Whether he did anything wrong is irrelevant and nobody had implied he did mate . We've gone full circle at last though He's starting to prove his worth which is great.
But that's the thing though, he's not "starting" to prove anything, he looked total quality from the moment we saw him against Liverpool in August, and no one is really surprised to see him playing so well now.
Again this comes down to what you think represents good value so far. Imo he is now starting to prove his worth and had not previously. I'm seeing numerous media reports saying exactly what I'm saying.
Those articles are just as stupid as your argument though. The headline of the first one is utter bollocks as Howe never doubted him, so saying he's "proving him wrong" is horseshit. The article then contradicts itself by saying Isak had a "shaky start" then talking about a "dazzling debut" against Liverpool. The second one trips at the first hurdle by saying he "may have taken some time for him to fully spark into life", when he clearly sparked into life on his debut! Journalists are employed to write sensationalised horseshit that's guaranteed to get a rise because it's so stupid, and you're just confirming that.
But the problem is that these articles don't in any way say you made a valid point, all they are is 2 badly written bullshit articles that make your point even more ludicrous. The first one in particular is written by a complete ****** - it takes Howe's comments of a few weeks ago saying that they are building Isak's fitness so he can play 90 minutes regularly, and saying Isak is "proving Howe wrong" because he played a full 90 minutes, which Howe never said he couldn't!
I don't write the articles you asked me to show you so I did. Unfortunately the articles are not of your 'opinion' He's now coming good so it's great.
You said you had seen numerous articles saying exactly what you had said, thus insinuating that your point was validated by sensible articles. You then post 2 stupidly written bullshit hack articles that contradict themselves and are clearly just written as sensationalised horseshit that is designed to get a rise. This doesn't validate your point, but makes it look worse. Yes he's good now, but the thing is that was never "bad".
you asked and I chucked a couple at you one Local press the other national .... my point is valid anyway you just don't like it or the others with this opinion. Nobody said he was bad that's not relevant to this.
"The guy is a dud" (quote from Munse) Dud: a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless. "all three bombs were duds" "He's been a flop" (quote from Munse) Flop: A total failure. be completely unsuccessful; fail totally. Think you've tied yourself up in knots here mate. I know what you're trying to say, but you've proven a blatant contradicrion of yourself. Calling him a "dud", "a flop" and "a complete waste of money" IS saying he's bad, even if - and I'm going to repeat this in my best John Cleese voice - even if you did say "so far". So you've just contradicted yourself.
I do have to say that I think Isak has been an absolute flop today so far especially given his price tag.
Yeah but at least he's had some recent form, look at how much of a flop Jackie Milburn has been - the goals dried up in the 1950s...
True but you’re only as good as your last 60 seconds. And what has Isak done in that time to justify his price tag?
