Bennys not happy

.

 

Have you read the full interview in the Chronicle? It's actually embarrassing how much the Sun have cut bits out to make it sounds like he's angry. The "dont piss me off" bit follows an almost separate interview about how he used to behave at Clairefontaine and his attitude then.

 

Well, if you want an explanation, I would suggest that your comments about WBA and Bolton would indicate that he was used very effectively in those games as an impact player.

With respect to Liverpool, Vukic had been brilliant his previous start, almost scoring two fantastic strikes both of which required first rate saves to keep out. He is also adds far more muscle to a midfield than does HBA. So, with two players who had eached shown great attacking potential in their last outing, Pardew picked the one who also brought some defensive muscle to the table as the starter. Don't see why this should be considered strange.

Vukic was in fact anonymous against Liverpool. Pardew brought him off and put HBA one. HBA was sub-anonymous. Don't know why you think switching their order of appearance would have changed anything.

 

Yep, it's painful. Weirdly, I found it surprisingly low even for The Sun.

 

Do I sense the faintest inklings of a sense of humour in this remark ?

If so, please have some phantom rep

 

Based on what?

You have no idea or clue as to how fit or unfit he actually is. Players are renowned for claiming to be fit sooner than they really are. Not in a bad sense but simply because they want to play.

Pardew has a team of medical staff monitoring the players levels of fitness and surely would be in a slightly better position than you to know.

I do agree Hatem should play but that is simply based on my love of players of his style of play. I don'e know if he is fit or not any more than you do.

To then criticise from a position of ignorance does not help your point.

 

I've lost count of the number of times articles from Red Tops like the Sun have been dismissed out of hand on this forum by everybody because they said something prejudicial against our club.

Now The Sun writes a sensationalist article about HBA and because it happens to agree with a few posters views this same Red Top is now a valuable and trusted source of information.

Anybody else see some irony in this?

 

No.

I'm on a diet and I'm not sure if it's allowed so I stayed clear.

 

Very sensible Too much irony isn't good for you.

 

Easy lads, the bickering amongst our own is getting tedious now, and perhaps I'm not the one to say it, but the Amnesiac + Scalpel tag team is becoming a bit of a frequent occurrence in the past week or so, you're both good lads and aside from the Pikey comments, I've never really disagreed with anything you've said, but that's not to say others won't - I'm not trying to be self-riteous or condescending, but just keep that in mind!

And on that note so we have different opinions, **** me that's what we're here for! Bano, you're going to get negative responses when you end your comments with 'you can **** off' or whatever it was that you said - a little unnecessary eh?

I personally think Ben Arfa SHOULD be getting more pitch time. Yes, he's coming back from a long term injury, but then so is Gerard and he changed the game against us!

I have massive respect for Pardew and couldn't dream of doing the job he does, but in the past few games he HAS, in my opinion, become a little bit off with his tactics and substitutions.

Bano, I personally think Vuckic OR Best should've started and I see Pardew's reasoning, Vuckic is fair more heavy weight than Ben Arfa and against players like Spearing that's what we needed. Had we got the ball down and played (which we did for 5 minutes) Vuckic and subsequently Ben Arfa could've been far more effective, as it was, we played hoof ball which would've better suited Best, who for all his weaknesses as a player, can take a ball down better than any player since Shearer!

Tonight, depending on the style of football we play, I'd start Best or Ben Arfa. The decision will be made on how rigidly we want to anchor Ba. With Best up front, Ba can have a freeer role and will be more likely to get chances. With Ben Arfa, Ba will have to look to be an outlet on long balls and then focus on scrabbling for whatever chances Ben Arfa can make for him. If Pardew has us sitting back and booting it, I'd take Best.

 

What? Am I not allowed to agree with somebody on more than one point without being called part of a 'tag team'?

 

Seriously, that was not meant in a racist manner as I wasn't even aware it was racist towards Irish people. I don't want to drag this up though.

 

Worst Tag Team in history.

I dont why this is but every man and his dog have jumped all over the Liverpool game as justification of HBA on the bench. That was the most difficult game of the lot.

We should be playing HBA against the weaker sides as he is proven he can open them up - WBA, Bolton.

If HBA can make a difference in a 20 minuted cameo....what would he be like from the start? Its a simple question that Pardew is refusing to answer.

Lets get something nipped in the bud as regards to Pardew on HBA:- He is good enough and fit enough to start 3 consecutive games vs Man CIty away, Manure away and Chelsea at home. However he isnt good enough or fit enough for Swansea at home, WBA at home and Bolton away.

That my friends is strange, baffling and totally confusing. It just dont make no sense god dammit.



P.S. dont take my 'go f*ck yourselves' to heart. Its just my favourite saying thats all.

GFY

 

I'm leaving the thread for a second. You can take over from now on .

 

Do you work for Sky?

But I agree with the rest. I normally agree with the majority of Amnesiac's/ Skalpel's posts as well and they're two of my favourite posters, but people here seem to be countering aggression with more aggression and healthy debate is turning sour.

I recommend people take a look at one of the recent GC threads. It's dying over there; because a few arrogant morons refuse to concede any space or back down on any point made and every article ends in a slanging match. It's cringeworthy, and we must make sure that people remember the third point on the not606 motto: to debate ! The world would be a boring place if everyone held the same opinions

 

By all means, agree on everything, at the end of the day who the **** am I to pass judgement, but on the pikey thread, then possibly the 'Best Thread of 2011' (not entirely sure) there was a lot of what seemed to me like back slapping over how you both showed Jacky Ickle how he was so wrong (and now potentially Bano).

There's a bit of hypocrisy on my part, implying that the bickering on the board was becoming too personal and then bringing names into it, my point was, a forum is for discussion, discussions without opposing views are surely just parallel stories without plots?

 

!

 

Whats all this telling people how to 'debate'?

I dont need a referee. In fact lets have a no disqualification cage tag team match!!

....problem there is i think my partner will probably be MrTiote....May God Have Mercy On My Soul.

 

So based on the fact that I agreed with something he said on this thread, and agreed with something he said on another thread, you have decided to take the piss by bringing this insane 'tag team' analogy into it? Completely worthless.

In the 'pikey' thread I was not the only person standing up for logic. It's heavily documented in all major English dictionaries and OED publications regarding etymology that the word has completely lost its racist connotation and that it is widely used accross England by people to mean simply 'chav'. This was my simple point because I dislike witch hunts and had seen a person get unknowingly pulled up about the same instance once before.

 

Actually it makes perfect sense, they thought he was fit to play those games, then something came up in the data that required him to cut back again. We don't know, nor do you, stop pretending that you do.