|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 20:33:20 GMT
Post by Beav on Feb 24, 2011 20:33:20 GMT
I'm made from sunshine and farts! How could you possibly be annoyed at me?Or is it because i'm Junior's multi? I have photodermatitis and a very sensitive nose... I have a very sensitive nose. In all truth, I'm not made out of sunshine.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 20:34:58 GMT
Post by concretebob on Feb 24, 2011 20:34:58 GMT
The Rotherham game? No, I'm a left sider. If you do spot me, feel free to say hello. I'm actually not that bad. I'm a left sider also. I moved over to see if I could make a difference. I'm back to the left. Are you above or below row T? (Dont' worry I won't ask you your seat or anything - just a general proximity - I may even wear the 'Beav' shirt. I've seen your shirt! I'm back row.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 20:37:17 GMT
Post by Beav on Feb 24, 2011 20:37:17 GMT
I'm a left sider also. I moved over to see if I could make a difference. I'm back to the left. Are you above or below row T? (Dont' worry I won't ask you your seat or anything - just a general proximity - I may even wear the 'Beav' shirt. I've seen your shirt! I'm back row. This is suspicious. By my calculations - you must know Junior and are playing about with him.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 20:40:27 GMT
Post by concretebob on Feb 24, 2011 20:40:27 GMT
I've seen your shirt! I'm back row. This is suspicious. By my calculations - you must know Junior and are playing about with him.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 20:41:00 GMT
Post by Beav on Feb 24, 2011 20:41:00 GMT
This is suspicious. By my calculations - you must know Junior and are playing about with him. God Damnit! I knew it. I'm a master sleuth.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 21:30:57 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 24, 2011 21:30:57 GMT
You do write some bollocks about Stoke. The rest (except about the Qataris buying MUFC) is pretty accurate or a fair opinion. baldy manages to see the good points about Stoke and misses the bad points. It seems anyway. A little fact for you to ponder Beav. Stoke 2 red cards this season. Arsenal 6. Stoke less yellows than Arsenal. Arsenal committed more fouls than Stoke. So much for the beautiful passing game. Perhaps direct football is less violent. I don't know, I'm just stating facts. Another fact to ponder. Arsenal have conceded the 4th fewest goals in the league. So much for being the most suspect centre halves (apart from West Ham) in the division. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 21:38:10 GMT
Post by baldy on Feb 24, 2011 21:38:10 GMT
A little fact for you to ponder Beav. Stoke 2 red cards this season. Arsenal 6. Stoke less yellows than Arsenal. Arsenal committed more fouls than Stoke. So much for the beautiful passing game. Perhaps direct football is less violent. I don't know, I'm just stating facts. Another fact to ponder. Arsenal have conceded the 4th fewest goals in the league. So much for being the most suspect centre halves (apart from West Ham) in the division. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Why do you always see the need to go tit for tat ? I raised a good point about perhaps direct football being a less violent form of the game. The ball isn't being pinged about so much and encouraging players to dive in. I don't know, I am just raising a point. There has to be some explanation as to why supposed cloggers like Stoke don't just have a marginally better disciplinary record but a significantly better one than the purest football team in the Premiership. I stand to be corrected but I think last season Stoke were among the top lot for good discipline yet Arsenal were right at the bottom. Two seasons on the trot has to be more than coincidence. All I am asking is why ? I'm not stirring although I am sure it will be interpreted that way.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 21:54:59 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 24, 2011 21:54:59 GMT
Another fact to ponder. Arsenal have conceded the 4th fewest goals in the league. So much for being the most suspect centre halves (apart from West Ham) in the division. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Why do you always see the need to go tit for tat ? It's called debating. You raised statistics to try and claim Arsenal were dirtier than Stoke (I think that's what you were getting at??) So I pointed out that statistics are not always an accurate reflection of how things really are. I raised a good point about perhaps direct football being a less violent form of the game. The ball isn't being pinged about so much and encouraging players to dive in. I don't know, I am just raising a point. There has to be some explanation as to why supposed cloggers like Stoke don't just have a marginally better disciplinary record but a significantly better one than the purest football team in the Premiership. I stand to be corrected but I think last season Stoke were among the top lot for good discipline yet Arsenal were right at the bottom. Two seasons on the trot has to be more than coincidence. All I am asking is why ? I'm not stirring although I am sure it will be interpreted that way. I can't find a list of disciplinary records so I can't really comment. Perhaps Arsenal can't tackle properly. Paul Scholes has spent his whole career without being able to tackle. Whenever he launches someone, the commentators chuckle and say "he's never been able to tackle". Is he a dirty player? I sometimes think he gets away with late challenges because "he's not that kind of player".
