: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:16 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

Is this thread now defunct with the news of the latest signing?

I think we will wait and see how the season pans out first. As I said, signing a decent player does not change the fact that SM is still lacking in a number of areas.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:20 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

Certainly no chance of it getting yours. It is too far up McNamara's rectum.

I'm happy to ignore your uncalled-for obscenities, but I'll just point out that, yet again, when whupped by analysis, logic and polite, thorough, reasoned argument, that's the best you can do in reply.

Sad, really, but speaks for itself.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:46 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'm happy to ignore your uncalled-for obscenities, but I'll just point out that, yet again, when whupped by analysis, logic and polite, thorough, reasoned argument, that's the best you can do in reply.

Sad, really, but speaks for itself.

How comforting for you.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:51 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

How comforting for you.

Comfort is not an issue.

mystic eddie wrote: Now you talk about losing the plot? You said that that a team needs an excellent coach in order to finish second in the table.

It does

mystic eddie wrote: I pointed out that Avram Grant did it and he was a complete dud

Except, of course, he was anything but. But you would have to be an unbiased observer to note this.

mystic eddie wrote: whom the Chelsea fans wanted out ASAP.

Are you a Chelsea fan too? Who the fans want out rarely makes any difference.

mystic eddie wrote: I did not compare our squad to Chelsea's (despite you making up the fact that I did). I was merely highlighting your point about coaches and giving a case against the argument.

Either you made a valid comparison or you didn't. Which is it? Either you were comparing Grant at Chelsea with McNamara at Bradford, or you weren't. If the actual sports teams involved don't count in the comparison, then it's a bonkers analogy, isn't it?

The reality is that Chelsea's performance in the Grant year clearly demonstrated that, while his persona and personality did not endear him to anyone, Grant clearly proved that he is a top class soccer coach.

But let's consider Grant's case in a bit more detail. It's worth it, because you are using the coach with the best winning ratio in the history of Chelsea FCas an example of a dud coach. You are using the case of a man who in the space of only a few months, in taking over the hottest of seats from the revered Mourinho, inherited a team which was in sixth place in the Premier League. They were negative and boring and had just had that pisspoor draw with Rosenborg. They were transformed under Grant, they finished second, in what Grant turned around into a battle that went to the wire. Personally I am sure that if he had had the team from day one, they would have beaten Man U to the title, but the handicap of coming from sixth place proved just a fraction too much.

You are clearly implying that Grant is a worse coach than Mourinho (at least) yet in the previous 3 years, Mourinho had never got Chelsea to a Champions League Final. Avram Grant did, and they only lost the Final on penalties.

And you are the man calling him "a dud coach"!!!

I think I can see where you are coming from, though. The error you make is that you don't judge Grant by what he actually achieved, you don't consider his actual performance. You are assessing Grant on nothing else but the basis that you don't like him.

mystic eddie wrote: Come on, if you have to pick holes in every opinion I give,

You do know this is a discussion board, right? What are they for?

You also know that you pretty much never respond to the holes that I pick, which leaves your arguments resembling a 50 year old fishnet.

I don't "have" to pick holes, there are more holes in your arguments than in a Swiss cheese factory. And of course if there were no holes to pick . . .

mystic eddie wrote: at least do not resort to making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

I make nothing up. In closing, as is your typical MO, you invent a position and then argue from that. Now that is making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

And in keeping with your MO, you haven't (as ever) answered on a single hole that I picked. Which is presumably because although you bluster, privately you must know they were good and fair points.

And as you will completely ignore the above points, which as ever, you can't answer.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:28 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

TBH, I cannot be bothered indulging you.

To put it simply, you said that a team that finishes second need to have an excellent coach. Not neccessarily so. After all, an excellent coach coach take a mid ranked side to a second place finish. A duff coach could take a team full of overwhelming favourites to second spot.

You also claim I do not like Avram Grant? Where did you get this from? I have no interest in the man and have no feelings on him either way. Again, you are just making things up.

TBH, I could give you answers till I was blue in the face but it would make no difference to you.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:39 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

TBH, I cannot be bothered indulging you.

What you mean is, you have no answers.

mystic eddie wrote:

To put it simply, you said that a team that finishes second need to have an excellent coach. Not neccessarily so. After all, an excellent coach coach take a mid ranked side to a second place finish. A duff coach could take a team full of overwhelming favourites to second spot.

Which did Grant do? What does that make him?

mystic eddie wrote:

You also claim I do not like Avram Grant? Where did you get this from? I have no interest in the man and have no feelings on him either way. Again, you are just making things up.

You do know we are talking about Grant's abilities as a coach, don't you? And that I was not under the impession that you know him personally, to like or dislike as a person? Right?

As a coach, you described him as " a dud ". I showed that up as rubbish and you can't answer my points.

mystic eddie wrote:

TBH, I could give you answers till I was blue in the face

Don't do that. Start small. Try answering just one.

mystic eddie wrote:

but it would make no difference to you.

You don't answer any points, instead feigning a hurt and puzzled persona, and again this is typical. the bottom line is it's not that you can't be bothered answering - you just won't ever admit when you're wrong. You can't answer.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

you just won't ever admit when you're wrong.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:55 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

I prefer to post childish images to try to deflect from my inability to deal with questions that I know I can't answer.

: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:34 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

More pointless tosh.

Boring.

: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:13 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

<FX: flicking over his king in resignation /fx>:SLEEPY:

I quit

Yep, that's a checkmate.