oldtype

For all his faults, this team just wouldn't function without Jonas

We're playing well

Two good strikers man. When's the last time we had this?

N'Zogbia you petulant cunt

If Cisse is the kind of player I think he is he'll thrive on long balls. Not to his head but over his shoulder so he can run on to them.

Dear God, why is Robbie Keane suddenly a good player. What happened.

Cisse has a Senegal armband. Love me some nationalism on the pitch

Most celebrated injury ever. EVER.

Fuck man, I love Tim Krul

All of this obviously scripted just so Cisse could come on to a standing ovation

Imagine what would happen if Best came off and Pardew brought on Shola

Cheer up, man, Oldtype! Why am I suddenly the "grumpy on matchdays" guy? Surely I'm not that bad in match threads... You're the Korean Colocho... (not really. Yet) I'm going to be extra bubbly today. I promise.

Cheer up, man, Oldtype! Why am I suddenly the "grumpy on matchdays" guy? Surely I'm not that bad in match threads...

Ah, that good 'ol "home game after a win feeling." So much hope. So much potential for disaster.

Obviously taking one for the team. He knows Chelsea is doomed when comes back

Completely unrelated but... Love the sig Baba

Like so many others, I bet he wishes he never left. Good.

Given that they've won five of their last six, this would probably take them to the Champions League

People sincerely believe this over there. They're not even the slightest bit tongue and cheek. Take our forum and their forum and average them out and you'd get a forum that was neither overly gloomy nor deluded

Equatorial Guinea will definitely break my top 5 favorite country list if they bring both the two Dembas and Tiote home.

Which of these utterly distasteful teams do I actually want to win?

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place? You never responded to this post from Wullie did you? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,91227.msg3502484.html#msg3502484 I'd be interested to know what these weaknesses are that you keep banging on about; you keep mentioning the term weaknesses without specifying what you think they are. These would be detailed in the series of posts that were made several pages back before this degenerated into childishness. What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place? I'm being attacked on the internets!! Ouch! I was wondering when somebody was going to show up to pull the "he's actually taking an argument seriously, what a loser" tactic.

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place?

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion.

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then?