Jump to content

Nile Ranger


stozo

Recommended Posts

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 :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

 

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

Guest BooBoo

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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 :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...