I think the problem was that someone said that Stevie played different positions because he was not good enough. Thats more ridiculous than Scholes' ratings on this thread? Winston seemed to back that pathetic notion up. Not sure though.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I said nothing of the sort.
Somewhere on this thread, I've said I think Gerrard has been exceptional for Liverpool.
But hey, you just make things up. Whatever helps.
Gerrard has been exceptional for Liverpool, anyone suggesting otherwise is being dishonest.
It is important to note that Le Tissier was exceptional for Southampton
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 27 minutes ago
Gerrard was such a complete player
that Benitez played him right
midfield and then in the 10 role,
where as Scholes regularly played in
a title winning central midfield two.
Good to see the old myth coming
out.
Didn't Gerrard play RB a few times for club? Maybe even once for England.
He is just a poor mans Gary Neville
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
How is that saying Gerrard isn't good enough?
Are you aware that being a 'complete player' is nothing to do with being 'good enough'.
Thanks for searching the thread, but all you've done is prove my point.
You dont even know the context of your own comment. MUDD was saying Gerrard was not good enough for midfield so he was moved about the pitch. This was denied. Then you came in with that comment. You could say you did not mean it that way to cop out but the way it came out is there for all to see.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
Thanks for trying to tell me what my comment related to, but I'm afraid you're hopelessly wrong.
You wrote this as part of your post:
"Scholes was very very good and he beats Gerrard at the longevity of his quality whereas Gerrard was a far more complete player to me"
I responded with my comment.
So no, it's you that have it in the wrong context.
As I said, it's quite easy to work out, given that debating whether someone is a 'complete player' has nothing to do with whether they're good enough.
Being complete involves versatility and producing a top performance even in different positions as well for the team. What to you does complete mean?
So basically you made a more stupid post than I previously thought. Good work. I would also advice you to be more articulate and be clear as to what you are responding to. There were a number of posts above yours you could have been responding to.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
This really is pathetic. You make an absolute mess of yourself and then call me stupid.
I suggest you learn to read.
When someone says 'Gerrard is a more complete player than Scholes' and then I post about why I think Scholes is a more complete player, I'd say it's fairly obvious who I'm responding to.
By claiming that's not the case, you are effectively saying that you need things spelt out like a child.
For me, a complete player is the one with attributes for each part of the game. The ones with the most complete set of attributes, in my view, often play central midfield.
The ones with specialist skills sets, play in more advanced positions, or in goal. RVP, for example.
Rather than behaving like a child, how about you just ask what I meant?
Oh I forgot, you can't because you foolishly, and boldly, claimed something that you now realise was completely incorrect.
A lesson for you to learn, though I somehow doubt you'll realise it.
Or you could have just put my name somewhere in your post. Same way you've been doing it since that post when you address me! I can see at least you know how to copy and paste. You've done it every time you have replied to a post of mine except that one. Look, I appreciate that you can wiggle out of it by 'spelling it out to me like a child' but looking back I'd say your comment was not aimed at just me. You also managed to use copy and paste in majority of your posts when replying to others.
First you said you did not say it then now its about whom you were saying it to. You just cant help yourself, can you?
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I could have done, yes - but that's not really a reason for you to start making silly comments. JUst ask, if you're not sure.
The bottom line is you accused me of backing up the idea of Gerrard playing multiple positions because he's not good enough for central midfield.
Perhaps you should have checked your facts before doing so, as you were wrong, and the assumption you'd made was nonsensical.
I'm not wiggling out of anything. The chain of posts makes it quite clear.
Your second paragraph is an embarrassment. Are you stupid, or just confused?
I haven't changed anything. I did say that I think Scholes is a more complete player. That has absolutely nothing to do with not being very good.
Would you like that written out in child speak, so you might actually understand it?
Why would you think, when I referenced complete players, I was talking about Gerrard not being good enough? They're not even close to being related.
Your mistake, and now you're trying to make out it's my fault.
Grow up.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is what I'm talking about Winston. Get off your high horse, it's actually embarrassing.
==
Thats Winston and Robbing told in less then 24hrs
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
I note that you don't criticise the person for whom this car crash of a conversation exists.
I'm not on a high horse. I was accused of something which was a load of nonsense. I challenged it.
My choice, not yours.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
I haven't done that either.
Seems like the only person judging anyone at the moment is you.
And no, I don't do what I ask others not to do.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
You missed the point earlier.
My criticism of you was that you're interrupting a football conversation.
This is just a response to personal comments made to me.
I accept that they're made in the heat of the moment and don't help, and I would rightly be criticised for it by some people - I'm often too quick to react.
But the idea that you're in a position to criticise me, given your behaviour on this thread, is laughable.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
But they're not hypocritical, and I have just explained why.
I criticised you for making personal comments in the middle of a football conversation. If I made personal comments about you, of course I'd expect them back in return.
Don't blame me because you've misunderstood.
I'm off now, but thanks for the last minute laugh. Here you are, whinging about me judging people... what are you doing?
That's right - judging me.
And on that bombshell, I'll leave you to your evening. Hopefully you'll come back tomorrow with a bit more sense.
Embarrassing indeed.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Rank the following in their primes:
Page 29 of 39
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
posted on 28/7/14
False 7.75?
posted on 28/7/14
I think the problem was that someone said that Stevie played different positions because he was not good enough. Thats more ridiculous than Scholes' ratings on this thread? Winston seemed to back that pathetic notion up. Not sure though.
posted on 28/7/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I said nothing of the sort.
