madras

When you add together his good performances & the games where he's played about average but had instances like that you'll find the reason most think hes done better than you do. He's had a lot of moments of showing a good amount of potential & i expect if he played more he'd improve further. There ya go good performance (singular!) and when i add up all the good stuff i think " he's a good prospect but why are people going way over the top about him ?"

You go off in all directions then you question me about it. You said he did badly against Cardiff, i disagreed. You're now saying he was useful & wondering why theres any confusion. What you've just agreed with is what you just spent the last 4 pages or so arguing with me over ya nutcase. Thats the only reason the we kept discussing it. When you're going out of your way to disagree with why a players done well, it comes off as you not thinking a players done well ? i said he was useful in general if not particularly in that game even though he had a minor role in the goal (if he'd scored the winner it still wouldn't mean he'd had a good game). you could even say he done well in that instance without doing well throughhout the game.

bur carroll has played better as a forward.

and referring only to strikers who have played regularly (3 of them) Referring to the fact that hes done well consistantly and id give him credit for that over players who havent proven they can yet. You two you'll see i don't think he's proven anything yet, 1 good game and one ok game does not a star make or mean consistency. for what it's worth after carroll, nolan has been our best forward when he has played off a front man.

So you'd have Ranger in the team against Cardiff then, because he helped create a goal. You just dont think his performances deserves any credit either, at the same time ? Do i really have to go into why Ranger has been useful for us when upfront, as a side thats played longball football. It should be massively obvious. who said he hean't been useful ? i've already said i'd have been starting him instead of harewood. just because i don't think he has been as wonderful as some are making out doesn't mean i don't think he's any good. why are you trying to make out i think that ?

and referring only to strikers who have played regularly (3 of them)

So do you give Nolan credit for playing a part in us scoring goals this season? If you say you do, purely because he's scoring them thats very shortsighted. We went through the whole butt situation a few pages ago, not sure why youd go down that route again i'll credit him with scoring goals. right now i'd have him in the team for that alone regardless of his overall performances. the butt bit was about causality as you appear to think thosethings happened just because ranger was playing.

the defence weren't rubbish and alan smith had one of his better games for us. you've answered your own question re-nolan in that he's scoring goals without actually playing well. the bit about winning games with him is silly as you could aswell point out that we've lost 2 of our three defeats without nicky butt...that doesn't mean it's because of. do you know what causality is ?

good idea. hope it takes off. i shall be signing up in due course.

good grief man he challenged for a corner and i'm now supposed to take on board that he is soo good despite what i have seen. he's abig lad and out to impress, challenging like that is the least we should expect,shola used to, carroll does etc. You brought up the Cardiff match as being a bad one for him, i pointed out that without him we wouldnt have scored the goal we did & won the match. Seems a pretty obviously valid point. Obviously i think his performances as a whole were more impressive than you do also. You could use the least we could expect argument to disregard any positive attribute. Like Krul saving shots. A young player challenging 3 of the opposition and getting us a positive outcome, isnt really the least most would expect. so his most productive thing in the game was to challenge for a header, the least that should be expected for a big forward. even if he'd scored the winner it wouldn't mean he'd played well.

who's liking danny guthrie ? You said you thought he was MOTM. Thinking back he was really good that night so ignore that comment. Gonna bail on this one early! he was MotM for me that night. the thing is i don't have favourites so i can view players objectivly. you'll find i've been very critical of guthrie in the past for going missing. my problem is i'm too honest.

who's liking danny guthrie ?

I wouldnt expect many players to be able to challenge two defenders & a goalkeeper and force them to make an error because of it. Strength in a target man is a very useful trait, he has a good amount of it & used it in that situation to keep an attacking move going when another would have let it fall away. The move came from a corner & i would give praise to all 3 players involved yes. good grief man he challenged for a corner and i'm now supposed to take on board that he is soo good despite what i have seen. he's abig lad and out to impress, challenging like that is the least we should expect,shola used to, carroll does etc.

Was a performance to be remembered too. Indeed, I remember how s*** he was And somehow manage to forget how s*** Ranger was in the first half against Leicester, or away at Peterbrough, or in a fair few of his sub apperances. Was brilliant the whole game against Leicester if I remember correctly. Most of his sub appearances have been under 20 minutes or so. He has had more time recently to be fair but he's still looked dangerous to me. no he wasn't. he was decent but the performance was hyped up because it was a youngster making his debut. had exactly the same performance been put in by a more experienced player it wouldn't have been seen as "brilliant". oh and shola looked a better prospect whern he first broke through. That's really a matter of opinion. It was made MORE impressive due to it being his first game. Was still bloody good regardless. good,not brilliant and as i say, made more of because he's young than the actual performance warranted. Fascinating. isn't it. the way a perception of a performance can be altered because of who is doing it. No, i think its more fascinating that you are so offended by a 18 year old on his first senior performing so well.. (MOTM and standing ovation). Which leads to people saying we could have a really good player on our hands. Instead you would rather post say - 5 relies in the last 20 minutes - saying why his performance wasn't all that and that 'x' player was better blah blah blah'. offended ? i've said he had a good game, danny guthrie was the best player on the pitch for me. i've stated repeatedly that he's a good prospect and that recently i'd have had in the team instead of harewood. but i'm not going to go way over the top like some. oh and MotM is hardly reliable as you should know how many times it's discussed that the MotM awarded bore no relation to the game. if a player scores a hat trick he will generally be awarded it even if one was a pen ,one was a mis hit and the third was his only decent touch in 90mins. standing ovation for having a good game for a youngster on his debut seems fair enough.

