James Garner

[AjaxAndy]

Don't see why people need to say 'he's crap' the day after a man of the match performance... It's fine if you don't rate him, but when it's posted after a good performance it's a proper boo boy mentality.

Played well yesterday, deserves credit.

[Audrey Horne]

i dont think he is brilliant. But he is 22. He defo has enough there to hope he can improve. Im unsure he will under the coaching staff here like but we shall see.

Also i was impressed with how he has a raging go at Pickford near the end. When Pickford has his brain fart and threw the ball out quickly and we lost it (of course we did) and Forest nearly scored (Garner with a big block)

He turned round and gave it full barrels.

Good, mature, not shying away etc. Especially to such a senior player.

I like him tbh.

[Cods]

Spot on.
Can see him, Patterson and hopefully Branthwaite (Branthwaite going for 120m to save our finances, aside) being the crux of a side 3 or 4 years from now.

[UnsyisaRhino]

I think it's bizarre that people are picking on him when there are at least 3-4 other positions that are a higher priority based on this seasons performances.

I don't rate any of our right back options, and still think Coleman is probably the best choice.

We have 0 depth at left back.

We have a seriously out of form, or back into usual form, left winger (great finish but he struggled again at the weekend).

We have a very effective number 10 who can score, but can't pass or run with the ball and no backup for that position.

We have two good central defenders.

I would make purchases to improve or add to those areas before doing the same to any of the 3 options we have in the middle.

[Bluedylan1]

I think it's bizarre that people are picking on him when there are at least 3-4 other positions that are a higher priority based on this seasons performances.

I don't rate any of our right back options, and still think Coleman is probably the best choice.

We have 0 depth at left back.

We have a seriously out of form, or back into usual form, left winger (great finish but he struggled again at the weekend).

We have a very effective number 10 who can score, but can't pass or run with the ball and no backup for that position.

We have two good central defenders.

I would make purchases to improve or add to those areas before doing the same to any of the 3 options we have in the middle.

Yeah, all of that is fair.

I would just say that nobody is picking on him. Just a couple of people saying he's a bit limited and eventually, unless he improves significantly (which he might), we'd want a better player in there. Not a huge problem or priority as you say.

[Kerryblueboy]

Unfortunately an injury to myko will probably see us with young at left back and Seamus at right back

[AjaxAndy]

I think it's bizarre that people are picking on him when there are at least 3-4 other positions that are a higher priority based on this seasons performances.

I don't rate any of our right back options, and still think Coleman is probably the best choice.

We have 0 depth at left back.

We have a seriously out of form, or back into usual form, left winger (great finish but he struggled again at the weekend).

We have a very effective number 10 who can score, but can't pass or run with the ball and no backup for that position.

We have two good central defenders.

I would make purchases to improve or add to those areas before doing the same to any of the 3 options we have in the middle.

Yeah, all of that is fair.

I would just say that nobody is picking on him. Just a couple of people saying he's a bit limited and eventually, unless he improves significantly (which he might), we'd want a better player in there. Not a huge problem or priority as you say.

You called him a meat and potatoes player who wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath... I'd say that was picking on him

I think we'd want a better player in almost every position over time if possible, but there's definitely more edge to the Garner comments than most from some.

[Bluedylan1]

You called him a meat and potatoes player who wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath... I'd say that was picking on him

Nah, that's not picking on him mate. I can show you picking on him if you'd like?

Also that was after a dreadful performance from him last week, rather than his much improved display this week, so it was entirely relevant.

[AjaxAndy]

You called him a meat and potatoes player who wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath... I'd say that was picking on him

Nah, that's not picking on him mate. I can show you picking on him if you'd like?

Also that was after a dreadful performance from him last week, rather than his much improved display this week, so it was entirely relevant.

Maybe not picking on him but also not very balanced, feels a lot like people want him to fail and can't wait to make him the latest boo boy.

Personally I want to see him using the ball better and more to dictate the game, but he's shown enough so far imo to say he's got some good attributes and has potential to grow.

Don't really get the need to write him off after every game regardless of performance level or reference eras where he'd not look out of place as a random dig... He's not a top 6 player but we're not a top 6 team, reality is he's been a decent signing for where we're at who was a reasonable fee with scope to develop.

[Bluedylan1]

You called him a meat and potatoes player who wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath... I'd say that was picking on him

Nah, that's not picking on him mate. I can show you picking on him if you'd like?

Also that was after a dreadful performance from him last week, rather than his much improved display this week, so it was entirely relevant.

Maybe not picking on him but also not very balanced, feels a lot like people want him to fail and can't wait to make him the latest boo boy.

Personally I want to see him using the ball better and more to dictate the game, but he's shown enough so far imo to say he's got some good attributes and has potential to grow.

Don't really get the need to write him off after every game regardless of performance level or reference eras where he'd not look out of place as a random dig... He's not a top 6 player but we're not a top 6 team, reality is he's been a decent signing for where we're at who was a reasonable fee with scope to develop.