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 22:07:06 GMT
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 24, 2011 22:07:06 GMT
Why do you always see the need to go tit for tat ? It's called debating. You raised statistics to try and claim Arsenal were dirtier than Stoke (I think that's what you were getting at??) So I pointed out that statistics are not always an accurate reflection of how things really are. I raised a good point about perhaps direct football being a less violent form of the game. The ball isn't being pinged about so much and encouraging players to dive in. I don't know, I am just raising a point. There has to be some explanation as to why supposed cloggers like Stoke don't just have a marginally better disciplinary record but a significantly better one than the purest football team in the Premiership. I stand to be corrected but I think last season Stoke were among the top lot for good discipline yet Arsenal were right at the bottom. Two seasons on the trot has to be more than coincidence. All I am asking is why ? I'm not stirring although I am sure it will be interpreted that way. I can't find a list of disciplinary records so I can't really comment. Perhaps Arsenal can't tackle properly. Paul Scholes has spent his whole career without being able to tackle. Whenever he launches someone, the commentators chuckle and say "he's never been able to tackle". Is he a dirty player? I sometimes think he gets away with late challenges because " he's not that kind of player". Like giggs with that challenge the other week, anyone else would have walked. Admittedly that genuinely was out of character but I'm sure scholes is just milking it now as an excuse to put in x-rated tackles either unpunished or only sanctioned by a yellow. There are loads of players that do it though, arsenal players put in loads of cynical fouls because their reputations as fairies allow them to get away with it.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 22:16:23 GMT
Post by baldy on Feb 24, 2011 22:16:23 GMT
Why do you always see the need to go tit for tat ? It's called debating. You raised statistics to try and claim Arsenal were dirtier than Stoke (I think that's what you were getting at??) So I pointed out that statistics are not always an accurate reflection of how things really are. I raised a good point about perhaps direct football being a less violent form of the game. The ball isn't being pinged about so much and encouraging players to dive in. I don't know, I am just raising a point. There has to be some explanation as to why supposed cloggers like Stoke don't just have a marginally better disciplinary record but a significantly better one than the purest football team in the Premiership. I stand to be corrected but I think last season Stoke were among the top lot for good discipline yet Arsenal were right at the bottom. Two seasons on the trot has to be more than coincidence. All I am asking is why ? I'm not stirring although I am sure it will be interpreted that way. I can't find a list of disciplinary records so I can't really comment. Perhaps Arsenal can't tackle properly. Paul Scholes has spent his whole career without being able to tackle. Whenever he launches someone, the commentators chuckle and say "he's never been able to tackle". Is he a dirty player? I sometimes think he gets away with late challenges because "he's not that kind of player". Scholes has been red carded a fair few times and while I accept that he's escaped a few second yellows I don't think he's had any real preferential treatment just because he's a talented footballer. His problem is purely timing. I don't think any of his tackles carry an intentionally malicous streak but some of them do look x rated and thats often because he's that milli second late and most of the time they are committed just as the player is about to receive the ball as opposed to when he's actually in control of it and I do think a lot look worse than they are. But, in short, he cannot tackle.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 22:18:06 GMT
Post by concretebob on Feb 24, 2011 22:18:06 GMT
How about that pint on Saturday, Baldy?
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 22:46:15 GMT
Post by Beav on Feb 24, 2011 22:46:15 GMT
baldy - why are you asking that?
Good disciplinary doesn't win you games?
Arsenal are lucky enough to play amazing football and win games - second in the league, just beat the best team in the world.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 23:18:38 GMT
Post by moobs on Feb 24, 2011 23:18:38 GMT
Concrete Bob, you're a weasel. Start a thread trying to discredit baldy, now you're trying to suck up.
Baldy is a decent contributor and it's differing personalities which make the board.
