...gamblers re-evaluate along the dotted line,Liar liar pants on fire,
[white spades] hanging from a telephone wire,...
What like the whole giant robotic Roy Keane thing you mean?
You're a complete and utter twat aren't you? From the very thing you quoted..
No I'm not willing to give the poor sod a chance at all.
Probably because the loads are commenting on his general MO and the other guy is commenting on a specific game. Basic comprehension lacking.
Not that you'ld ever do that of course you pompous arrogant overbearing dickhead.
FSG, serious question, are you collecting research on debating over the internet? Is your non-contribution motivated by any sort of academic research?
Jeez, you don't even know when people are joking!
wtf is that
Why would I? Unless collating examples of illogicality?
I'm not sure I want to know - should I be grateful my sound is off?
GOD THIS THING DEVELOPS WHEN YOU SLEEP!
4 pages of drivel to read but I'll answer this one
Chief
your logic in defending hargraeves
- adebayor is a striker
- main job of defenders is to mark up strikers (at least central defenders)
I agree wit this
by your logic
- central midfielders should be marking their opposition central midfielders
hence hargraeves should have been on fabregas.
now you are going to argue but hargraeves was covering adebayor. That's exactly our argument. He was covering adebayor and should have anticipated and tracked his run rather than react only when adebayor was past him.
anyway
having watched the video again
about 1:30 minutes in you see fabregas' goal
Hargraeves is guilty of following the ball. he for some reason is in the attacking half right on the sideline, allowing fabregas to befree
does well to catch him.
fabregas passes it on
hargraeves follows the ball and leaves fabregas to run
agree with yu chief that brown was very much at fault as well but to say it was only brown's fault is wrong. there were cock ups all around and hargraeves was most definitely involed with that
That would be 'on the 4 hour trip back from the game' - where were you?
If you think being foolishly dismissed or insulted automatically equates to 'intellectual dishonesty' btw you haven't been paying attention.
Having just caught up on this section it's apparent that, amongst the supposedly hilarious attempts at comedy, the two sides have been 'talking past each other' at a rate of knots. You might find that phrase on Google but in this case it indicates where both proponents have been talking about something somewhat different from the other side - so we believe we are referring to this picture, and therefore assume that our opponent's comments related to that, whereas they actually relate to a somewhat different picture, which is that to which they have been referring, and about which they believe we have been talking.
In this thread the two sides have (broadly speaking) been talking about a) stopping the other side from scoring and b) helping others in the team such that they are better equipped to stop the other side from scoring.
Go back and read the early exchanges and then follow them through.
This is pretty typical of people not paying enough attention to the contexts of arguments advanced by each side - happens all the time - in many different types of places. Debates about religion are a real treasure trove for this type of behaviour.
...and that he feels he could do witha 'DM' with more to offer than Carrick?
Which rather goes against the 'Carrick can do the defensive job so well we don't need OH' school of thought.
And the 'losing 2-0 proves how great OH is' and the 'what he said amounts to saying OH is better than Keane' (paraphrased) statements which were also purely sarcastic?
As opposed to mostly attempting to advance Noods position by misrepresenting that of an opponent.
RIGHT...
... and when I show complete attention to context (eg. an 'explanation' is not normally meant to be as much of an exaggeration as the thing it explains) no-one pays a blind bit of attention.
When just a quick look at what people are posting makes it obvious how people are arguing past each other - this makes me incapable of detecting context?
When pointing out that direct false accusations of dishonesty against a poster are somewhat different to just 'calling people names' I'm being incapable of detecting context?
Alternatively - why don't you actually try to quote an instance where I have been guilty of what you claim?
(The 'robotic Keane' quote won't work btw - for 2 reasons: 1: my complaint was that it was inaccurate - it was inaccurate; 2: the 'explanation' given attempted to justify it by further misrepresenting the opponent's words - in all, it obviously WAS misrepresentation.)
I just love the 'no we are not going to give the poor sod a chance' contradiction here.
Loads of people have complained OH 'runs around like a headless chicken' (inaccurate but wth.) and then along comes another guy who doesn't like his performance to slate him for not moving around enough!!
