He needs a free kick to go in to really boost his confidence. When was the last time he actually scored a goal?
Indeed up here in the North; Mush, Chav, Fella, Mate, Duck are normally used in a pretty friendly way and often for someone that you do know in place of their name. Alright Mush (pronoounced the same way as Bush and Rush as well as shush and Lush Mush is never derogatory up here, nor is Chav, always friendly whereas. Fella can be used sometimes to imply a bit of disrespect though. Bit like the chap on Come dine with me uses 'Fella' to make fun of people
Chav is definitely derogatory in the South...bottom of the heap. As a black comedian said on TV last night....'I like Chavs, the only people we can definitely look down on'.
Thats because people have changed the meaning of the word and adopted it for their own use. It is now used as a descriptive of a certain type of person. Not many people around here refer to others as "a chav." The way Chav and chavvy are used around here is the original meaning like mate, love, duck. Its just a replacement for a name. Alright chavvy, Now then Chav. No malice at all.
Isn't "chav" a Romany word, meaning "boy"? Hardly derogatory! As you say, the meaning has changed over the years and is used differently in different areas.
I hadn't heard Chav used anywhere in the UK until the last few years. I was told it was an acronym for Council Housed And Violent.
Gyrup Chav has got mush in there as well. Both mean 'friend or associate': THE GOLDEN GOLDEN RULE When addressing another person always end the sentence with Chav http://newslang0.tripod.com/thechavsguidetonewarkslang/id4.html
Bloody nora I come on here to hear footy news....and what are they talking about "chavs and mushes" Mush surely is totally Hampshire...........Meaning a Hampshire Hog....or borne in Hampshire?? Edit........My understanding of Chav is an old Romany saying for young cheeky lad
I'll not carry on too much. will have the off topic police on me. I would guess Mush is all over the country probably deriving from the gypsy community or them transporting it. Looking through that dictionary I see 'Aris' is your bum. My Winchester born Dad is always saying 'Move yer Aris'. I also see 'Scran' is food and 'Eshin' is raining. These 2 are both words that are used a lot around here. I would guess its more a case of Gypsy communities spreading the slang words to the places they go to. So Pompey's lot spreading it around your area and Newark lot spreading it around Lincoln. Other words that are common and recognisable. Todga - (Obvious) Radged - Stupid/Mad (This must have been adopted because I know this word for very very drunk as in 'He is absolutely radged') Sort - Nice looking female as in 'she's a nice sort' Bifter - Cigarette although I would understand it to mean a spliff or joint Kecks - Underwear Muller - Hurt. Up here I understand this 2 ways. Muller would be I am going to muller him as in the way the dictionary says whereas Mullered could refer to being very very drunk. And an 'on topic one' sort of: Wide Arry = One who believes himself to be a great source of everything. (Often used in the illegal substance market) So Back to Gaston
Sorry to finish off mush I think this is more likely than the 'french' idea of shortening monsieur: Explains a difference between northern and southern use although I think both meanings are used all over: Etymology 5 From Angloromani mush (“man”), from Romani murš, from Sanskrit मनुष्य (manuṣyà, “human being, man”). Pronunciation[edit] (UK) enPR: mo͝osh, IPA(key): /mʊʃ/ Rhymes: -ʊʃ Noun[edit] mush (plural mushes) (Britain, primarily Southern England, slang) A form of address to a man. "'Oy, mush! Get out of it!' That's what we'd say Barging the locals Out of the way" — MAUREEN AND DOREEN AND NOREEN AND ME, Peculiar Poems, [1] "When I'm around it's not uncommon for someone to call me and say :'Oy mush, get your bum over here and give us a hand.'" — THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING: In Which King Arthur Uther Pendragon Grants An Interview [2] (Britain, primarily Northern England, slang) The face "My ugly mush finally found its way onto the www, but not in the manner to which I deserved." — [3] 2002:"I grew my face fungus to cover up an ugly mush." — [4] "and your bird has an ugly mush" — [5]
In the Merchant Navy a crew member from Southampton, and nowhere else, is called Mush i.e. Mush Ford, etc. If somebody they suspect is from Southampton is heard to be joining the ship then everybody will be going ' He's a mush isnt he ? '.
It's interesting how language changes. Quite noticeable in repeated TV shows sometimes. I was watching an old Fools and Horses on GOLD or Dave last week and Del says something like "Boycie can't come, Marlene's about to drop his chavvy".