Shame on you, coward
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 24, 2011 23:32:06 GMT
Post by concretebob on Feb 24, 2011 23:32:06 GMT
Concrete Bob, you're a weasel. Start a thread trying to discredit baldy, now you're trying to suck up. Baldy is a decent contributor and it's differing personalities which make the board. Shame on you, coward Poor effort troll. 3/10.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 1:21:28 GMT
Post by dichio on Feb 25, 2011 1:21:28 GMT
Good thread.
I made a request on the previous forum to have a seperate " Special ones " section where Baldy/moobs and co could knock themselves out with the bickering and leave the National / International section open for people who are interested in reasonable debate.
That never got off the ground due to some pretty impressive burying of heads into sand, glad to see im not alone in my thoughts that that section has been hijacked and any discussion there is pointless.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 8:06:34 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 25, 2011 8:06:34 GMT
I can't find a list of disciplinary records so I can't really comment. Perhaps Arsenal can't tackle properly. Paul Scholes has spent his whole career without being able to tackle. Whenever he launches someone, the commentators chuckle and say "he's never been able to tackle". Is he a dirty player? I sometimes think he gets away with late challenges because "he's not that kind of player". Scholes has been red carded a fair few times and while I accept that he's escaped a few second yellows I don't think he's had any real preferential treatment just because he's a talented footballer. His problem is purely timing. I don't think any of his tackles carry an intentionally malicous streak but some of them do look x rated and thats often because he's that milli second late and most of the time they are committed just as the player is about to receive the ball as opposed to when he's actually in control of it and I do think a lot look worse than they are. But, in short, he cannot tackle. I always find is amazing that professional footballers are often severely deficient in certain aspects of their game. Scholes has been at one of the world's best clubs for 20 odd years. Why have they never improved his tackling? The amount of players who are totally one footed. Why don't they work on their weaker foot? I can't imagine a golfer (or other sportsman) ignoring their weaknesses in the same way
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 9:08:49 GMT
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 25, 2011 9:08:49 GMT
Start a thread which says that white is white and moobs or baldy will vehemently argue that it is, in fact, black. White is only white if there is enough reflective light reaching the observer. If there is an absence of reflective light, then white will appear black. If the reflective light passes, for example, through a yellow transparency, then white can appear to be yellow. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 9:51:37 GMT
Post by sheikdjibouti on Feb 25, 2011 9:51:37 GMT
Scholes has been red carded a fair few times and while I accept that he's escaped a few second yellows I don't think he's had any real preferential treatment just because he's a talented footballer. His problem is purely timing. I don't think any of his tackles carry an intentionally malicous streak but some of them do look x rated and thats often because he's that milli second late and most of the time they are committed just as the player is about to receive the ball as opposed to when he's actually in control of it and I do think a lot look worse than they are. But, in short, he cannot tackle. I always find is amazing that professional footballers are often severely deficient in certain aspects of their game. Scholes has been at one of the world's best clubs for 20 odd years. Why have they never improved his tackling? The amount of players who are totally one footed. Why don't they work on their weaker foot? I can't imagine a golfer (or other sportsman) ignoring their weaknesses in the same way I can't imagine a right-handed golfer spending much time practising their left-handed swing . . . what would be the point?
