Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Beast

Alfredo as a number 10

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

Can’t be fucked arguing 

I’m not arguing Im having a debate about us trying to find different ways of playing instead of do this way better. 

If we want to get better then that’s the only way forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formation we played yesterday is the right one for difficult games in my opinion. If we’re going to go with 2 up front then it should be at home to Hamilton and St Mirren and the like. Trying to shoehorn Davis and Defoe in against Killie was a big mistake and I think the manager realises that. We are better when we have width in the team and I think we should be starting with Ryan and Daniel whenever possible. 

Blumhoilann and Grundy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

😂😂😂

1. Finish season on equal points but have healthier goal difference. Factually, healthy goal difference is as good as a point as it wins you the league.

2. Saying subjectively someone has been poor from start to finish does not mean they have not done a solitary thing  in between which is acceptable. It's like saying Worrall was rank after giving the goal away midweek. He was, but that's not to say he didnt make acceptable passes in that timeframe.  

Unless you try to be pedantic and literal about every minute detail, or can't understand the context of a remark.

 

So wrong then, wrong now, and undoubtedly wrong again very soon.

You're a fanny mate.

You don't half get yourself worked up over comments on this forum, given you just had a stroke I think you need to calm yourself down to a cinder.

Factually, a point better off is better than a massive goal difference and a point behind.

I was simply stating the fact that he was decent for the Jack goal, which is indeed correct, you being the drama queen that you are wanted to make an issue of it.

You were also wrong about the Worrall incident, it wasn't a penalty, that is also a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Maybe he’s found better players to play 3-5-2. 

No matter how good your players are if a team is determined and knows what’s coming they will make it hard for you. 

 

We're most dangerous on the wings, so why lose that by playing 3 at the back? 

Mr Soprano likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

You're a fanny mate.

You don't half get yourself worked up over comments on this forum, given you just had a stroke I think you need to calm yourself down to a cinder.

Factually, a point better off is better than a massive goal difference and a point behind.

I was simply stating the fact that he was decent for the Jack goal, which is indeed correct, you being the drama queen that you are wanted to make an issue of it.

You were also wrong about the Worrall incident, it wasn't a penalty, that is also a fact.

I'm bored, having debates, about football not my health thanks doc. You seem to be the one irked enough to make it personal...

You're now talking about points being better off. Strange, that's not what was being discussed. It was about it being as good as, and as that poster, others and I have demonstrated in the circumstances being described it is. Its been simplified for you several times now. You stated you were being pedantic, you were being factually incorrect.

I said nothing either way about the Jack goal. You have mentioned it a few times now, not sure why you're so defensive about it.

The penalty. Factual it wasn't given is true. Is that even being debated? Whether it should have been is debatable, and what has split opinions, unsurprising as it is opinion based not factual. Tbh, what a stupid point to raise, discussing fact about a penalty scenario. Childlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I'm bored, having debates, about football not my health thanks doc. You seem to be the one irked enough to make it personal...

You're now talking about points being better off. Strange, that's not what was being discussed. It was about it being as good as, and as that poster, others and I have demonstrated in the circumstances being described it is. Its been simplified for you several times now. You stated you were being pedantic, you were being factually incorrect.

I said nothing either way about the Jack goal. You have mentioned it a few times now, not sure why you're so defensive about it.

The penalty. Factual it wasn't given is true. Is that even being debated? Whether it should have been is debatable, and what has split opinions, unsurprising as it is opinion based not factual. Tbh, what a stupid point to raise, discussing fact about a penalty scenario. Childlike.

I'm not a doc, I'm a plumber.

Not irked at all, I find it hilarious how precious you get when anyone dares point something out to you. I wasn't even trying to be a dick by saying he was good for the goal but, you being you, went on the defensive because you act like a woman scorned on here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

I'm not a doc, I'm a plumber.

Not irked at all, I find it hilarious how precious you get when anyone dares point something out to you. I wasn't even trying to be a dick by saying he was good for the goal but, you being you, went on the defensive because you act like a woman scorned on here.

 

😂😂😂

Keep your head down the u bend then mate rather than giving medical advice 👍

I've no issue things being pointed out, it's largely good healthy debate. Still don't know WTF you're talking about regards being defensive about Jack's goal, you keep going on about it and I've not really commented or disputed it at all. 

Woman scorned 😂😂😂 From the guy who can't/ won't admits he got it wrong even when pointed out to him. Now that's like a woman! And talks about facts involved with penalty decisions. You're the gift that keeps on giving plumby.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

😂😂😂

Keep your head down the u bend then mate rather than giving medical advice 👍

I've no issue things being pointed out, it's largely good healthy debate. Still don't know WTF you're talking about regards being defensive about Jack's goal, you keep going on about it and I've not really commented or disputed it at all. 