I was at the Pompey game as well - and then watched a download a few days later. OH was frequently available for passes from a colleague (often this CAN be seen on TV as well) - when the opposition were in possession he generally was in place to make passes from the man in possession to other opponents more difficult. He also made a number oif excellent passes himself.
Really don't see how one can blame Hargreaves for that goal.
Our defense was a shambles period on that counter and the only person making a real effort was Hargreaves. Hargreaves tracked someone into the box I forget who. If he doesn't track him (Adebayor?) Then he has an easy tap in since nobody picked up him either.
Ralphie 88, if you're reading this, I just want you to know that you, sir, are a legend.
'Chief Tormentor'
class.
What robotic Roy Keane?What like the whole giant robotic Roy Keane thing you mean?
It's important to have a great sense of humor but the picture was maybe a little misplaced It's not nice to tell that to the Chief, who is apparently from Germany...
I can't agree with that. The moment all your defenders go forward, along with the holding midfielder, leaving no one behind to defend but strikers and Anderson, you've entered the realms of kamikaze football. The stupidest form of football there is.It was a free kick. They were right to all go up in my opinion, also seemingly in the managers. That may have been a mistake with hindsight but as they are our main threats from set pieces, as you have already agreed, not sending them up for a set piece when we are desperate for a goal would be plain stupid..
I wasn't a rush of blood. It was certain to happen. He isn't a defender or a defensive player in any shape or form. To have expected him and Anderson to by some miracle have pulled off staving of that counter attack is not being realistic. We paid for being too gung ho. It's that simple.All that is no excuse for Rooney's rush of blood that cost us the penalty.
You said defending = stopping goals. Basically equating defending any where on the pitch to the direct stopping of goals. Meaning once a striker defend upfront, he is stopping goals. For to you it's nonsense that stopping goals is the exclusive preserve of a goal keeper and his back four. Thus I fail to see what you are denying.I didn't say it was their job 24/7 merely it was their job to help throughout the match. The same way they are there to help create goals. You are the one attributing that to me.
Yes. They are short and not much of a threat aerially. I'd put men like Mascherano on them. Or even Kuyt.So the marking of our two strikers would then be left to somebody other than your own centre backs then?
Fair enoughWatch the game on Sunday and see who marks who. I would hazard a guess Hyppia is more of a threat from corners than Kuyt. I may very well be wrong. it was a hypothetical scenario. It was you who mentioned Torres,not me. He will almost certainly be marked by one of our two centre backs.
Bullshit. Torres is simply brilliant as player. Claiming having someone alongside him would make him better is just silly. Up top, alone has always been his role. Will always be. Just because he can play off a striker doesn't make him a second striker like Rooney. It is also beyond ridiculous to claim he needs help from oetrh strierk to perform. When he has playe a lone star role for years first at Atletico now at Liverpool.Torres plays better as an off striker in my opinion yes. Unfortunately for Liverpool, they don't have anyone decent to play next to him. But if they signed one, he'd be even better than this season - scoring as many but setting up even more.
Back to showing what a feck wit you are again. I never said anything of the sort. I never ever said he could go for free in January. Or that very day Bolton wanted to pay 7 million for him. It's not even debatable.You should sell Saha? That's a new one, I didn't realise you owned him. Besides, you said to let him walk for free, not sell him - and you said it the day before Bolton bid £7 million for him.
I haven't made a single thing up in this thread. That's an indisputable fact. As for you.. Who are you to talk about "making things up"?Now go on, make your rubbish of that as per normal. Just like "in thii every thread?"
If you are as lenient as Mike Riley in your outlook.To be fair - I don't think that actually makes him a 'racist' - just rather lacking in taste on this occasion.
Shut up you immature juvenile fool. Your just a childish, blind, ignorant racist! Your also a liar, which isn't surprising given the fact that you are totally mad, aswell as being an idiotic buffoon. Your also a foolish, Blithering Idiot!
Thus rests Sam
To be fair - I don't think that actually makes him a 'racist' - just rather lacking in taste on this occasion.
That is just sick
what a feck wit you are
This coming from the utter buffoon who has been making things up constantly, like the rubbish you constantly write about Hargreaves, and now your claiming I said Saha should walk on a free, in January?
Yes we can. We can pay out his contract and release him...