Well good to see you cast aside the olive branch. Previously you state:
(a) you disagree that Tettey is technically better than Fox; and
(b) you think my opinion of Lambert is hyperbole.
I'll deal with (a) below. Re. (b) - hyperbole requires a statement to be an obvious exaggeration. E.g. - "the weather today is Baltic" - hyperbole because while it is cold, I obviously do not think it is as cold as the Baltic. Given that I made it quite clear that these were my honest opinions, they, by definition, cannot be hyperbolic.
You've now brought in (c) the "assault"... Let's start with your delightfully dismissive "I'm sorry, but if you think Tettey is "technically better" than David Fox then we're clearly not to agree on much here." Charming. So you disagree with me on one point, ergo the whole of my argument must be disagreeable. I'll ask you again (given that you clearly didn't read it) - I assume on this basis that you disagree that Bassong, Turner and Snodgrass are technically better players than before?
You followed up with the expertly pointless, unnecessarily goading and, as I have explained, frankly wrong "Once again I totally agree, and find that first paragraph of Rob's hyperbole of the very highest order." The irony of the statement, no doubt you missed, being that, of course, you were being hyperbolic by saying "of the very highest order"...
Then the best of the lot: "So David Fox didn't play centre midfield last season then, the equivalent position to where Tettey plays? //And sorry, if you really think Tettey is a "damn sight better technically" than Fox then you clearly don't know what you're on about so I needn't bother wasting my time "working through" the rest of whatever bilge you put up
Lovely. Hence, I very much doubt you read my posts, given you told me you needn't bother... Such a strong, convincing way of arguing - the deliberate misinterpretation "so David Fox didn't play centre midfield" also demonstrated your tactic. All you posted to this point looked like trolling - nothing of substance and ignoring my perfectly cordial debate on the same subject with YellowLittle. No attempt to engage with any of my points and all you really provided was a supercilious and dismissive attitude to my post. Do you see my frustration?
Back to (a). Don't try the old straw man re. moving the goal posts. I made it quite clear that I think Tettey is technically better than Fox. My opinion. I never disagreed about the "POSITION". You may differ, but I have provided my reasoning (and my explanation for why it was difficult to compare, which is why I can understand differing opinions). You'll notice, and I've highlighted, that your best attempt is to simply contradict. You have not justified your point of view in any way.
I appreciate my first post wasn't very clearly worded, but if you bothered to read my posts you would see a thorough discussion and explanation with YellowLittle re the difficulty in comparing the two players (their style). I maintain that Tettey is better technically. I also maintain that they are completely different types of player and therefore my point is hard to prove (or disprove, as you have so eloquently demonstrated).
I apologise for the "**** fan" comment. It was unjustified. I
f you think you've come across brilliantly here you're sadly mistaken, you've been completely dismissive of my opinion with no explanation, sarcastic, rude, juvenile (resorting to school-ground insults and still doing so I notice...) and generally unable to argue your point.
I concede that the ability to change a game with a substitution is not unique to Lambert, but I hope you will do me the service (and not do Lambert the disservice) of accepting that he had a rare ability to get substitutions right far more often than not. How often did we score late on? How often did our substitutes score? How often did a substitution from Lambert change the balance of the game? It was one of his strongest attributes. Find me more than a couple of other managers in the world that could do the same and I'll be shocked. His ability was doubtless very rare, if not unique.
As for whether he had a "system", I don't think you give him enough credit. He regularly repeated formations (think diamond, or the three at the back), he also often used similar substitutions. These weren't on a whim - they were carefully planned. It was not chaos. Lambert's system was to be highly flexible. Other managers have different systems - think Pulis, Wenger or Rodgers - they are very rigid. That is the contrast to Lambert. His flexibility and unpredictability, given that, to my mind, it came across as measured (certainly he has continued it with less success at Villa) is a system by itself.
Which leads me nicely to...
You know full well "it" meant the system. Also, don't tell me you don't know SAF has a system. It involves (broadly) being strong on the break and counter-attacking. Don't also straw man me again with your "most successful" comment - I specifically stated I thought SAF would probably have done better, (given that he is the most successful manager of all time). The point is obviously that SAF has found success in his system and would implement it on our team. He wouldn't do what Lambert did, because that was Lambert's way. That's right, I rate Lambert highly. My apologies for having another opinion.
Yes, of course I write positively about this - it is my opinion. Given that it is almost unprovable (shy of SAF managing us, I wish...), it can't be anything other than opinion. So yes, it's there in black and white as you say. My honest opinion, not fact.
I hope you can appreciate how offensive and condescending you have been (and continue to be - another stellar highlight from you). I was (as you would have seen) and remain perfectly happy to debate. Except, you haven't debated so far. All I know currently is that:
(a) you don't seem to understand the word hyperbole;
(b) you believe Fox is technically better than Tettey; and
(c) you believe Lambert didn't have a system.
All of those are points that are capable of cordial debate, but all you have done, is contradict, insult and then slaphead. Not exactly a gold-medal-worthy Question Time style "performance". I hope we can move on.
A new, and genuinely interesting opinion. You've even backed it up with a reason. Coincidentally(!), I agree with you...
