norwaysaint

typical, I come on here with a simple observation and everyone just shouts me down.

Why, when one or two posters disagree with them, are some people on here now constantly whining about being "shouted down" all the time? Get a grip, there are about equal amounts of positive and negative minded posts these days. If you put up an opinion, there will be some who disagree with you. You're shouting them down as much as they're shouting you down, stop being so pathetically over-sensitive. I'm hoping we see an end to this embarrassing phrase soon.

He's without doubt a great attacking player. He gets things pushing forward down the right, he's fast, he can deliver some effective passes and I think he's more effective going forward than Puncheon, who also looks good, but his moves rarely deliver anything. However, am I wrong (I might be, I often am), but haven't a very large proportion of unnecessarily conceded goals been his fault? He is SO easily beaten by his man, he gets on the wrong side of them he falls over or slips, he's out of position. I know full backs are supposed to attack rather than defend these days, but we spend a lot of time defending and his absence is only stretching our central defenders more. Is there a case for playing Richardson with Clyne in front of him? I accept all insults for this being a silly suggestion and that I don't know what I'm talking about, I just think our two centre backs are being expected to do the job of a back four half the time and we can't be too surprised when they get easily overwhelmed.

They are much better than us, we should have expected them to be much better than us. But we are still ****.

Clyne and Boruc well beaten. Far too easy, both the delivery and the header had tons of space. No pressure on either player.

It's on TV here, surely somewhere over there must be showing it.

One of the greatest boxing trainers of all time died yesterday, was still training world champions up until the end. Angelo Dundee, one of few other trainers with a comparable record, died this year too.

I've commented on the irony of that before. According to its own constitution, the US can have no state religion. Their politics are not supposed to have religious influence, dating back to the idea of the country being home to immigrants from all over the world, with many cultural backgrounds. Yet Christian influence in politics is huge and considered very important and desirable by many. An openly atheist candidate for president would have great difficulty being elected. In the UK we have an official state religion, the Church of England. In theory it would be perfectly reasonable for religion to have a strong influence over policy, yet we are generally horrified by the idea of people bringing their religion into their politics. I wonder if it is just an irony, or if the official presence of religion actually inversely affects how much people want it present in government.

I'll be talking about little else with my classes for the next 2 weeks. They're all keen to hear my opinion, but I won't give it to them. I want them to research the policies and viewpoints independently and in as balanced a way as possible. In Europe it's too easy to be swayed towards Obama without knowing anything about the facts at all.

Are you being cynical about a corporate "Meet Jason Puncheon and look at Paulo Gazzaniga" night? You people want the moon on a stick.

Adkins' exact words on the "process" from his interview: I get the idea from this more that Cortese has said he wants attractive, passing, attacking and entertaining football, and this 433 idea is what Adkins has told Cortese is how he plans to accomplish this. It can be read other ways though, but I think Cortese's only real input to how the team play is that vision. A quote from Sky: . None of this gives me the impression he's being forced to play a certain way. it sounds more like they've got together and agreed on how they want to take the club forward. It sounds very much like Adkins is onboard with this vision and even in his post-match interview he sounded quite defensive of sticking to playing the way he's stated he wants to. I think the 433 thing is down to Adkins and I think he needs to step back and admit he might need to mix it up a bit more than that. I think the "process" only refers to the idea that we are going to play this quick passing, attacking, entertaining football and that's how the youngsters are being brought forward to play so that we will start supplying our own players ready for the "southampton way". I'm not saying i go along with this idea, but I think the idea that Adkins is being forced to play 433 as part of somebody else's agenda is off the mark. in addition, I don't see the relevance of Adkins saying he doesn't know how long he's got in the job. To me that means he hasn't been set a deadline. Surely it's the correct response from nearly all league managers?

Yeah, that's about what I expected, cheers turkish.

Individuals plural saying football is racist, not that there's racism in football, football is racist. Apparently several people here have said that Or are you just saying that somebody somewhere has said it? You've argued on here with people who aren't even here and been shouted down by whom? Where? Similarly individuals, again plural have said "black managers don't get a chance", not that some black managers have encountered racism, but they've been saying black managers don't get a chance.- turkish told them on here that it was nonsense, but got shouted down, not just disagreed with by somebody or other, but was actually shouted down. I'm having trouble finding where any of this happened, be a poppet and give us all the links won't you Turkish? Or again were you arguing with some random individual not even represented on this board? Shouted down about it too, certainly sounds like there were a lot of them and you all on your own, where and when was this? You still haven't commented, Turkish, do you think authorities in football should address racism? Or do you think everybody involved in football now isn't a racist or if they are then they should be allowed to just carry on? It's a bit of an odd thread if you think football should still be addressing racism, but a bit of an odd stance if you think it should just be tolerated. Which is it? I think what you actually said was that people are saying "black managers don't get a chance", now it seems you were actually on here arguing with Paul Ince himself, not the posters who were all ganging up and shouting you down, that we can't find. The thing is, I'd never heard Ince say that, despite remembering him as a whining little **** on the field. I've searched and so far all I've found is: now obviously he's done "plenty of moaning" that black players haven't been given a fair chance in management, despite the most common internet quotes saying almost exactly the opposite, so do you think you could help out and actually back up at least part of what you're saying. I hope you don't feel I'm shouting you down, Turkish, I'm just trying to understand your point.