This was a reply of mine in another thread. Although I'm not really a Gaston fan, I was surprised how good of a defence my findings were for him. I thought fans of Gaston might be interested and this was an appropriate place to put it for future reference. "This is a common misconception about Ramirez it seems. I thought I'd do some research to add fuel to my argument here. Sorry for going in depth here, I got carried away and if you keep reading you'll realise why. Ramirez in Serie A: 58 appearances (43 starts, 15 sub appearances): 12 goals, 6 assists Ramirez in Premier League (for Southampton): 46 appearances (23 starts, 23 sub apperances): 7 goals, 9 assists. This means Ramirez is directly contributing to a goal every about 2.9 games in the PL, compared to every about 3.2 in Serie A. When we consider only 50% of his PL games (appearances) for us have been starts, compared to almost 75% for Bologna it goes to show his end product has very clearly been better for us than it was for Bologna. What's more is his passing accuracy has improved, as has his defensive contribution. He also turns the ball over and gets dispossessed for us less than he did for Bologna. I want to highlight something else too. Lallana only got 10 assists for us in the PL according to the stats in 63 starts (5 sub appearances) and 10 goals. That's means he was directly contributing a goal for us every 3.15 games in the PL. He also had in his favour that almost all of his games were starts, compared to only 50% of Ramirez' being starts. The fee we paid for Gaston was down to the potential we thought he had. We expected him to improve more than he did. We need to bear in mind that almost all of his starts we the season we finished 15th. He might argue he hasn't had a fair shot since then. He isn't that bad of a player and has arguably been unfairly treated the last couple of seasons. I'm not a big Gaston fan either, it just interests me he hasn't had more chances. The stats suggest he hasn't done too badly for us. In fact if you compare him with Lallana, the stats suggest Ramirez has done well when he's had opportunities. He's still only 24 now and might improve some more. I feel if he was English he'd have had way more chances. And if we're being fair to Ramirez he started most of his games for us when some of the players were only Championship quality. Honestly, I didn't expect the stats to be like this. It's actually interesting they came out like they did. It suggests he should have had more starts for us since 2012/13. The comparison to Lallana is amazing and remarkable in a way considering how highly rated Lallana was by Saints fans. Ramirez has contributed 16 goals in only 23 starts. Whilst Lallana only contributed 20 goals in 63 starts.There isn't much to choose between their specific attacking and defensive contributions according to the stats either. I was always one that thought Lallana was massively over-rated and over-hyped. So I admit these findings make me happy"
Good post. Only issue is would Gaston have kept the stats up had he started more games or been involved in more, or would they have diluted... Personally I would keep him and give him a new contract, I imagine half his injuries have been in his head and he needed to feel loved, which never happened.
Not loved! Only if you mean by managers.....never has a player been so loved by fans with so little reason in the history of football. He has so much good will coming his way, it's unbelievable. Just read Tintin's post....very surprising stats. The impression we gained from watching him was different. Interesting, so why don't managers fancy him....Koeman initially wouldn't even give him a chance.
Goals and assist stats are all very well if comparing to others i.e. his direct rival for the role which was Lallana. Can we also have stats for how many players he draws when he gets the ball, how many players he can beat, how quickly he can control the ball, how well he tracks back etc. etc. Lallana did a lot more than just scoring and assisting. Some games he was all over the place.
Lallana was all over the place and his work-rate was extremely high. But that's not necessarily a good thing when your team doesn't have the ball. It left huge holes in the midfield that could be exploited. It meant the other players had to work harder to cover the holes he created. Specific stats are harder to research as they are dribbles won per appearance for example. Ramirez has only started 50% of games he's played for us. I'll just use the season Ramirez started 20 games for us. 1.1 dribbles won per game, 1.2 key passes, 1.5 tackles per game, 1.6 interceptions, 1.7 fouled per game, 0.6 clearances per game, 0.8 crosses completed per game, 0.3 through balls completed per game. Those added up make 8.8. He turned the ball over 2 times per game and dispossessed 1.9. I'll take those off 8.8 and that gives him 4.9. I'll give him a score of 5.4 since he had 6 sub appearances and it's knocking him down. Putting him up to only 5.4 is not generous at all either. These are the only stats provided in the history of the players that are worth using. Now Lallana: 1.25 dribbles won per game, 1.6 key passes, 1.95 tackles per game, 1.6 interceptions, 1.7 fouled per game, 0.7 clearances per game, 0.85 crosses completed per game, 0.1 through balls completed per game. Added up this makes 9.75. Dispossessed 2.3 times per game, turned the ball over 2.2 times per game. Lallana had 0.05 blocks per game, so I'll add that onto his score. The leaves him at 5.3 and he stays there as almost all of his appearances were starts. That puts them very close together indeed for advanced stats provided. I'm not going to go through the individual games to do this, it would take way too long. But I know the stats would be more in Ramirez' favour if I did do that. I wasn't generous to Ramirez either above only bumping his score up to 5.4. Ramirez is actually better statistically overall and his end product is comfortably better. As for Lallana being all over the place, that might look good. But it ruins the shape of the team with and without the ball (unless the whole team can keep that high pressure tempo up which they simply couldn't). As mentioned above other players need to work harder to plug the gaps. It's arguably partly why Rodriguez ended up breaking down. He had to provide a goal threat and get all the way back all game. He was covering more ground than any player in the league the season he did his knee in. Ramirez kept getting injuries and so did other players. I'm not blaming Lallana, I'm saying he wasn't helping by ruining the midfield shape so much pressing like a headless chicken. Rodriguez should also have been rested more. There were plenty of ways to avoid the injury, I'm just saying Lallana's headless chicken pressing was a factor why Rodriguez got unnecessarily overworked.
