Republic of Ireland v Germany - 12/10/2012 - 19:45 - RTE2/SS2

Aenaes

Maybe some time for some optimism in this thread?

Germany are without their best two defenders, Lahm and Hummels. Hoping McGeady can find some joy against Schmelzer.
Bender is out too, so if Schweinsteiger or Khedira take a knock they could be forced playing Westermann in midfield.

We're supposed to lose this match and if we do we can still qualify. A draw is attainable and would be great.

Blatter

Aenaes wrote: »

Maybe some time for some optimism in this thread?

Germany are without their best two defenders, Lahm and Hummels. Hoping McGeady can find some joy against Schmelzer.
Bender is out too, so if Schweinsteiger or Khedira take a knock they could be forced playing Westermann in midfield.

We're supposed to lose this match and if we do we can still qualify. A draw is attainable and would be great.

Schmelzer is a class left back, and Hummel's replacement will most likely be Mertesacker, who has been outstanding for Arsenal this season.

Also, if one of Schweinsteiger or Khedira take a knock, Toni Kroos would probably be the replacement, who's also class.

Predalien

noodler wrote: »

You do go on!


I honestly don't know where to begin.

Watch more football.

You don't know where to begin because it's impossible to make a strong case for Cox on the wing, so far we've figured out he has a good first touch (Walters first touch is better) and that's about it. We have however seen him play on the wing and he was rubbish, although you don't think I watch enough football, since Cox has only played on the right for Ireland, and has only played badly there, what in your profoundly superior knowledge of football has brought you to the conclusion that playing him on the right is the best option?

Pro. F

Predalien wrote: »

You don't know where to begin because it's impossible to make a strong case for Cox on the wing, so far we've figured out he has a good first touch (Walters first touch is better) and that's about it. We have however seen him play on the wing and he was rubbish, although you don't think I watch enough football, since Cox has only played on the right for Ireland, and has only played badly there, what in your profoundly superior knowledge of football has brought you to the conclusion that playing him on the right is the best option?

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

We're going to have to just disagree on the amount of difference in quality between Ward and Wilson.

However Wilson is not an inexperienced player. That is a complete fabrication. Playing top level EPL teams equates well to international football.

I have read the thread. I have seen no posts where people are saying that it is only because of the selection of Ward that we are in real danger in this game. Before the confirmation of Ward's selection everybody had already accepted that this German team posed a massive threat.

If you are only interested in trumpeting your support of the manager and players then there is no point in you discussing team selections. Your opinions on player selections and manager decisions are invalid.

Fair enough we'll disagree on the player issue.

What I'm interested in is seeing the team do well. I think there is an underlying issue here that needs to be recognised which is that there is a clear agenda at work (led by the print media in this country) to get Trap out the door and to find fault with him in every way possible. Many papers and journalists have already turned on him. This is not simply a matter of team selections. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

FatRat

I'll be happy if Ireland put in a decent performance. Germany are always gonna win this group. It's just a question of who comes 2nd, and a good performance today will give us hope for the future when we come up against Austria and Sweden. I hope we can get on the scoresheet anyway. I don't know about everyone else but I would be very happy if we managed a 1-2 loss. A goal against their strong defence would show we can actually score and conded only 2 against a team with such attacking power as Germany would prove we still have that strong defence and it didn't disappear in Poland.



A draw would be absolutely, 100%, an unbelievable achievement. Given our injuries and the fact we are playing the team, who I believe, are 2nd to Spain in the worlds best.

Pro. F

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Fair enough we'll disagree on the player issue.

What I'm interested in is seeing the team do well. I think there is an underlying issue here that needs to be recognised which is that there is a clear agenda at work (led by the print media in this country) to get Trap out the door and to find fault with him in every way possible. Many papers and journalists have already turned on him. This is not simply a matter of team selections. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Whatever about agendas that journos may have, if posters on here want to disagree with the selection of Ward over Wilson then that is perfectly reasonable. If you think that somebody (journo or poster in here) is being biased and saying things that aren't true then you could deal with them directly. But crying conspiracy when some people say they think Ward is a liability makes your argument look completely daft.

Predalien

Seriously Pro. F have you not noticed how instant and composed Walter's control is? It's one of his best skills. What you posted there confirms you don't have a clue.

Pro. F

Predalien wrote: »

Seriously Pro. F have you not noticed how instant and composed Walter's control is? It's one of his best skills. What you posted there confirms you don't have a clue.

