AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:24 am
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.
I feel we could go round in circles here... You think I'm being defensive, I think you're being snarky.
Maybe both is true, maybe neither is... Maybe it's both are partially true, I dunno.
My intention isn't to police dissenting views, I have zero issue with anyone stating in clear ways their opinion... I guess my view is your posts (at times) are saying stuff without you actually saying it, and in a snarky manner. You're saying I'm misinterpreting their intention.
In that case is that the person misinterpreting it's fault, or the way it's being posted not great (someone also commented that gaffer day training comment a couple of weeks ago was snarky)... Again maybe a bit of both, I dunno
AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:24 am
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.
I was probably the first to proper lol at the heavy-eyelidded bellend jibe, and as a man with pretty substantial eyelids myself, I can say from a personal point of view that I’ve never been offended when it’s been pointed out, but I can’t speak for Steve Cooper on this one.
If he does take offence then just edit it to bellend, then, he surely can’t take umbrage at that one.
His inclusion as a regular has coincided with us looking like a functional serviceable mid table PL team.
Not saying he’s a world beater but he makes a difference to us.
Oh yeah, and I think Garner’s good, nice positional sense, plays it simple, is capable of picking a progressive pass on occasion, knows where the goal is, has decent mobility, and he seems to anticipate an interception pretty well.
Based upon what we paid for him, he's a decent, steady, premier league midfielder. He's not world class, but neither is he shite.
He's young and will improve and was a decent solid player for the money.
Just so we're clear here for the handwringers above - in this conversation exactly one side has gone in on the poster rather than discussed the player. **
I mean, there's no need to get defensive over people criticising his performances and/or ability as a footballer. I doubt he's an avid reader of NSNO and this seems to be one of the few Everton places on the internet that doesn't think he's the next best thing anyway. I think it would be more disingenuous if those who aren't enamoured with him were silent when he played well and went all in when he doesn't.
Personally, if yesterday was one of his good performances then I just don't get what the hype is about him. I'm not seeing anything more than a bottom half of the league player which is obviously what we are, but still. I'd be shocked if he played at a significantly higher level than Everton
Shogun wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:56 pm
I mean, there's no need to get defensive over people criticising his performances and/or ability as a footballer. I doubt he's an avid reader of NSNO and this seems to be one of the few Everton places on the internet that doesn't think he's the next best thing anyway. I think it would be more disingenuous if those who aren't enamoured with him were silent when he played well and went all in when he doesn't.
Personally, if yesterday was one of his good performances then I just don't get what the hype is about him. I'm not seeing anything more than a bottom half of the league player which is obviously what we are, but still. I'd be shocked if he played at a significantly higher level than Everton
Yeah I guess it depends on how acceptable a bottom half of the premier league player (with potential to improve) is to individuals... I'm just happy we have someone vaguely competent in there, but I don't expect him to earn a move to a top team or play international football for England.
When you've watched the likes of Gomes and Davies plodding around in there for several years having someone who is actually premier league standard is a nice thing to have.
I completely agree that his level is where we are at, but whether that's agreeable or not so much definitely will differ from person to person.
