Wes Tender

I don't agree at all that effort is something that can be increased beyond 100%. If somebody gave 100% effort one week and then by your analysis was able to give 110% the following week, I still contend that the effort given the week before was not logically 100%, but less than 100% You contradict yourself by stating that effort cannot be measured in percentage terms and then went on to say that it is perfectly acceptable to say that a team was going to give 200% (effort). Which is correct in your opinion? Can effort be measured in %s or not? If not, then it follows that it is incorrect to state that you are going to give x% effort.

I thought I'd just get in early with my assessment of young Pulis' prowess as a player. I apologise for making snap judgments; I take back everything that I said about him. He is a fantastic player and we have done incredibly well to sign him when others had not realised his potential. That took great foresight on JP's part.

There is no bigger glass; that is the whole point. If anybody was capable of greater effort than 100%, what they gave before was not 100%. Athletes can beat their personal best, but that doesn't mean that they achieved better than 100%.

Exactly right. Why is it that some seem to feel an obsession with making snap judgments on our situation after just a few matches and some even after each successive match? Christmas is the time that a reasoned judgement might be made; until then, the situation could change week by week either way. Although I long for the day that Lowe departs this club for good.

What? Like a glass that's 110% full.

Yes. But do they put in more effort than those who give 100%? I don't think so.

Our promotion hopes dashed by Billy Davis's Preston? Really, really bad sloppy journalism!

It's a bit like those people who say etc,etc,etc. And those sci-fi idiots who say to infinity and beyond. Standards of English grammar are falling fast, not helped by the fact that the Americans are increasingly speaking a different sort of English. About time that we called what they speak American.

I stick to every part of the assessment I made. Those conclusions I made are on the basis of my opinion, much as the assessments you made are based on your opinions. It may be that players have historically played in those positions, that the only way that others will gain experience and stature is by playing in the first team, but my point was that the situation is not ideal whereby they are thrust into the cauldron through necessity rather than blooded slowly when completely ready for the step up. As your response was to my post, where did I say that James was a midfielder? So Surman is not robust enough as a midfielder, but apparently is somehow robust enough to play as a defender? You can't have it both ways As for the younger/older player scenario, naturally I was talking about our players rather than in general. Of our players, Killer is an older one, as is Thomas. Both a bit prone to injury, I'd say. Granted that Perry and Wotton haven't been injured so far, but of course the season is only 5 minutes old at the moment. When we are discussing defensive cover, we are talking about the entire season and if others contend that these older players might have injury spells, it is a distinct possibility. I do know that Wotton has good experience in his career at playing CB. But the problem might be that he is one of the few older, experienced players in the team and whilst he covers for CB, we are going to lack the wiser, steely player in midfield. Also it is important that the CB teaming forge a relationship together to enhance understanding. From that perspective, it is better that we have at least one CB who is a fixture. Which one is to be our fixture?

Let's have a realistic assessment of those players and then decide on that basis whether Alpine's statement holds water. Andrew Surman may be what you call our regular left back, but he has only played there through necessity, rather than it being his best position. Technically he is not a dedicated left back. Lloyd James might well be a right back, but many would say with justification that he wasn't ready to make the step up just yet. At CB, yes, we do have alternatives to Killer. Perry is a player in the twilight of his career. He is experienced, but lacks height and pace and is likely to be injury prone at his age. We keep our fingers crossed he stays fit. Lancashire is like James. Would he play if we had a dedicated, experienced CB, or is he forced into contention earlier than he would be otherwise? Cork is the real thing, as was Davies. But Cork is only a loan and unlikely to remain here long. Wotton is an ageing utility player; able to play there if necessary, but not brilliant and also prone to injury sometime during this season. The cover from the above may well suffice, but it is not ideal and depending on injuries and suspensions, could well leave us short if we are unlucky. I would say that in defence, we are on a wing and a prayer this season. Had Davies stayed, I would be much more confident.

One has to conclude that Dalek is as much of a troll as Scabby, or else he is slightly mental. Which sane person would cling on to this Hoddle thing and use every opportunity to bring it up on a chat forum? Firstly, it is trivial and secondly there are absolutely no grounds for assumption that Hoddle would have kept us in the Premiership, nor even that Walcott would have stayed here had Arsenal came calling even then. The Northam contingent (of which I am one) and all of the others from elsewhere in the ground who did not want Hoddle back have nothing to apologise for. If there were any grounds at all for predicting that Hoddle would have saved us from relegation, then he would have proved his managerial prowess at other clubs he managed after he left us. But as his record elsewhere has been little short of dismal, the ground has been taken from under your feet with your assertions that he would somehow have done better here. And if Lowe was unable to pursuade his fellow board members about Hoddle, then good for them that they were more in touch with fan feelings than Lowe. Why don't you and Scabby have a go at the co-directors instead of the Northam? Oh yes; that wouldn't fit the cloth cap hate agenda and the class thing.