Have you not noticed Cox's? He is far better at controlling the ball in tight situations. Unless you are talking about controlling high balls or something.

Predalien

Pro. F wrote: »

Have you not noticed Cox's? He is far better at controlling the ball in tight situations. Unless you are talking about controlling high balls or something.

You watch a lot of Championship football then? And yes partially because your first touch isn't necessarily with your feet, but Walters is very good at getting the ball under control no matter how it comes at him and is particularly good in tight spaces. There perhaps wouldn't be a huge difference between them in terms of first touch when it comes to them on the ground but overall Walters is the better player at bringing the ball under control. If it was Cox up front i wouldn't have a huge problem, I think he'd do okay there but he is not suited to playing out wide and we've seen that already.

Banjaxed82

Predalien wrote: »

You don't know where to begin because it's impossible to make a strong case for Cox on the wing, so far we've figured out he has a good first touch (Walters first touch is better) and that's about it. We have however seen him play on the wing and he was rubbish, although you don't think I watch enough football, since Cox has only played on the right for Ireland, and has only played badly there, what in your profoundly superior knowledge of football has brought you to the conclusion that playing him on the right is the best option?

Couple of things. If in fact this is a 5 man midfield, then this is Cox in a different system, with I assume (slightly) more freedom, so you cant judge him on previous encounters.

Given the inclusion of Coleman, Trap obviously wants him from a counter attacking point of view. He's the actual winger, not Cox.

I'm guessing, on a counter attack, Cox has been ordered into the box, and one of the midfielders will cover the right if Coleman is going forward. More than likely McCarthy, as Andrews and Fahey will be the ones getting forward in the counter attack, hoping to get on the end of Coleman's crosses, or at least hoping to get a shot in as the late arrivals into the box.

i.e. Trap wants Cox for his finishing in the fore mentioned counter attacking scenario, and he also wants Cox cause he'll take a shot from 30 yards out. He wants Walters as the long ball option. If you switch Walters with Cox, then you lose the long ball option.

Banjaxed82

Pro. F wrote: »

Have you not noticed Cox's? He is far better at controlling the ball in tight situations. Unless you are talking about controlling high balls or something.

Yes, I have noticed.

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

Whatever about agendas that journos may have, if posters on here want to disagree with the selection of Ward over Wilson then that is perfectly reasonable. If you think that somebody (journo or poster in here) is being biased and saying things that aren't true then you could deal with them directly. But crying conspiracy when some people say they think Ward is a liability makes your argument look completely daft.

How reasonable their opinions are on the Ward/Wilson debate largely depends on whether they have an ulterior motive behind their criticisms, i.e. whether they want the manager out.

I believe some in this thread are more interested in finding fault with Trap than they are in dealing with the man's decisions fairly and reasonably. Many have turned on him at this point. That's their right of course but it's my right to express my view that we would be massive underdogs no matter who we play.

Pro. F

Predalien wrote: »

You watch a lot of Championship football then? And yes partially because your first touch isn't necessarily with your feet, but Walters is very good at getting the ball under control no matter how it comes at him and is particularly good in tight spaces. There perhaps wouldn't be a huge difference between them in terms of first touch when it comes to them on the ground but overall Walters is the better player at bringing the ball under control. If it was Cox up front i wouldn't have a huge problem, I think he'd do okay there but he is not suited to playing out wide and we've seen that already.

I watch Championship football very little. I've seen about 10 minutes of Cox for Forest I think, plus highlights. But I have seen plenty enough of him over the last few years to know what he's about and what his good and bad points are.

Cox has better close control than Walters. There is quite a big difference between the two actually. And Walters' skill at dealing with long balls would serve little purpose on the wing.

Cox upfront on his own trying to hold on to long balls would be a disaster. Cox has shown some signs of ability on the wing recently and with a five man midfield with two good ball players I would hold out a bit more hope.

Pro. F

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

How reasonable their opinions are on the Ward/Wilson debate largely depends on whether they have an ulterior motive behind their criticisms, i.e. whether they want the manager out.

No, a reasonable opinion is still a reasonable opinion no matter who expresses it. You saying that people wanting Wilson over Ward are not being reasonable shows that you have an ulterior motive.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I believe some in this thread are more interested in finding fault with Trap than they are in dealing with the man's decisions fairly and reasonably. Many have turned on him at this point.

