5th round draw

C

Chrisr

Proper Accy
Weaver
Middlesborough drawn Oxford. Rovers drawn Man u. Burnley v the mighty Lincoln. I think we would have been a little gutted to have gone through and drawn Oxford. I know the money would help but a big draw would have been a great reward. If only. next season maybe
 
Last edited:
Chrisr, you're assuming that had we beat Boro we would have also drawn Oxford, when each draw is a complete lottery.
A draw last Saturday, followed by one of the big boys in round 5 before the replay, would probably have led to a repeat of the Yeovil curse.
Having said that, I bet the Boro fans are cock-a-hoop getting another home draw against lower opposition. I think Oxford will prove a tougher nut to crack.
One of the best 'David v Goliath' FA Cup draws ever.
Good luck to all the underdogs - and that includes Blackburn!
 
Ah well, a bit of consolation in knowing we wouldn't have got a "dream tie"' I know we might not have had number 15 or whatever,but i always look to see who those we lost to play next and it's Oxford. Not Man Utd,Arsenal or Blackburn,so i'm not too upset.:)
 
No one knows who we would have drawn if we had gone through as it wouldn't have been the exact same circumstances in that alternative universe and Savage may not have dropped a ball after meeting different people in the studio or just the knowledge of different teams and researching etc would have affected something.

The only thing we know for certain from tonight is never to watch the 'one show' again.
 
As Mike A says we would have been Ball 15; the FA allocated the numbers on Friday.

It's based on the match number after the 1st and 3rd rounds
 
We would have been ball 15 as MR T has pointed out as has Mike A. It was a comment but the comments from some people. you can only look at who you lost to and see who they drew and I think it is a reasonable to assume that would have been the team we would drawn. It is no big deal.
 
Mr T said:
As Mike A says we would have been Ball 15; the FA allocated the numbers on Friday.

It's based on the match number after the 1st and 3rd rounds
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark. I was always under the misapprehension that the numbers for each round were allocated after the games in the previous round.
 
Not too sure how they are allocated in the qualifying round; but in R1 it's the EFL 1 and 2 Clubs in alphabetic order; ie us 1 and Yeovil 48; then the non-league teams down to ball 80.

In round 2 it's the match number from R1 which is the ball number.

In round 3 the PL and Championship clubs are numbered 1 to 46 and then the rest are numbered after that.

Then it the match number going forward.

All pre-allocated on the Thursday before the matches take place.
 
Chrisr said:
We would have been ball 15 as MR T has pointed out as has Mike A. It was a comment but the comments from some people. you can only look at who you lost to and see who they drew and I think it is a reasonable to assume that would have been the team we would drawn. It is no big deal.
Click to expand...

You could never assume that, it is a random event and would be very unlikely to be the same where Stanley in it. A good chance of the quarters would not have gutted me anyway. Might sound daft.
 
IT'S THE BLOODY BUTTERFLY EFFECT FOR GAWDS SAKE! Everything would be entirely different in the whole world and we would not have drawn Oxford (or, unlikely to have).
 
Lord Didsbury said:
IT'S THE BLOODY BUTTERFLY EFFECT FOR GAWDS SAKE! Everything would be entirely different in the whole world and we would not have drawn Oxford (or, unlikely to have).
Click to expand...

Lord 'D' is quite correct when he refers to the butterfly effect, or 'Chaos Theory' as it is more commonly known.
For those who wish to study this, I quote from Wikipedia;
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behaviour of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behaviour impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behaviour is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

This was emphatically proved last Saturday when Stewart Downing decided to sprinkle sugar on his breakfast Weetabix, thus ensuring he would score the only goal of the game in the 69th minute & deny Stanley's dream of a 5th round draw against Man U.
Also, Gareth Southgate ensured he did his former club a big favour drawing lowly Oxford as opponents by having a fried egg butty for his lunch.
This should be common knowledge for any real fan.
:D:D:D:D
 
'Small differences in initial conditions yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behaviour impossible in general.'

This raises the possibility that our flag waving against Stevenage last season may have inadvertently led to Shay hitting the woodwork twice. Clucking bell.
 
Inspector Morse said:
'Small differences in initial conditions yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behaviour impossible in general.'

This raises the possibility that our flag waving against Stevenage last season may have inadvertently led to Shay hitting the woodwork twice. Clucking bell.
Click to expand...

I knew it was all our fault!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top