I was in Trieste, Italy in June and looked up an Italian friend I had not seen for nearly 20 years. He also mentioned Le Tissier in conversation about football. If kids in Bolton wouldn't know him, then pretty sad.

Blimey! We're only 1 million away from top spot and no sign of that annoying Big Brother cow...

I think that Sundance has used all his posts and so unfortunately he is not able to troll any longer today. What a pity. Go on, meannie; pay the fiver. You know you want to.

I might be her tit, but you're her c*nt...

Presumably the 4-4-2 is pure hyperbole, as when I was a youngster the formation was 2-3-5 and I've quite a way to go before my century. I think that the trouble with one up front is that it relies on the players out wide or the player in the hole behind the striker to be capable of scoring goals themselves. Lallana seems capable of doing that, Euell has had a good goalscoring record historically, but perhaps not now. The wide players are less capable of scoring IMO and their crosses ought to be from the byline preferably for others to run onto to. The system could work, but needs fine tuning. It's too early to tell what its potential might be, but I worry that others will suss us out and negate us strategically.

Here is the arch hypocrite who supported the contention of another that I was one of the resident trolls on this forum, but has been unable to substantiate it by examples of trolling posts that I had made. I call him a hypocrite because the post above is a typical example of the art by one of its main proponents. Not a coincidence, is it, that listed as Sundance's only friend is a certain individual called Scabby (sorry, Scooby) who is accepted as being the high priest of the trolls, Sundance being his handmaiden as it were. The two of them belong together, as neither is able to indulge in a well contructed and cogent debate, so trolling and juvenile name-calling are their level. As I said elsewhere, if you don't like the people running this forum and are too tight to cough up a fiver, why not go elsewhere, or form your own forum. You won't be missed.

Just to take issue with this one part; Lowe and Wilde DO depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supporters are a factor in the financial viability of the entire CLUB, not just the team. If the club was in the Premiership and received plenty of money to keep going purely on the Sky revenue, which patently it could sustain at this level of expenditure, then the matches could be played behind closed doors in an empty stadium theoretically, making the income from the fans totally redundant. On that basis, your statement would hold water. But it is not remotely like that. The revenue through the turnstiles and ST sales is vital to our survival until serious investment comes into the club. Therefore they do need our support to run the club and to pay nearly all of the running costs including players wages. Unless a certain average number of people attend the matches, debts will mount to the extent that administration will ensue eventually when the banks baulk at the losses. Because of this, Wilde and Lowe know that they antagonise us at their and the club's peril.

Baj is one who has paid some of his own money to ensure that this forum continues to exist. Therefore in my eyes he can do what he likes with it. If you don't like it, or the way that it is run, start your own forum. PS comments in green, as I know how sleepy the blue makes you.

All this blether. Why can't you just admit it; you're a tightwad.

Also another Scandinavian defender, Bang Olufsen.

Decided that Red and White Army couldn't respond on his own behalf, Sundance? Who rattled your cage? As you seem to have taken it upon yourself to answer on his behalf, I'd ask you to trawl through my posts and put up examples of where I have deliberately trolled on here, but as it appears that you yourself do not know the meaning of troll as it applies to internet forums, it would be a waste of everybodys' time. But just to give you a little hint of its meaning, what you just did by posting a response to me is trolling. And try to be a bit more original with your insults. Nobody is in the least bothered that you have a tendency to suffer from narcolepsy any more than they care about your verbal diarrhea. Pompous and boring? I learned form the master. You have Gold medals in the artform. And I make it that you only have one more post for today, so make it a good one, you cheapskate.

It was B-WP who got off scot free because of the no evidence, not Dyer. But as I said earlier, it seems strange to me that B-WP was clearly identified at the scene of the crime and witnessed the whole thing whilst apparently acting as look-out, yet the Police didn't prosecute him for withholding evidence about the identity of the other accomplices. It would begger belief that he had no idea who they were and if indeed he didn't know them at all, he would have no qualms of stitching them up, as they were not mates.

Read up the meaning of troll, as you don't appear to understand it. I always try to enter into debate on all sorts of subjects and sometimes I ruffle a few feathers as a result. I've obviously ruffled yours somewhere along the line, so you have resorted to name calling. Post your definition of troll here and substantiate your opinion with examples, or withdraw it.

I was feeding the resident troll, or didn't that occur to you? And as the latest posts of the thread conclude, anybody who decides to stay away, whatever their reasons is perfectly entitled to do so. I am still attending each home match, but as I have not renewed my ST, I reserve the right to change my mind about my attendance at any time if I so wish. Agreed that we have no alternative to Lowe and Wilde at present, but that does not prevent many of us praying that the two of them will depart sooner rather than later.