Great stuff.
I look forward to the future of SCM free from snide and deprecating remarks about Rafa.
Think a lot of those remarks were born out of frustration of the other end of the spectrum. I know most of my snide remarks were more at posters who supported him , rather than the man himself.Great stuff.
I look forward to the future of SCM free from snide and deprecating remarks about Rafa.
You see, this is what I mean by ignoring the details and looking at the overall picture. Maybe some of the decisions in that final were very bad, maybe not, I'm sure you could argue it either way. My perspective is that it was an achievement to get that team to the final in the first place, and basically an extraordinary achievement to do it twice in 3 years. Same for the title challenge in 2009. Everything balances out. Was the end result satisfactory from the resources available? That's how I look at stuff.
Think a lot of those remarks were born out of frustration of the other end of the spectrum. I know most of my snide remarks were more at posters who supported him , rather than the man himself.
He deserves credit, but people seem to gloss over his last few transfer windows when he spectacularly fell on his face. Either take the man as a whole, or at least acknowledge that he let himself and us down at the end. I was merely trying to redress the balance.
Its never going to be agreed on however
Maybe you should rethink those last few sentences, given you recently undermined everything Houllier achieved, including him finishing second. And "resources available"? You make it sound like he was on a shoestring, in the season he nearly won the title his signings had more or less no bearing on the outcome, he spunked away millions on transfers in the last couple of years, regardless of your age old net spend bollocks point, THEY WERE BAD BUYS.
But balanced viewpoints generally stoke the positivity side. I've tried it, and all you get is "you agree then", when I DONT agree, I'm just trying to find a middle ground. Sometimes playing devils advocate is the only way to get a point acrossI think the point is that, it doesn't redress the balance by going so far over the other side. You do it by actually saying something balanced. Not that you're the biggest culprit of it.
Because?LOL you just don't learn do you? None of the points above are valid.
But balanced viewpoints generally stoke the positivity side. I've tried it, and all you get is "you agree then", when I DONT agree, I'm just trying to find a middle ground. Sometimes playing deals advocate is the only way to get a point across
Because?
LOL you just don't learn do you? None of the points above are valid.
Because then Peter gets to LOL in a smug knowing fashion.
Unfortunately for him his understanding of the situation doesn't match his arrogance.
Maybe you should rethink those last few sentences, given you recently undermined everything Houllier achieved, including him finishing second. And "resources available"? You make it sound like he was on a shoestring, in the season he nearly won the title his signings had more or less no bearing on the outcome, he spunked away millions on transfers in the last couple of years, regardless of your age old net spend bollocks point, THEY WERE BAD BUYS.
it's this subject - it drives me up the wall. middle of the road - he was good, he was bad - he gave us great moments, he gave us shite moments -
1. I didn't undermine Houllier. I criticised him. It's different.
2. I think you're referring to me stating the FACT that he missed most of that 01/02 season. I also balanced it by stating my belief that Houllier deserves more credit than his record suggests because IMO his illness played a big part in the subsequent poor seasons.
3. I really don't know how you've managed to find intrigue in the words 'resources available'!! I think that suggests paranoia.
4. I can't say I'm surprised to see this latest spasm against the net spend argument. You've always seemed particularly hostile to it, even when seeming to accept it. But it's been explained time after time why it's the better way of assessing spending. To throw it back (actually, hardly 'back', since I didn't even invoke it!!) looks desperate.
Suggests paranoia? I didn't find intrigue in there, you've exercised this "point" a thousand times, that his net spend some how equates to him having his hands tied and not spending the money that would have enabled him to compete. Have a look at who he bought over the last four years - of course it's relevant, he purchased enough players at a cost that was enough to challenge.
And it's hardly paranoia when it repeatedly plays a major part of your defense of him, it's not desperate, it's a reaction to you exaggerating his abilities, and any obstacles that were apparently put in his way.
The last year's of Benitez were poor?I agree that the perception of Benitez is worse than the reality, but he only has himself to blame. The last years of Benitez were poor and the Inter Milan job was a terrible job to take on at that time. People have short memories.
The idea that he isn't good enough for Newcastle is madness.
Another trophy and CL qualification.
Guess that's another trophy and team he's had nothing to do with.
I reckon he'll be able to get another job.