It doesn't matter what you believe. The fact is you are criticising people for expressing a perfectly reasonable footballing opinion on a particular player selection makes you the one who is being unfair.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

That's their right of course but it's my right to express my view that we would be massive underdogs no matter who we play.

Seriously!? Are you still saying this crap? Have you any idea how stupid that reasoning is?

Predalien

Pro. F wrote: »

I watch Championship football very little. I've seen about 10 minutes of Cox for Forest I think, plus highlights. But I have seen plenty enough of him over the last few years to know what he's about and what his good and bad points are.

Cox has better close control than Walters. There is quite a big difference between the two actually. And Walters' skill at dealing with long balls would serve little purpose on the wing.

Cox upfront on his own trying to hold on to long balls would be a disaster. Cox has shown some signs of ability on the wing recently and with a five man midfield with two good ball players I would hold out a bit more hope.

That's a reasonable point regarding Walters and long balls, I've seen almost no sign of ability on the wing from Cox though. Even our normally stubborn management changed things when it wasn't working out. I'm also concerned from a defensive perspective. on the left Ward and McGeady, on the right Cox and Coleman. That's very dodgy against a German team that's relatively traditional in that they like to get the ball wide a lot. Look, I don't expect miracles but even that clip of Cox highlighted his instincts as a striker, not a wide player.

Pro. F

Predalien wrote: »

That's a reasonable point regarding Walters and long balls, I've seen almost no sign of ability on the wing from Cox though. Even our normally stubborn management changed things when it wasn't working out. I'm also concerned from a defensive perspective. on the left Ward and McGeady, on the right Cox and Coleman. That's very dodgy against a German team that's relatively traditional in that they like to get the ball wide a lot. Look, I don't expect miracles but even that clip of Cox highlighted his instincts as a striker, not a wide player.

Well it shows his ability to control the ball with his feet too, which I would say is excellent.

I agree with your worry about Cox defensively, whichever side he is on I think his slight lack of pace may be a worry when he's tracking back.

I don't think there is much point in us debating Cox on the wing any more.

Latchy

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Drew against Germany under Stan prior to them getting to the Euro 2008 final and they only got to the semi finals last time round. Any other straws we can wildly grasp at? :pac:

Frank Stapleton scored a dodgy goal against them at lansdowne once :pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

No, a reasonable opinion is still a reasonable opinion no matter who expresses it. You saying that people wanting Wilson over Ward are not being reasonable shows that you have an ulterior motive.

Who said otherwise? The issue is whether their opinions are reasonable or not, and if there is an ulterior motive at play then it's likely there is little reasonable at play.

Pro. F wrote:

It doesn't matter what you believe.

Pro. F wrote:

The fact is you are criticising people for expressing a perfectly reasonable footballing opinion on a particular player selection makes you the one who is being unfair.

I'm criticising those who have an underlying agenda of wanting the manager sacked. We will see how valid my concerns are over the coming days in the reaction to the result.

G.K.

Can't find fault with that selection except Wilson who should be over Ward. It's all up to Trap to get the tactics right now. Any idea who Germany's RB is going to be? Boateng?

And Keogh isn't playing on the wing either, which can only be a good thing.

Pro. F

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Who said otherwise? The issue is whether their opinions are reasonable or not, and if there is an ulterior motive at play then it's likely there is little reasonable at play.

For fúck sake, you said otherwise, right here:
"How reasonable their opinions are on the Ward/Wilson debate largely depends on whether they have an ulterior motive behind their criticisms,"

If the opinion is reasonable then it is reasonable, no matter what their agenda is. But since you want to play semantic bollocks about it I will change the specifics of the language just for you:

Anybody saying that they think Wilson would be a much better choice than Ward and that Ward is a liability is making a perfectly reasonable observation. It doesn't matter what their agenda might be, it remains a perfectly reasonable comment on that particular selection. You trying to claim that it is not a reasonable comment to make on the selection is ridiculous.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm criticising those who have an underlying agenda of wanting the manager sacked. We will see how valid my concerns are over the coming days in the reaction to the result.

You are discounting a reasonable statement about the selection of one player over another because of because of your worries about agendas.

I have zero doubt that a lot of people have it in for Trap now and want him out. That does not make the calls for Wilson to start ahead of Ward unreasonable.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Not too bad a team tbh, I expected worse. But what does Shane Long have to do to start?