Dude, you're way, way too defensive these days. Any time someone writes a semi non-positive comment about Dyche or one of the players, it feels like you get a notification and have to immediately jump in and attempt to negate anything that the person says.

I praised Garner at the weekend. He did really well. I think he's a limited player and I'd like for us to get a better player in there in the future, when we have the opportunity to. Nobody wants him or anyone else to fail. There's nothing controversial about what I'm saying, even if you don't agree. Accept my view in good faith, and disagree. But don't impose other exaggerated meanings onto it, please, like someone wanting someone to fail.

[4evablu]

Nothing wrong with Garner - great buy for me - every player has good performances and bad performances - it's dependant on the opposition in the main. Would you expect him to excel against any club that has world class midfielders as say against clubs classed as lesser than ourselves ?
Also take his age and experience into context - a young lad who basically came from a reserve football into a relegation battle 1st team and expected to excel because it was Manu he came from.

[AjaxAndy]

Nah, that's not picking on him mate. I can show you picking on him if you'd like?

Also that was after a dreadful performance from him last week, rather than his much improved display this week, so it was entirely relevant.

Maybe not picking on him but also not very balanced, feels a lot like people want him to fail and can't wait to make him the latest boo boy.

Personally I want to see him using the ball better and more to dictate the game, but he's shown enough so far imo to say he's got some good attributes and has potential to grow.

Don't really get the need to write him off after every game regardless of performance level or reference eras where he'd not look out of place as a random dig... He's not a top 6 player but we're not a top 6 team, reality is he's been a decent signing for where we're at who was a reasonable fee with scope to develop.

Dude, you're way, way too defensive these days. Any time someone writes a semi non-positive comment about Dyche or one of the players, it feels like you get a notification and have to immediately jump in and attempt to negate anything that the person says.

I praised Garner at the weekend. He did really well. I think he's a limited player and I'd like for us to get a better player in there in the future, when we have the opportunity to. Nobody wants him or anyone else to fail. There's nothing controversial about what I'm saying, even if you don't agree. Accept my view in good faith, and disagree. But don't impose other exaggerated meanings onto it, please, like someone wanting someone to fail.

Nah it's the wording of stuff mate, it's nothing to do with jumping in to negate anything... I have zero issue with someone saying he's had a bad game or whatever, but it's the way you shoe horn in meat and potatoes in at the first opportunity, or other such phrases regarding Dyche or a player you've decided you don't like.

I actually genuinely respect your opinion usually and would have you down as one of the most balanced posters usually, but for whatever reason since the site came back up your posts have become less so

It's clear you don't enjoy Dyche's style of play and that's fair enough, I just feel you've gone a bit overboard with the negative phrases and choice of wording for anything regarding it or stuff related to it.

Anyway I do acknowledge your last post was more balanced so it's clearly not every post and I don't want to come across as moderating your opinion, I've just found certain posts a bit OTT. And yes maybe I'm a bit defensive but that's because of the situation we're in and that I can't really be arsed with overly negative stuff when survival is all that's really at stake here, not style of play.

[Bluedylan1]

Nah it's the wording of stuff mate, it's nothing to do with jumping in to negate anything... I have zero issue with someone saying he's had a bad game or whatever, but it's the way you shoe horn in meat and potatoes in at the first opportunity, or other such phrases regarding Dyche or a player you've decided you don't like.

I actually genuinely respect your opinion usually and would have you down as one of the most balanced posters usually, but for whatever reason since the site came back up your posts have become less so

It's clear you don't enjoy Dyche's style of play and that's fair enough, I just feel you've gone a bit overboard with the negative phrases and choice of wording for anything regarding it or stuff related to it.

Anyway I do acknowledge your last post was more balanced so it's clearly not every post and I don't want to come across as moderating your opinion, I've just found certain posts a bit OTT. And yes maybe I'm a bit defensive but that's because of the situation we're in and that I can't really be arsed with overly negative stuff when survival is all that's really at stake here, not style of play.

He is a meat and potatoes player in my opinion. There's nothing scathing about that. I can be scathing, if you'd like me to, to illustrate the difference. I'm not saying that in an aggressive way. I mean genuinely, I can show you the difference which might clear up the misunderstanding. My understanding of the phrase ''meat and potatoes'' (tell me if you disagree) is that something or someone is solid, dependable and basic. Would you agree with that definition?

If you do agree with that definition of the phrase, then is it hugely unfair of me to say that James Garner is a solid, dependable, basic player?

So, in my view, you are being overly defensive and that over-defensiveness is then misinterpreting other people's relatively mild criticisms as being overly negative.

As I said, I praised Garner at the weekend, and said it was his best performance for the club. Incidentally, Garner himself also said the same thing after the game. If I was just being overly negative and had an agenda against the player, why would I praise him significantly at the weekend? People who just have an agenda typically exaggerate a player's flaws and then don't praise them when they do well. I didn't do that.

[AjaxAndy]

Nah it's the wording of stuff mate, it's nothing to do with jumping in to negate anything... I have zero issue with someone saying he's had a bad game or whatever, but it's the way you shoe horn in meat and potatoes in at the first opportunity, or other such phrases regarding Dyche or a player you've decided you don't like.

