Cajun Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 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 shite, 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 shit against the club if it means more sales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Can't believe that a kid who is basically living everyone else's dream can't even turn up on time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Make him sleep in the changing rooms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Make him sleep in the changing rooms. He's nicked the benches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Can't believe that a kid who is basically living everyone else's dream can't even turn up on time. He is, apparently. He's just not turning up before he's been told to. I laugh, to be fair I think I understand Pardew's underlying point which is that he's not investing as much effort in improving himself as he perhaps should, but the way he put it sounds... funny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Can't believe that a kid who is basically living everyone else's dream can't even turn up on time. He is, apparently. He's just not turning up before he's been told to. I laugh, to be fair I think I understand Pardew's underlying point which is that he's not investing as much effort in improving himself as he perhaps should, but the way he put it sounds... funny. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Can't believe that a kid who is basically living everyone else's dream can't even turn up on time. He is, apparently. He's just not turning up before he's been told to. I laugh, to be fair I think I understand Pardew's underlying point which is that he's not investing as much effort in improving himself as he perhaps should, but the way he put it sounds... funny. 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. No, you're just about spot on. He's saying Ranger's just been ticking the boxes that have been put in front of him, which is better than he used to be because he didn't even bother ticking them in the past, but he's still not thinking for himself and giving his all (creating new boxes to tick, so to speak), and isn't being taken seriously by the squad (who do tend to) as a result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Ranger hasn't achieved anything yet, I rate him but it's disappointing to hear that he's not knuckling down and giving everything to succeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shayno Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If he is struggling to make it to training on time at Newcastle would he be a complete liability if we loaned him out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
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