Blatter

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Not too bad a team tbh, I expected worse. But what does Shane Long have to do to start?

Injure Walters and Cox in training while making sure Keane stays on the treatment table.

Long could be top goalscorer in the Premier League this season and I'd still have my doubts over whether Trap would pick him.

Aenaes

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Not too bad a team tbh, I expected worse. But what does Shane Long have to do to start?

Bulk up and grow a couple of feet so he's more suited to the lone striker role.
Long will be an impact sub which is probably the best in this scenario.

I think Wilson will replace Ward before this campaign is over. With just 4 players from the Euros starting, I think Trap didn't want to make too many changes where he didn't have to. It's a makeshift back four already.

cgpg5

Happiest I've been with an Ireland selection for a while actually.

My only issue (like many) is with Ward's selection over Wilson but I really cannot see Trap leaving him out any time soon

sh__93

Anyone know if they're showing this on RTE Player? Can't seem to find it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

For fúck sake, you said otherwise, right here:
"How reasonable their opinions are on the Ward/Wilson debate largely depends on whether they have an ulterior motive behind their criticisms,"

I've seen it all now. Someone getting worked up over their own failure to be able to understand a sentence properly.

Pro. F wrote:

If the opinion is reasonable then it is reasonable, no matter what their agenda is. But since you want to play semantic bollocks about it I will change the specifics of the language just for you:

The issue is about determining whether the opinion is reasonable or not. How are you not understanding this. Okay I'll give you an example:

If a Blackburn fan who vehemently wanted Kean out, was bemoaning the team selection of the man prior to his dismissal, one must determine whether this fan's criticisms of the team selection are in fact reasonable, or if they are in fact simply part of the underlying agenda to get the man sacked. If it's the latter then the opinions don't seem all that reasonable, or in fact trustworthy.

Pro. F wrote:

Anybody saying that they think Wilson would be a much better choice than Ward and that Ward is a liability is making a perfectly reasonable observation. It doesn't matter what their agenda might be, it remains a perfectly reasonable comment on that particular selection. You trying to claim that it is not a reasonable comment to make on the selection is ridiculous.

As I've explained above, you are wrong. If there is an agenda to get the manager sacked then the opinion, far from being reasonable, has questionable credibility.

Pro. F wrote:

You are discounting a reasonable statement about the selection of one player over another because of because of your worries about agendas.

I have zero doubt that a lot of people have it in for Trap now and want him out. That does not make the calls for Wilson to start ahead of Ward unreasonable.

No, I'm getting at the heart of underlying agendas which is a concept you can't seem to grasp.

simongurnick

Pro. F wrote: »

Green played a full game against Armenia, Andorra and Russia and a half against Slovakia in the last group. He also came on in the finals against Spain. That more than qualifies as getting a look in.

The fact that the others are not great compared to top internationals is irrelevant to my original point which is what you responded to - they are miles better than Green and would be no risk if picked ahead of him. If you wanted to make a separate, unrelated point then you shouldn't have responded to me and disagreed with what I said.

It's not irrelevant. Your point moaning about squad players being picked ahead of other squad players is irrelevant.Like I said, show me how it has negatively affected us when we qualfied for the euros and reached the play offs of the previous campaign.
Otherwise, stop going around in circles. You are boring the life out of me.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Aenaes wrote: »

Bulk up and grow a couple of feet so he's more suited to the lone striker role.
Long will be an impact sub which is probably the best in this scenario.

I think Wilson will replace Ward before this campaign is over. With just 4 players from the Euros starting, I think Trap didn't want to make too many changes where he didn't have to. It's a makeshift back four already.

He has been doing that for WBA though.

applehunter

Considering the injuries its a decent side.

More worried about the defence than the midfield. Both full backs are suspect defensively and as a 4 they have never played together so not ideal.

Walters is more suited to Keane up there on his own so that's an improvement. Cox is decent but not as a winger.

0-2 would be my prediction.

Pro. F

simongurnick wrote: »

It's not irrelevant. Your point moaning about squad players being picked ahead of other squad players is irrelevant.

If you think my point was irrelevant then why did you respond to it and argue with me about it?

simongurnick wrote: »

Like I said, show me how it has negatively affected us when we qualfied for the euros and reached the play offs of the previous campaign.
Otherwise, stop going around in circles. You are boring the life out of me.