I actually genuinely respect your opinion usually and would have you down as one of the most balanced posters usually, but for whatever reason since the site came back up your posts have become less so

It's clear you don't enjoy Dyche's style of play and that's fair enough, I just feel you've gone a bit overboard with the negative phrases and choice of wording for anything regarding it or stuff related to it.

Anyway I do acknowledge your last post was more balanced so it's clearly not every post and I don't want to come across as moderating your opinion, I've just found certain posts a bit OTT. And yes maybe I'm a bit defensive but that's because of the situation we're in and that I can't really be arsed with overly negative stuff when survival is all that's really at stake here, not style of play.

He is a meat and potatoes player in my opinion. There's nothing scathing about that. I can be scathing, if you'd like me to, to illustrate the difference. I'm not saying that in an aggressive way. I mean genuinely, I can show you the difference which might clear up the misunderstanding. My understanding of the phrase ''meat and potatoes'' (tell me if you disagree) is that something or someone is solid, dependable and basic. Would you agree with that definition?

If you do agree with that definition of the phrase, then is it hugely unfair of me to say that James Garner is a solid, dependable, basic player?

So, in my view, you are being overly defensive and that over-defensiveness is then misinterpreting other people's relatively mild criticisms as being overly negative.

As I said, I praised Garner at the weekend, and said it was his best performance for the club. Incidentally, Garner himself also said the same thing after the game. If I was just being overly negative and had an agenda against the player, why would I praise him significantly at the weekend? People who just have an agenda typically exaggerate a player's flaws and then don't praise them when they do well. I didn't do that.

I'd say meat and potatoes is more derogatory than someone who is dependable tbh. There's a difference between dependable and bog standard... BUT it's probably a fine line and I guess that's where interpretation comes in.

When you add in the 'do you think Dyche allows players to have a ball during gaffer day' and calling Steve Cooper a heavy eyelid cunt (or something extremely similar) and it's easy to apply that snark to comments such as 'meat and potatoes, wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath'.

I see what you're saying about Garner in this reply to me, but given how it was worded originally and other comments I'm sure you can appreciate why it would potentially be interpreted otherwise?

But yes I'd agree Garner is solid but unspectacular, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly, it's probably a highly accurate description, and I acknowledge you have also given him more credit in your other post... I think choice of words probably impact understanding quite a bit when it's purely a text based system. In person I'd probably pick up more on the context or slightly tongue in cheek nature.

[Bluedylan1]

I'd say meat and potatoes is more derogatory than someone who is dependable tbh. There's a difference between dependable and bog standard... BUT it's probably a fine line and I guess that's where interpretation comes in.

When you add in the 'do you think Dyche allows players to have a ball during gaffer day' and calling Steve Cooper a heavy eyelid cunt (or something extremely similar) and it's easy to apply that snark to comments such as 'meat and potatoes, wouldn't look out of place in a 70s mud bath'.

I see what you're saying about Garner in this reply to me, but given how it was worded originally and other comments I'm sure you can appreciate why it would potentially be interpreted otherwise?

But yes I'd agree Garner is solid but unspectacular, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly, it's probably a highly accurate description, and I acknowledge you have also given him more credit in your other post... I think choice of words probably impact understanding quite a bit when it's purely a text based system. In person I'd probably pick up more on the context or slightly tongue in cheek nature.

Wow, you have been busy trawling through comments, one of them from weeks and weeks ago. Did you do some police training during the pandemic? (that was more on the scathing side of things, fully intentionally).

I'll respond to those criticisms in good faith though, in the interest of a fair conversation.

re: the Sean Dyche gaffer day (from weeks ago) - you've got that one fully wrong, I will assume unintentionally. There was a tweet posted that Dyche's gaffer day in pre-season doesn't involve any footballs. A factual tweet posted by someone else. I responded ''amusing that no balls were allowed in the Gaffer's Day. God forbid you bring a footie to play with''. I fully stand by that. It's indicative of the manager we have. Very good and very focused without the ball, not so much focus on being good with the ball. Do you disagree with any of that? That's just observably true.

re: calling Steve Cooper ''a heavy eye-lided bellend'', I saw a few of the criticisms of that and fair enough it wasn't necessary to mention a physical component in the criticism. I stand by the ''bellend'' bit, because of the way he's moaned and complained in the last two seasons, but I shouldn't have said anything about his heavy eyelids. Fair enough. We can all grow and learn. That was poor form.

Re: calling James Garner ''meat and potatoes'', I'm sorry you've interpreted that as derogatory but it just means basic, dependable and unspectacular, by definition. I am never going to retract that unless he becomes a little bit less meat and potatoes. And I don't remotely accept that any part of it is unfair, no matter how defensive you get and how much you dig your heels in.

I know you said something about the nature of my comments changing to be less balanced and reasonable in recent times, or words to that effect. I feel like for some reason you've become way too defensive and for some reason feel the need to police the site for dissenting views. Maybe both things are true, I don't know.