None of that was said in such a narrow way and as I explained at the time there's a huge difference between what I said and your brains interpretation Unfortunately you've demonstrated this once again Ironically I would say you're on the wind-up
Excuse me but I've been reading your insults towards me the past week or so and I'm not patronising anyone I'm defending my position which has been misunderstood.
Hasn't been misunderstood, it was just taken at face value for what it was. And a Stalinist re-writing of history doesn't change that.
It has been misunderstood because you are making a fallacious claim and omitting the key aspect which was 'so far' You've instead perceived it as me saying Isak 'is' a complete waste of money and useless which isn't the same thing . I told you the difference between the two at time actually. Essentially I'm not that stupid
There, the actual quotes. Yes they include "so far" - some of which were edited in after your original post, mind. No, it's not the "so far" bit that I don't get. I'm saying that "failure" and "dud" are not correct terms for Isak, even prior to the Wolves game. He DID look good & sharp. He DID add pace and directness to our attack. He DID score. And then he got injured. How is that failure or being a dud?
But even the "so far" element is complete rubbish, as he'd got 3 goals which had got us a point from the Bournemouth game and won us the Fulham game, thus giving us 4 points directly attributable to him. And that's as well as playing well before being out with a lengthy injury.
Thanks for highlighting the so far and at this point. If you two don't understand the significance of that aspect then I'm afraid that's not not problem in all honesty Jesus
That's a separate discussion mate and imo that's not anywhere near money well spent . That comes down to opinion... we are both allowed to differ in opinion on what represents value aren't we ? He's starting to live up to his price tag now even the media is saying it
May I as one of advanced years,with said years of experience play the Devils Advocate here, you should both feck off
Seeing as he's only been here 6 months, it's very hard to say what "living up to his price tag" constitutes. Did he start of well and get goals? Yes Did he get a lengthy injured that stunted his progress? Yes When he came back did he look like he (understandably) needed some time to get back to get back to his best? Yes Despite not being in full fitness, did he win us the Fulham match? Yes Is he now looking awesome? Yes I really don't see how "waste of money" applies to any moment of his time here.
We can both look for evidence to bolster our opinions. He cost 60 million it was mid march. What you see as value for the price and what I see were obviously poles apart. He's now starting to prove his worth and the media are saying the same thing which implies he wasn't previously All opinions though.
He'd still done nothing wrong up to that point though - had come into the side, got goals, got sidelined by a bad injury, and come back into the side and was scoring again and getting back to full strength. Valuations can only be assessed over a significant time period* - otherwise in August 2012 we'd have been able to confidently say Papiss Cisse was our best striker of all time. *There are obviously exceptions to this role, ie after 10 games of seeing the likes of Luque, Marcelino, Riviere, Boumsong etc, we could easily conclude they were a waste of money and we're never going to get better....Isak was nothing like these however and had played well.