Like I said it is impossible to prove what might have happened in a hypothetical situation.

If you are bored and think this is just going around in circles then you don't have to respond.

Latchy

When you see how despite the win in the last game ,we played terrible for most of the match and against weaker opposition .The Germans will punish Ireland much harsher at any opportunity so lets some of the newer players in the squad rise to the game .

Pro. F

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I've seen it all now. Someone getting worked up over their own failure to be able to understand a sentence properly.

The issue is about determining whether the opinion is reasonable or not. How are you not understanding this. Okay I'll give you an example:

If a Blackburn fan who vehemently wanted Kean out, was bemoaning the team selection of the man prior to his dismissal, one must determine whether this fan's criticisms of the team selection are in fact reasonable, or if they are in fact simply part of the underlying agenda to get the man sacked. If it's the latter then the opinions don't seem all that reasonable, or in fact trustworthy.

As I've explained above, you are wrong. If there is an agenda to get the manager sacked then the opinion, far from being reasonable, has questionable credibility.

No, I'm getting at the heart of underlying agendas which is a concept you can't seem to grasp.

Okay, I am shocked that you can't understand this. I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that people's agenda against Trap may colour their opinions and so when they make a criticism they may only be doing it because the want to get rid of him and not because they are reasonable criticisms. That is fine. That is very easy to understand. It is a very simple and common concept.

But it doesn't change the substance of the criticism. The substance of a criticism can be judged independent of the people making it. A criticism will remain even if all the people who made it are dead and never going to post again. So you can look at the substance of a criticism on its own.

You are attacking the credibility of the posters by claiming bias rather than dealing with the substance of their particular criticism.

Wilson is a better left back than Ward, has plenty enough experience and should have been selected ahead of him. Ward will be an extra liability against the Germans. I understand that you may not agree with this. But do you think that this belief is completely unreasonable?

Neeson

sh__93 wrote: »

Anyone know if they're showing this on RTE Player? Can't seem to find it.

Says they are from 7pm on their schedule for RTÉ2. (It's tomorrow night you know!?)

Banjaxed82

Seamus Coleman's inclusion begs the question: how Trap did not include an inform Coleman (even as a winger) during the last campaign against the likes of Slovakia, yet he'll parachute Coleman in at RB against one of the best teams in the world?

Does Trap even know?

Neeson

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Seamus Coleman's inclusion begs the question: how Trap did not include an inform Coleman (even as a winger) during the last campaign against the likes of Slovakia, yet he'll parachute Coleman in at RB against one of the best teams in the world?

Does Trap even know?

He wants Coleman to make a balls so he can have an excuse to leave him out from there on in.

sh__93

Neeson wrote: »

Says they are from 7pm on their schedule for RTÉ2. (It's tomorrow night you know!?)

Ha, was wondering why there were no streams. I am an idiot :o
Thanks anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

Okay, I am shocked that you can't understand this. I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that people's agenda against Trap may colour their opinions and so when they make a criticism they may only be doing it because the want to get rid of him and not because they are reasonable criticisms. That is fine. That is very easy to understand. It is a very simple and common concept.

But it doesn't change the substance of the criticism. The substance of a criticism can be judged independent of the people making it. A criticism will remain even if all the people who made it are dead and never going to post again. So you can look at the substance of a criticism on its own.

You are attacking the credibility of the posters by claiming bias rather than dealing with the substance of their particular criticism.

Wilson is a better left back than Ward, has plenty enough experience and should have been selected ahead of him. Ward will be an extra liability against the Germans. I understand that you may not agree with this. But do you think that this belief is completely unreasonable?

You are understanding what I am saying now it appears but you are still mistaken in your view that, as you put it, 'The substance of a criticism can be judged independent of the people making it.'

It cannot. Any historian will tell you this. You actually hit the nail on the head when you mentioned bias. I'll give you an example that a historian would have to deal with.

During the aftermath of the Easter Rising, Countess Markievicz was court-martialed. The prosecutor, a man called Wylie, alleged she had been weak before the court and had the view that she had behaved rather cowardly. Now one cannot simply except this as a reasonable criticism and judge it independent in its own right. One has to examine WHO is saying this. WHY they might be saying this. WHAT AGENDA is at work here. And many historians would say he was trying to blacken her character.

That is why I reiterate one must examine the motives behind those making the kind of criticisms that you're talking about.