Couldn't all of this be said about guns? Press a trigger here and somebody a mile over there dies. Maybe about any missile based weapon, right back through bow and arrow and throw-able spear, people have been killing people without coming into direct contact with them. It's not like submarines were the first and next it's drones. At points in history it was common for one side to show up with swords or spears and the other to show up with guns and cannons. Remote killing has been part of war from way, way back. In that sense, it's very very English.

With a satellite dish and an old sky box, I get the BBC without paying the license fee, however, whether I watch it or not, I have to pay about the same for Norwegian NRK. Now that is dreadful and provides far, far less, be very careful what you wish for.

Exactly. People won't realise how lucky we've been with the BBC until it's gone and can't be created again. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world and imperfect though it is, it is an international mark of quality. You may not like it all, but its overall quality is head and shoulders above any alternative. I've been expat for 13 years and still use the BBC all the time. I even use its educational pages with my students. Getting rid of it would be a horrible mistake that could never be put right. Yes I know I no longer pay for the service, but when i lived in the UK I paid my license fee every year for many years.

Delldays is getting shouted down good and proper by Turkish now.

Stop shouting Turkish down everybody.

That was utterly, woefully embarrassing keeping there. Oh dear, there's another.

Our support has sounded fantastic.

That's just exactly the same innuendo you wrote the first time. You've avoided exactly the same part of the question again. If you have something to say, say it, or admit that you have no idea about any of this and are just being snide.

It does seem odd, but you seem to have missed the key later part of his question. So far you only seem to be making insinuations and innuendos. If you have anything to say that you could substantiate, go ahead and say it, or stop with the snide stuff. If you're saying there was something dodgy about Luker leaving, let Luker speak for himself,if he doesn't want to why are you stirring on his behalf? I'll judge people based on the evidence put in front of me and so far the people criticising haven't actually produced a single good reason for me to join them. I've been given plenty of good reasons to be happy with the situation so far though. Then maybe I'll join Turkish's Completely Unsubstantiated Nicola Theorist Sect.

I'm still waiting for Turkish to tell link me to where somebody said "football is racist" (Turkish tells us that more than one poster has said just this) or where somebody said black players aren't being given a chance (this has also apparently been said by individuals, plural, on this board). I asked him about both in post 27, but he's gone a bit shy since then. I was also asking him if he'd agree that there is racism in football, just as there is in most walks of life and whether he thinks it should be ignored or addressed.

This is a silly post. Everybody thinks there could be something in it. Nobody thinks Cortese is beyond criticism. But just restating that MLT doesn't like Cortese isn't a news story. People want to hear a good reason why before they can be expected to take any meaning from this. To be honest that point's been made pretty consistently throughout this thread. We don't want more unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo, we want to know what this opinion is based on or it's utterly meaningless. If I kept tweeting that you were a paedophile, that wouldn't become news until I actually explained why I thought so. If I just kept saying it, after a while people would tell me to either stop saying it or back it up. It certainly wouldn't be shedding light on anything or something everybody should be taking seriously.

You seem to have managed to completely miss why so many people are unimpressed by this. Nobody thinks it's bad that he is reporting something negative, people want to hear the negative news as well as the positive news. People also do not mind criticism of Cortese, nobody is above criticism. What irritates a lot of people is that all we keep getting are snide and unsubstantiated comments about Cortese from people who then get a bit annoyed that we don't all just swallow them. MLT has been making comments about Cortese that aren't much different to this since not long after the takeover, so we already know how he feels. That's not news. There's no need to announce it like it's news unless you have managed to successfully nail down a specific reason to be negative about him. I'm open minded either way, but so far the only concrete stuff is in the positive corner and the only negative stuff is rumour and innuendo. Most of us are worldly enough to have learned that you shouldn't listen to that kind of thing until it can be substantiated and you certainly can't base an opinion on it. It doesn't matter how many times somebody makes comments like, "I've heard bad things about Cortese" or "I know somebody who works at the club and I could tell you some unpleasant truths about him". That stuff is meaningless at the end of the day. It's also silly to say that Peach "tried" to shed light on it. Trying to shed light on it isn't just getting a re-wording of MLT's negative opinion, it's getting MLT to back up why he's saying this sort of thing. If Peach failed to ask or get an answer to that, h has failed to get the story and needs to hold back until he's got one. It's the fact that this is just a re-hashing of what we've already heard without backing it up at all that's annoyed people. We'd be fine if he'd actually told us something, negative or positive.