Definition of Cunning Adjective - Having or showing skill in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion. Noun - Skill in achieving one's ends by deceit. Please Google it if you don't believe me.
That's disingenuous. There are more definitions to cunning than that: cun·ning (knng) adj. 1. Marked by or given to artful subtlety and deceptiveness. 2. Executed with or exhibiting ingenuity. 3. Delicately pleasing; pretty or cute: a cunning pet. n. 1. Skill in deception; guile. 2. Skill or adeptness in execution or performance; dexterity Northampton stated "he is very cunning too". In this context, "cunning" is an adjective, so we can ignore the definition in italics. That means there are three options that he could have meant - those in bold. It's unlikely(!) he meant that Holt is cute... And the context lends itself (as it is complimentary) to definition 2. That definition has nothing that implies cheating. Even if Northhampton did mean the definition in 1., the word "deceit" or "deception" are not synonymous with cheating. For example, Holt could look one direction, but pass the other. That is deception - he is deceiving the player, by looking the wrong way, into thinking he will do something that he won't, but it's not cheating. Of course, you could argue that the definition implies that Holt would not be averse to cheating, but that still =/= that he is a cheat. Hope that helps
In that case Rob, it could be said that Holt wins Free-Kicks and Penalties by deception? or he evades giving away free kicks for say handball by being subtle? I just took the first definitions that come up on Google, and the questioning by Rich44 was 'when does cunning = cheating' and thus i have answered correctly.
Only if Northhamps meant it in the context of definition 1. If he meant it in the context of definition 2, then no. Only he can answer that! Even then, you have to conclude, from Northhampton's definition, that he was referring to those specific episodes of cheating, which, as I explained, ain't necessarily so. Yes, you took the first definition, but the first answer isn't always the right one! I was responding to your post to Northhamps, not Rich. However, in no circumstances does cunning=cheat. They are not synonymous because cheating is only a potential aspect of cunning, so Rich has a point.
Rich asked the question why i made that connection, and i have answered it. I didn't think for one minute that was in the context that northampton meant, but thats the context i meant. Also i presume a Robbery by Deception is OK then?
It could be said that Carrol wins free kicks and penalties by decapitation! I don't want him at my club, we're already half way to being a long ball team, and I for one don't want it to go any further!
Yes, but you said that a Norwich fan was admitting Grant Holt was a cheat, which has been demonstrated to be incorrect (thank you for confirming that you realised Northhampton didn't mean that). Rich made the further point that cheat does not equal cunning. It can only be one aspect of many. So that was additionally wrong. The link between cheating and robbery is non-existant, so you have picked a poor example. We also are not discussing morals, so this is an additionally poor example. And as I have already explained, only one part of deception is cheating, so that is a third reason that is a poor example. We are talking about football, not criminal offences (as much as Holt's destruction of your team might have felt criminal...) The fact is, deception is not always cheating, therefore, by definition, where cunning is defined as deception, cunning =/= cheating.
Too many on this thread have swallowed dictionaries. At the end of the day Holt has always done what he has had to do to gain an advantage, that's the way he has always played. Personally I don't give a flying fig if he has 'cheated' or has been 'cunning' to get one over the opposition especially if it's been against the binners. TBH I love it when the binners start whinging about him, loved it when he got the 1p5wich defender sent off a couple of seasons ago, I laughed like a drain
This is an awfully long thread discussing a player who will never play for NCFC on purely economic grounds. I don't see us paying £80k + a week to anyone for an awfully long time. If we won't pay his wages then he will not play for us regardless of whether any of us want him or not.
Robs hit the nail on the head Guru. It's more based on Holt's ability to outwit opposition players weather it's in open play or set pieces and deceiving them into thinking his going to do one thing, also if you watch him interacting with opposition players he'll clatter into you (legally) or bash you around a bit, then he'll be your mate the next minute that makes people uneasy because his unpredictable and in a competitive environment that has an amazing ability to royally piss people off, you could call it psychological warfare.