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 9:56:59 GMT
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 25, 2011 9:56:59 GMT
I can't imagine a right-handed golfer spending much time practising their left-handed swing . . . what would be the point? Not really the same thing though is it. It is more like a golfer ignoring the fact they can't chip out of a bunker. Being able to use both feet is essential at the top level, chances (or tackles) don't always present themselves to your good side.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 9:58:41 GMT
Post by longliveclarkey on Feb 25, 2011 9:58:41 GMT
Scholes has been red carded a fair few times and while I accept that he's escaped a few second yellows I don't think he's had any real preferential treatment just because he's a talented footballer. His problem is purely timing. I don't think any of his tackles carry an intentionally malicous streak but some of them do look x rated and thats often because he's that milli second late and most of the time they are committed just as the player is about to receive the ball as opposed to when he's actually in control of it and I do think a lot look worse than they are. But, in short, he cannot tackle. I always find is amazing that professional footballers are often severely deficient in certain aspects of their game. Scholes has been at one of the world's best clubs for 20 odd years. Why have they never improved his tackling? The amount of players who are totally one footed. Why don't they work on their weaker foot? I can't imagine a golfer (or other sportsman) ignoring their weaknesses in the same way From what I've head, in Ice Hockey, some players are severely deficient at their all-round game and are only ever played because they have the ability to take excellent 'short corners', which are supposed to be the equivalent of penalties I think. Probably true of a lot of American sports due to the way they're focused on set plays.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 10:04:32 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 25, 2011 10:04:32 GMT
I always find is amazing that professional footballers are often severely deficient in certain aspects of their game. Scholes has been at one of the world's best clubs for 20 odd years. Why have they never improved his tackling? The amount of players who are totally one footed. Why don't they work on their weaker foot? I can't imagine a golfer (or other sportsman) ignoring their weaknesses in the same way From what I've head, in Ice Hockey, some players are severely deficient at their all-round game and are only ever played because they have the ability to take excellent 'short corners', which are supposed to be the equivalent of penalties I think. Probably true of a lot of American sports due to the way they're focused on set plays. But those sports have "special teams" who come on for a couple of minutes, then go off again.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 10:05:58 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 25, 2011 10:05:58 GMT
I can't imagine a right-handed golfer spending much time practising their left-handed swing . . . what would be the point? Not really the same thing though is it. It is more like a golfer ignoring the fact they can't chip out of a bunker. Being able to use both feet is essential at the top level, chances (or tackles) don't always present themselves to your good side. Exactly Steve. Footballers use both feet (or ought to). Golfers never have to play both left and right handed in the same game.
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 10:12:14 GMT
Post by longliveclarkey on Feb 25, 2011 10:12:14 GMT
From what I've head, in Ice Hockey, some players are severely deficient at their all-round game and are only ever played because they have the ability to take excellent 'short corners', which are supposed to be the equivalent of penalties I think. Probably true of a lot of American sports due to the way they're focused on set plays. But those sports have "special teams" who come on for a couple of minutes, then go off again. True. Strange sports, some of those American ones. I generally agree with you, I can't imagine anyone in rugby without the ability to catch, or in tennis a player who's unable to hit a backhand shot. I think there's the potential for some cricketers to get away with some serious deficits in their game, but not in the same way as, say, Arjen Robben, who's spent most of his career playing at the top level without being able to use his right foot for anything more than the simplest of tasks (or at least I think it was him).
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 10:31:14 GMT
Post by sheikdjibouti on Feb 25, 2011 10:31:14 GMT
I can't imagine a right-handed golfer spending much time practising their left-handed swing . . . what would be the point? Not really the same thing though is it. It is more like a golfer ignoring the fact they can't chip out of a bunker. Being able to use both feet is essential at the top level, chances (or tackles) don't always present themselves to your good side. I know . . . I was being facetious
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 10:54:54 GMT
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 25, 2011 10:54:54 GMT
Not really the same thing though is it. It is more like a golfer ignoring the fact they can't chip out of a bunker. Being able to use both feet is essential at the top level, chances (or tackles) don't always present themselves to your good side. I know . . . I was being facetious Facetious on a Friday morning? That's just not cricket...
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 11:30:41 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 25, 2011 11:30:41 GMT
I know . . . I was being facetious Facetious on a Friday morning? That's just not cricket... Left handed or right?
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 11:38:07 GMT
Post by moobs on Feb 25, 2011 11:38:07 GMT
In Ice hockey don't they have a player who just starts trouble and beats the crap out of the opposition players?
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 11:46:56 GMT
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 25, 2011 11:46:56 GMT
Facetious on a Friday morning? That's just not cricket... Left handed or right? Well as I am (well was, back in the day) a right-handed bat and a left-handed bowler, you take your choice!!!
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 12:08:34 GMT
Post by sihath on Feb 25, 2011 12:08:34 GMT
Well as I am (well was, back in the day) a right-handed bat and a left-handed bowler, you take your choice!!! I'd have given my right arm to be ambidextrous
|
|
|
Baldy
Feb 25, 2011 12:15:37 GMT
Post by gavinarchery65 on Feb 25, 2011 12:15:37 GMT
this thread is precisely why i've backed away from this message board....
the place is stale and the topics of conversation are not interesting
|
|