Somewhere on this thread, I've said I think Gerrard has been exceptional for Liverpool.
But hey, you just make things up. Whatever helps.
posted on 28/7/14
Gerrard has been exceptional for Liverpool, anyone suggesting otherwise is being dishonest.
It is important to note that Le Tissier was exceptional for Southampton
posted on 28/7/14
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 27 minutes ago
Gerrard was such a complete player
that Benitez played him right
midfield and then in the 10 role,
where as Scholes regularly played in
a title winning central midfield two.
Good to see the old myth coming
out.
posted on 28/7/14
Didn't Gerrard play RB a few times for club? Maybe even once for England.
He is just a poor mans Gary Neville
posted on 28/7/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
How is that saying Gerrard isn't good enough?
Are you aware that being a 'complete player' is nothing to do with being 'good enough'.
Thanks for searching the thread, but all you've done is prove my point.
posted on 28/7/14
You dont even know the context of your own comment. MUDD was saying Gerrard was not good enough for midfield so he was moved about the pitch. This was denied. Then you came in with that comment. You could say you did not mean it that way to cop out but the way it came out is there for all to see.
posted on 28/7/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
Thanks for trying to tell me what my comment related to, but I'm afraid you're hopelessly wrong.
You wrote this as part of your post:
"Scholes was very very good and he beats Gerrard at the longevity of his quality whereas Gerrard was a far more complete player to me"
I responded with my comment.
So no, it's you that have it in the wrong context.
As I said, it's quite easy to work out, given that debating whether someone is a 'complete player' has nothing to do with whether they're good enough.
posted on 28/7/14
Being complete involves versatility and producing a top performance even in different positions as well for the team. What to you does complete mean?
So basically you made a more stupid post than I previously thought. Good work. I would also advice you to be more articulate and be clear as to what you are responding to. There were a number of posts above yours you could have been responding to.
posted on 28/7/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
This really is pathetic. You make an absolute mess of yourself and then call me stupid.
I suggest you learn to read.
When someone says 'Gerrard is a more complete player than Scholes' and then I post about why I think Scholes is a more complete player, I'd say it's fairly obvious who I'm responding to.
By claiming that's not the case, you are effectively saying that you need things spelt out like a child.
For me, a complete player is the one with attributes for each part of the game. The ones with the most complete set of attributes, in my view, often play central midfield.
The ones with specialist skills sets, play in more advanced positions, or in goal. RVP, for example.
Rather than behaving like a child, how about you just ask what I meant?
Oh I forgot, you can't because you foolishly, and boldly, claimed something that you now realise was completely incorrect.
A lesson for you to learn, though I somehow doubt you'll realise it.
posted on 28/7/14
Or you could have just put my name somewhere in your post. Same way you've been doing it since that post when you address me! I can see at least you know how to copy and paste. You've done it every time you have replied to a post of mine except that one. Look, I appreciate that you can wiggle out of it by 'spelling it out to me like a child' but looking back I'd say your comment was not aimed at just me. You also managed to use copy and paste in majority of your posts when replying to others.
First you said you did not say it then now its about whom you were saying it to. You just cant help yourself, can you?
posted on 28/7/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I could have done, yes - but that's not really a reason for you to start making silly comments. JUst ask, if you're not sure.
The bottom line is you accused me of backing up the idea of Gerrard playing multiple positions because he's not good enough for central midfield.
Perhaps you should have checked your facts before doing so, as you were wrong, and the assumption you'd made was nonsensical.
I'm not wiggling out of anything. The chain of posts makes it quite clear.
Your second paragraph is an embarrassment. Are you stupid, or just confused?
I haven't changed anything. I did say that I think Scholes is a more complete player. That has absolutely nothing to do with not being very good.
Would you like that written out in child speak, so you might actually understand it?
Why would you think, when I referenced complete players, I was talking about Gerrard not being good enough? They're not even close to being related.
Your mistake, and now you're trying to make out it's my fault.
Grow up.
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/7/14
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is what I'm talking about Winston. Get off your high horse, it's actually embarrassing.
==
Thats Winston and Robbing told in less then 24hrs
posted on 28/7/14
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
I note that you don't criticise the person for whom this car crash of a conversation exists.
I'm not on a high horse. I was accused of something which was a load of nonsense. I challenged it.
My choice, not yours.
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/7/14
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
I haven't done that either.
Seems like the only person judging anyone at the moment is you.
And no, I don't do what I ask others not to do.
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/7/14
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
You missed the point earlier.
My criticism of you was that you're interrupting a football conversation.
This is just a response to personal comments made to me.
I accept that they're made in the heat of the moment and don't help, and I would rightly be criticised for it by some people - I'm often too quick to react.
But the idea that you're in a position to criticise me, given your behaviour on this thread, is laughable.
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/7/14
Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
But they're not hypocritical, and I have just explained why.
I criticised you for making personal comments in the middle of a football conversation. If I made personal comments about you, of course I'd expect them back in return.
Don't blame me because you've misunderstood.
I'm off now, but thanks for the last minute laugh. Here you are, whinging about me judging people... what are you doing?
That's right - judging me.
And on that bombshell, I'll leave you to your evening. Hopefully you'll come back tomorrow with a bit more sense.
Embarrassing indeed.
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/7/14
Scousers
posted on 28/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 29 of 39
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34