It's a term that's been around for a lot longer than the internet.
How else would you describe an argument where somebody has twisted another person's words in order to win a debate about a fantasy they've completely made up?
You've just gone and proven exactly what I was saying.
You're arguing about the idea that Ole only builds his team about passion. But that's not what he said. He only said that it was a factor in the bigger picture.
I could strawman...
This thread is full of ridiculous strawmen.
Ole didn't say that tactics were irrelevant.
He just deflected the question by saying that passion is also important, because discussing abstract tactical minutiae during a press conference would...
Good performance for what it was.
But he's still taking a lot touches every time he gets the ball. On the one hand, it's good that he has ability and also the confidence to do that. But on the other, it's going to be a massive culture shock when...
It wasn't dismissive.
The question was 'How do you want that two man pivot to work?'
The answer was 'We look for midfielders who are complete. We try to develop that in our midfielders.'
It's pretty clear. Ole doesn't want specialists. He...
And Ole's right.
He could come up with the perfect game plan, and the perfect set of tactics. But if all the players go onto the pitch with Martial's mentality they could easily lose. Whereas if they go onto the pitch with Ronaldo's passion to...
The next sentence, he elaborates what he means. He goes on to talk about "midfielders who are complete". In other words, total footballers rather than specialists.
Nothing wrong with that.
What this basically means is that he doesn't believe in...