Woman scorned 😂😂😂 From the guy who can't/ won't admits he got it wrong even when pointed out to him. Now that's like a woman! And talks about facts involved with penalty decisions. You're the gift that keeps on giving plumby.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

 

In 22 years plumbing I have never had my head down a U bend, stick to acting like a woman scorned instead of giving  advice on here mate.

Go back and read the first comment I made, I simply said he was decent for the goal after you said his touch etc was terrible from start to finish. You said you clearly didn't mean the entirety of the game, to which I said it was a fair enough assumption to make on my part, then you went on the defensive.

Thou shalt not question SEMA:lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

In 22 years plumbing I have never had my head down a U bend, stick to acting like a woman scorned instead of giving  advice on here mate.

Go back and read the first comment I made, I simply said he was decent for the goal after you said his touch etc was terrible from start to finish. You said you clearly didn't mean the entirety of the game, to which I said it was a fair enough assumption to make on my part, then you went on the defensive.

Thou shalt not question SEMA:lol:

 

 

A the bit where you misinterpret from start of game to finish of game to mean every single instance in between. The stupid assumption or pedantic / arsy reply 😂😂😂 Got you now plumby.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

We're most dangerous on the wings, so why lose that by playing 3 at the back? 

Why does 3 at the back mean we would have no width? 

Just because you don’t have overlapping LB/RB doesn’t mean you can’t have Dan & Kent playing wide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Why does 3 at the back mean we would have no width? 

Just because you don’t have overlapping LB/RB doesn’t mean you can’t have Dan & Kent playing wide. 

So if Candeias and Kent are playing wide, where are Tavernier and Barisic? 

We lose the creativity from Tav bombing forward and Borna's deadly crosses. 

4-3-3 got us joint top and a bawhair away from European football after Christmas, there is absolutely no need to change it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

So if Candeias and Kent are playing wide, where are Tavernier and Barisic? 

We lose the creativity from Tav bombing forward and Borna's deadly crosses. 

4-3-3 got us joint top and a bawhair away from European football after Christmas, there is absolutely no need to change it. 

4-3-3 you could argue has cost being top spot because we refused to change it when it clearly wasn’t working during some games  

We can have plenty of creativity without Tav or Barisic  

You could drop Dan and play Tav, don’t play Defoe play Barisic and have Kent play just in behind Mo 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

A the bit where you misinterpret from start of game to finish of game to mean every single instance in between. The stupid assumption or pedantic / arsy reply 😂😂😂 Got you now plumby.

 

 

 

Just admit you made a cunt of it mate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

What is awfy? 😂

Wrong this time, wrong last time, no doubt wrong next time.

Oxford Dictionary -  hope it helps    😎

awfy in British

(ˈɔːfɪ)

adverb Scottish

awfully; extremely

ps Hope you are feeling better and on the road to recovery 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

4-3-3 got us joint top and a bawhair away from European football after Christmas, there is absolutely no need to change it. 

You could also argue we would have been 2 points clear (beggars still with a game in hand) had we not changed our system away to Motherwell and went 3 at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

4-3-3 you could argue has cost being top spot because we refused to change it when it clearly wasn’t working during some games  

We can have plenty of creativity without Tav or Barisic  

You could drop Dan and play Tav, don’t play Defoe play Barisic and have Kent play just in behind Mo 

 

Tavernier isn't a midfielder, it's been tried countless times and it doesn't work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

Just admit you made a cunt of it mate.

 

Rangers and celtic both on 100 points at the end of the season. Rangers have +10 goals. Is goal difference as good as a point to us, yes or no?

If you answer the above honestly then you'll redeem yourself. If you don't answer, deflect, answer by asking a question, post stupid emojis or anything other than answer yes or no then you'll have made an absolute cunt of yourself. 

You said a healthy goal difference is not as good as a point. In the scenario posted and highlighted above in bold, is it, yes or no?

The floor is yours.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Rangers and celtic both on 100 points at the end of the season. Rangers have +10 goals. Is goal difference as good as a point to us, yes or no?

If you answer the above honestly then you'll redeem yourself. If you don't answer, deflect, answer by asking a question, post stupid emojis or anything other than answer yes or no then you'll have made an absolute cunt of yourself. 

You said a healthy goal difference is not as good as a point. In the scenario posted and highlighted above in bold, is it, yes or no?

The floor is yours.....

Wasting your time with that trumpet. Spends all day shuffling shit, then comes on here talking shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

alfredo as no. 10 is dumber than a very dumb thing that moved into 10 Dumb st, Dumbarton.

You sold your house?

Moving into dictator terrace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...