depends on when. sometimes forwards do use too much energy chasing down stuff they shouldn't (can't say this of harewood mind who seems not to chase stuff he should)

Was a performance to be remembered too. Indeed, I remember how s*** he was And somehow manage to forget how s*** Ranger was in the first half against Leicester, or away at Peterbrough, or in a fair few of his sub apperances. Was brilliant the whole game against Leicester if I remember correctly. Most of his sub appearances have been under 20 minutes or so. He has had more time recently to be fair but he's still looked dangerous to me. no he wasn't. he was decent but the performance was hyped up because it was a youngster making his debut. had exactly the same performance been put in by a more experienced player it wouldn't have been seen as "brilliant". oh and shola looked a better prospect whern he first broke through. That's really a matter of opinion. It was made MORE impressive due to it being his first game. Was still bloody good regardless. good,not brilliant and as i say, made more of because he's young than the actual performance warranted. Fascinating. isn't it. the way a perception of a performance can be altered because of who is doing it.

not strictly true though was it. he wasn't hounded out by the fans and a lot of fans were, in my opinion, correct to voice concern about the drop in standards on the pitch from the season before.

Was a performance to be remembered too. Indeed, I remember how s*** he was And somehow manage to forget how s*** Ranger was in the first half against Leicester, or away at Peterbrough, or in a fair few of his sub apperances. Was brilliant the whole game against Leicester if I remember correctly. Most of his sub appearances have been under 20 minutes or so. He has had more time recently to be fair but he's still looked dangerous to me. no he wasn't. he was decent but the performance was hyped up because it was a youngster making his debut. had exactly the same performance been put in by a more experienced player it wouldn't have been seen as "brilliant". oh and shola looked a better prospect whern he first broke through. That's really a matter of opinion. It was made MORE impressive due to it being his first game. Was still bloody good regardless. good,not brilliant and as i say, made more of because he's young than the actual performance warranted.

I suppose it is kind of racism saying because you're not British you can't play football here. quotas of a similar ilk are in force in other sports.

Was a performance to be remembered too. Indeed, I remember how s*** he was And somehow manage to forget how s*** Ranger was in the first half against Leicester, or away at Peterbrough, or in a fair few of his sub apperances. Was brilliant the whole game against Leicester if I remember correctly. Most of his sub appearances have been under 20 minutes or so. He has had more time recently to be fair but he's still looked dangerous to me. no he wasn't. he was decent but the performance was hyped up because it was a youngster making his debut. had exactly the same performance been put in by a more experienced player it wouldn't have been seen as "brilliant". oh and shola looked a better prospect whern he first broke through.

f***s sake if thats the case we have to applaud whoever put the ball in for ranger to challenge, and whoever got the ball to him and colo for getting the ball wide etc etc etc. when in fact what you are saying is that in the run up to the goal he played a part, not even a touch, therefore the goal was down to him. favouritism at it's most pathetic blindness. Not really, im talking about a situation that i wouldnt expect most players to create in the first place. The only other whos done that is Carroll again. You're comparing that to passing, which is something all our players are capable of. Nor did i say that meant that the goal was solely down to him anywhere, i said he had a hand in the goal? And you're having a go at blindness Ive said several times he creates chances, explain how that isnt a situation of him creating a chance. you wouldn't expect him to create what ? he didn't create, he challenged for a ball that was close to him and it happened to fall that way. if we hadn't scored from it you wouldn't bring it up or at least give credit to everyone who touched the ball in that move regardless of who they are.

Xisco showed nothing at all, he cried on for games and the few chances he got he was fkn shocking, Nile has given his all worked dam hard for the team. Am not knocking Carroll but at the end of thier careers I think Ranger will be remembered as a much better player. quite possibly but not based on what they have actually done so far.

Utter bollocks and Carroll is nowhere near the player Nile is. obviously not based on first team performances.

So further up the page you're telling me that I'm wrong because no banners were confiscated, now you're telling me I'm wrong because JJ7 says they were. Brilliant. I'll say it again, If there is a policy now for the stewards to remove banners (as JJ7 has said they are) then it's more than likely as a direct consequence of the "Cockney Rapist" banner at the Peterborough game. Banners were being taken outside the ground before the Peterborough game and during the Peterborough game. The Cockney Rapist banner was taken at full time after about three or four others had been twocked so it's certainly f*** all to do with that. It's simply the stewards being c***s. what messages were on the other banners ?

fucks sake if thats the case we have to applaud whoever put the ball in for ranger to challenge, and whoever got the ball to him and colo for getting the ball wide etc etc etc. when in fact what you are saying is that in the run up to the goal he played a part, not even a touch, therefore the goal was down to him. favouritism at it's most pathetic blindness.