ponsaelius Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Ronaldo loves Besty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I think Cronky was just exploring the possibilities anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 He's been underrated on here since the day he arrived, basically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You could only judge Ranger against Best had Ranger actually started some games. Competely daft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The difference at the moment is that The Best is a competent goal scorer. Ranger at this stage of his career is a loose canon/ moron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The difference at the moment is that The Best is a competent goal scorer. Ranger at this stage of his career is a loose canon/ moron. How is Ranger a loose canon/moron? When Best was 19 he was playing in the Championship and hardly ever got a game, he'd done less than Ranger has at this stage of his career. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Young Offenders Institution? The kids got talent but he's an absolute fool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Young Offenders Institution? The kids got talent but he's an absolute fool. That's not now though, it's further back than Barton being banged up and he was a lot younger than Barton at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Ronaldo loves Besty. He's right though. If we had to rely on one until the end of the season which one would you pick? I rate Ranger btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Yeah, Pardew was making an unusual sort of point about the impact of Ranger's behaviour on his team-mates. I think the problem with Ranger is that he thinks that he's good enough for the first team, even when he only puts in 80% effort. Now that might actually be true - 80% of Ranger might well be better than Lovenkrands or Best, strictly on an individual way of thinking. But it's a team game, and everyone has to put in 100%, regardless of their ability. If a star player isn't giving their all, that has a depressing effect on the rest. It's just as important for the weaker players to overcome their inhibitions and give 100%, and they're more inclined to do that if they see the better players also trying their best. I don't know if I've put that particularly well. But I think what Pardew is getting at is everybody, of whatever talent, has to buy into a collective ethic of effort and self-improvement. If you don't, then you're acting as a distraction. What an absolute load of crud. You've missed the point, which was that if any player is only giving 80%, he shouldn't expect to be included just because his 80% is better than a rival's 100%. The fact that he's only giving 80% creates other issues for the team. The comparison between Ranger, Best and Lovenkrands was just a hypothetical. Hence the word 'might'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You've missed the point, which was that if any player is only giving 80%, he shouldn't expect to be included just because his 80% is better than a rival's 100%. The fact that he's only giving 80% creates other issues for the team. The comparison between Ranger, Best and Lovenkrands was just a hypothetical. Hence the word 'might'. If one players 80% in better than anothers 100% then he should play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You've missed the point, which was that if any player is only giving 80%, he shouldn't expect to be included just because his 80% is better than a rival's 100%. The fact that he's only giving 80% creates other issues for the team. The comparison between Ranger, Best and Lovenkrands was just a hypothetical. Hence the word 'might'. If one players 80% in better than anothers 100% then he should play. Doesn't set a good example, especially as a lot of out recent success has been down to the spirit between the players, imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Doesn't set a good example, especially as a lot of out recent success has been down to the spirit between the players, imo. How do you measure who is putting in 80% or 100%? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Doesn't set a good example, especially as a lot of out recent success has been down to the spirit between the players, imo. How do you measure who is putting in 80% or 100%? Well I assume this hypothical scenario has some obvious way of knowing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Well I assume this hypothical scenario has some obvious way of knowing It's daft, isn't it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Das ist Numberwang! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't know why people are getting hung up about percentages in this case. Obviously 80% effort can't be clearly defined. The point is about a player not giving their all but still expecting to be picked because they don't think they need to give their all to get a place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I don't know why people are getting hung up about percentages in this case. Obviously 80% effort can't be clearly defined. The point is about a player not giving their all but still expecting to be picked because they don't think they need to give their all to get a place. The player looks like he gives his all during the match where it matters. Should Alan Smith get a game every week if he's our best trainer but shit during games or is this another double standard? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Ronaldo loves Besty. He's right though. If we had to rely on one until the end of the season which one would you pick? I rate Ranger btw. I agree with you and Ronaldo. Just stating a fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I don't know why people are getting hung up about percentages in this case. Obviously 80% effort can't be clearly defined. The point is about a player not giving their all but still expecting to be picked because they don't think they need to give their all to get a place. The player looks like he gives his all during the match where it matters. Should Alan Smith get a game every week if he's our best trainer but shit during games or is this another double standard? If I’m hearing you right, your point is that it’s performances during the game, not performances during training, that count. What Pardew seems to be saying is that Ranger’s poor attitude to training is an issue for the rest of the team. He is isolating himself from the senior players in particular. The inevitable inference from that is that it would have an effect on the overall team morale and unity if he was to pick Ranger for a starting place in the current situation. The other issue here is whether an individual can mess about in training and expect to perform at their peak during a match. Perhaps Ranger himself thinks that he can. I’d agree that Ranger puts in a good effort during his sub appearances and has an impact, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he would have the same effect over 90 minutes. I’d say that a good trainer is more inclined to maintain their concentration and effort over the course of a match, and not get discouraged when things go badly or get over-excited when things are going well. In other words, if you’re disciplined during training, you’re more likely to be disciplined during the match. On a slightly different point, Pardew talked about Ranger drifting offside against Bolton, with the implication that if he worked harder on his game during training, the right habits would be there and that would be less inclined to happen. I’m not sure that that’s the best or fairest example, but in another context Ranger often snatches at the chances that come his way and you wonder whether that lack of composure is the by-product of poor concentration during preparation and training. Perhaps people need to re-visit Pardew’s comments and make their own sense of it, and disagree or agree with his approach as they see fit. Incidentally, we could debate how Ranger compares with Best, but it’s not just Best that’s been starting ahead of Ranger. As for how Ranger would do given a starting place, that’s speculative, but the interesting thing is that we’re not finding out for ourselves because Pardew isn’t giving him the chance, despite his good cameo performances. I think Pardew’s comments are his explanation of why he’s not getting the chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Good post Cronky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 So pub/ground rumour isn't true? My faith in humanity is in tatters. As a FANzine if it turns out to be a load of bollocks I hope TRUE-faith apologise foe stirring a load of s****, fairly sure they will try and spin it though. It's always nice to know our own media are as bad as the tabloid press for going along with any old s*** against the club if it means more sales They mention a topic some people in Newcastle are talking about & clicking on the link it quite clear it is not a NOTW Mazher Mahmood expose, I doubt it is going to be a sale booster . Jon maybe its for the best if you stuck to reading the matchday Programme. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Why? They are just adding substance to a rumour, doesn't help anyone. Especially the way they put it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 There are rumors flying around all the time about Newcastle players that is how Newcastle as a club & city works. Most people will read that & move on I really don't think it is anything major at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now