa.
Clearly, yesterday was clearly a lot better, and we got a result I for one never saw coming, in some part because Hull went to pot in the closing minutes almost as badly as we did v Wrexham, However, 8 on-target goal attempts was really good and it seems to have been one of our more complete showings away from home.
Of course - like a lot of other clubs around us, I suppose - consistency is what eludes us. I want us to move from a manic-depressive situation where we have to keep generating (I suppose commendable) 'reactions' to bad games/runs to one in which we produce a level of performance that doesn't dip into incompetent or unwatchable but preserves a level of footballing credibility and pride week in, week out.
Can this manager and team deliver that? Frankly, I am doubtful from all I've seen this season, especially on the road, but of course it starts with individual players. Prior to the dreck against Wrexham, Cook and Dunne had been hitting their marks for a few weeks, while Madsen is another who is now producing a sustained level of performance - not quite as impressive, for me, as some of his admirers make out, but nevertheless he is turning in 6s and 7s, if not 8s, on a regular basis. (If he can do better with his free kicks and pitch in with one or two more goals, he'll really be an outstanding asset.)
I suspect what we'll see between now and the seaon's end, irrespective of who's playing and who's injured, will be continuingly fluctuating displays, with one or two notable victories along the way to spear us with the drug of hope. Much depends on how competitive and demanding this manager really is, as well as his squad. (It worries me that JS likes to tell us how high he aims then undercuts it by refusing to talk about the playoffs, rather than simply demonstrating a real edge at times. If I were a player, I'd want to hear my manager bullish and expectant, challenging me and my team mates to play themselves into contention and show how aspirational they are.)
As ever, in the words of The Waterboys, dream harder! (If the current incumbents can't or won't, find men who can!)
I didn't see the whole game, but I have the impression that our last two goals, quality finishes though they were, were as much about Hull's defence and shape parting like the Red Sea, much like ours vs Blackburn. Certainly, their manager seems to have thought so, judging by his post-match steam-letting.
For those who were there or watching on the web, how much was the result a matter of our quality and how much down to Hull's surprising deficiencies on the day?
Personally, I find it peculiarly annoying to have arrivistes like JS and Nourry coming in and effectively renaming our cave in away that just sounds stupid, and then the likes of Edwards following suit. Is nothing sacred?
Ah yes, another who went onto progressively worser things since leaving us. Let's hope Caroll's career (now plying his trade with the Fakes at 33, having played barely 80 games in the last five years) isn't a blueprint for Morgan!
As the data shows, it isn't merely, or even mostly, a matter of turnover or budgets - it's a question of culture and mindset. Ours isn't so much aspirational as moribund!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