Banjaxed82

Neeson wrote: »

He wants Coleman to make a balls so he can have an excuse to leave him out from there on in.

I doubt that now. Give up the slim chance of a draw for that sabotage?

Trap just contradicts himself on scandalous levels. He goes on about risk, inexperienced players and playing things safe.

....I can't play James McClean against Kazakhstan (even as a sub), yet I can play Seamus Coleman against Germany. What's that all about??

Latchy

Trap will go down in football history as the manager who during most of his time as Ireland manager , never really knew what starting 11 to put out on a field .

Neeson

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I doubt that now. Give up the slim chance of a draw for that sabotage?

There'll be no slim chance of a draw now. If it was a friendly there'd be an anorexic chance but I don't see any hope tomorrow night.

(Of course you still have to go around pretending that there is and have a never give up attitude and all that)

Banjaxed82

Neeson wrote: »

There'll be no slim chance of a draw now. If it was a friendly there'd be an anorexic chance but I don't see any hope tomorrow night.

(Of course you still have to go around pretending that there is and have a never give up attitude and all that)

Now?

Neeson

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Now?

I meant it as in "now, now James. Eat your porridge".

Not "now" as in they would have drawn it if they played X in a certain position, etc.

Pro. F

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You are understanding what I am saying now it appears but you are still mistaken in your view that, as you put it, 'The substance of a criticism can be judged independent of the people making it.'

It cannot. Any historian will tell you this. You actually hit the nail on the head when you mentioned bias. I'll give you an example that a historian would have to deal with.

During the aftermath of the Easter Rising, Countess Markievicz was court-martialed. The prosecutor, a man called Wylie, alleged she had been weak before the court and had the view that she had behaved rather cowardly. Now one cannot simply except this as a reasonable criticism and judge it independent in its own right. One has to examine WHO is saying this. WHY they might be saying this. WHAT AGENDA is at work here. And many historians would say he was trying to blacken her character.

That is why I reiterate one must examine the motives behind those making the kind of criticisms that you're talking about.

I have understood what you are saying from the start. But I have been pointing out a flaw in your logic that you so far have not been able to understand.

Your example is incomplete. I am not saying that we should just accept what people have said about Ward/Wilson with no reference to other sources of evidence. In history those other sources of evidence would be other contemporary sources (primary or secondary) and archeology. In this Ward/Wilson situation, the other source of evidence would be what we have seen on the pitch and what we can reasonably assume about football in general.

So now, go and respond to my last paragraph in the post above and this can move forward.

Pro. F

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Trap just contradicts himself on scandalous levels. He goes on about risk, inexperienced players and playing things safe.

....I can't play James McClean against Kazakhstan (even as a sub), yet I can play Seamus Coleman against Germany. What's that all about??

The man is a complete hypocrite. A spoofer of the highest order.

Neeson

Pro. F wrote: »

The man is a complete hypocrite. A spoofer of the highest order.

I'd say Dunphy will rape him tomorrow night while Brady tries to intervene.

Mr.Nice Guy

Pro. F wrote: »

I have understood what you are saying from the start. But I have been pointing out a flaw in your logic that you so far have not been able to understand.

Your example is incomplete. I am not saying that we should just accept what people have said about Ward/Wilson with no reference to other sources of evidence. In history those other sources of evidence would be other contemporary sources (primary or secondary) and archeology. In this Ward/Wilson situation, the other source of evidence would be what we have seen on the pitch and what we can reasonably assume about football in general.

So now, go and respond to my last paragraph in the post above and this can move forward.

I'm unclear as to whether you now accept that you were mistaken when you claimed that 'the substance of a criticism can be judged independent of the people making it'? That has been the issue here between yourself and I. If you now accept this then of course we can indeed move forward. Come on you boys in green.

Banjaxed82

Neeson wrote: »

I'd say Dunphy will rape him tomorrow night while Brady tries to intervene.

And so Dunphy should. It's obvious that Trap is making it up as he goes along now.

Brady will hopefully have pulled his tongue out of Trap's arse as well. His blind loyalty is embarrassing to watch.

Mr.Nice Guy

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

And so Dunphy should. It's obvious that Trap is making it up as he goes along now.

Well if he can make up a third play-off in a row, more power to him.

Banjaxed82

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

And so Dunphy should. It's obvious that Trap is making it up as he goes along now.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well if he can make up a third play-off in a row, more power to him.

There's a reason why I inserted this word.