talkofthetownsend

i apologise, but tbf a guy did come on to this thread with no intention of talking about football, just to slag me off. and now he will likely slag me off for not talking about football in his next post.

what's funny is that you even know that everything you are criticising me for is something others have done and not me. chippy: "you did this, and that's why i don't like you" me: "actually...the other guy did that" chippy: "well, that's ok, cos i don't like you, perfectly understandable, cos remember, i don't like you. i don't like you." you have come into a football thread with no intention of talking about football, slagging me off for things i haven't done; this is the second, or maybe even third time you have done it; and why? cos you are still bothered about a petty argument that happened months ago in the immediate aftermath of a contentious match when passions were high, and i can barely remember it. you need to grow up. i don't have to pay rent just because you can't get me out of your head. seriously; grow up.

and misrepresenting my opinion. which was what i criticised you for. more proof, if proof was needed, that you aren't actually reading my posts, just coming on here to slag me off cos you are still burthurt about a months old argument that i can barely remember. well, don't criticise me for it when the other guy is the one doing it. how about if his responses to me amounted to more than "absolute bollocks" and "more "absolute bollocks". do you think this thread would be in a better state without his attitude? because everything you are criticising me for is what others have done, not me. well, seeing as how my opinion, which you agree with, resulted in a massive amount of personal abuse and posts like "absolute bollocks" and "more absolute bollocks" (feel free to go back and check who turned this thread into a childish off-topic slanging match or endlessly repeated their opinions over and over again while dishing out abuse), maybe, in this instance i wasn't the problem; no matter how much you would like that to have been the case (given how much of a bee in your bonnet you clearly still have about that months old argument that i still barely remember).

no. and: well, you did. learn to read. i did not say the argument has to be black and white. however, as an example of "opinions stated as facts" as opposed to "trying to prove why i believe my opinion to be correct" then you are criticising the wrong poster...i did actually present arguments (whether you agree with them or not) whereas as dkw was the one who refused to engage and simply repeated his opinion over and over again.

i did not say that he had a "lack of crossing ability". probably best not to misrepresent my opinion if you are attacking it. he was a pretty good crosser of the ball from deeper positions. however, if your opinion is that he was "consistently the best crosser of the ball at the club during his time here" then it seems fair to bring up the other players who were good crossers of the ball (that there were others who could cross the ball well is a fact), the fact that he didn't get many assists despite playing with the best header of the ball in world football (another fact). tbh if he was such an amazing crosser of the ball, i find it unlikely that his managers would put him in a situation where he could never show it, that would be poor management. dkw is the one who refused to provide any reasoning behind his opinion in that instance. again, just look at the posts.

ah, football. what opinion have i shared that i have stated is fact? now, if you wish to say that i have tried to prove why i believe my opinion to be correct, then that is fine. but no opinion is fact fait accompli (although it can be fun debating them anyway).

I think that likely. however, even when we do that, mikel isn't joining in the press, certainly not to the level where he is on their deepest mid.

then pm me. if you have nothing whatsoever to say about football and it's just a personal attack, that is. well, that doesn't happen. don't know what you are referring to there tbh.

seriously, you really have come onto this thread just to slag me off. get a life. he may not be a troll, but he was definitely trolling and the evidence is there if you care to read the thread. now, seriously, don't clog up this thread with your personal beef, at least other arguments have a semblance of connection to the thread, you are here for no other reason than to slag me off (although of course you will have to post at least once more because you have to have the last word...yawn).

far more likely that job will fall to oscar and ramires. mikel rarely participates in the press and huddlestone plays quite deep.

yeah. doesn't reflect well on africa either way does it? adding nothing to the thread except personal insults? nice to see you again.

upset that you are admitting you are trolling? man, i just think you should grow up. seems everyone on this site who can't compete in an actual debate throws their toys out of the pram and turns into a lame troll. i'm just waiting for zola and yorkley to "like" your latest troll post.

please show me any example of you even attempting to back up your opinion...you obvious troll.

i've said plenty. you're just trolling. thanks for admitting it anyway.

tbh all of our belgians seem to be the same. hazard seems the most down to earth and i can see him doing a robben in a few years and agitating for a move to spain (although touch wood that doesn't happen). quite a few trouble making agents looking after the stars from that nation it seems (possibly the same company? i don't know).

i told you once...

yes. you are. i am also allowed to challenge them however. and please notice that i did not just go "bullsh*t" repeatedly, which is your way of dealing with an opinion you do not agree with, obviously the done thing on this site given the likes it got. but, a question; i would be interested to know your opinion on how the guy who was "In his time at the club consistently the best crosser of a ball" (better, you claim, than robben, geremi, duff, lampard, bridge, ballack, cole, malouda, belletti, quaresma, deco, zhirkov, mata, hazard etc) managed to play league football with the best attacking header of the ball in the world for 8 years and only get 5 assists. ?

you have done nothing but slag me off and "like" posts that slag me off. yet i am the troll? dkw is clearly on the wind-up anyway. i've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if anyone would like to see what trolling posts look like, his responses to me on this thread are very good examples.

make a poll...is mata a better crosser of the ball than ferreira. see what happens.

actually, i'm saying that i don't need to go into any more depth than i have already, because you are offering nothing in response.

are you seriously saying that he was a better crosser of the ball than mata is? i don't need to debate that. it's retarded. & i didn't say he was "ok". i said he was "good, but limited". "solid, but unexceptional". "mr. 7/10". ps. if you want to have a "debate"...then debate. make an argument. back it up with some points. or just misquote me, make outrageous claims that you refuse to back up and leave single sentence responses that say nothing.

i don't need to go in depth when you are saying literally nothing. & paulo ferreira is a better crosser of the ball than mata; according to you. i don't think i need to take you seriously any more.

more importantly; have you said anything on the subject other than "no, he's not...absolute bollocks"? "consistently" for his 9 years here? robben, geremi, duff, lampard, bridge, ballack, cole, malouda, belletti, quaresma, deco, zhirkov, mata, hazard. none of them could cross a ball like old "1 assist a season" paulo huh?

yes, but i am prepared to back up my opinion and say why i hold it. which is a bit different to just saying "bollocks". best crosser of the ball in the league? really? best rb in the league? he was never in the pfa team of the year so his fellow pros didn't agree. by his second season with us he was having trouble holding down his place in the team. by his third season with us he was struggling to get games in his favoured position ahead of out of position defensive midfielders and a crap dutch centre back. he was here 9 years and we were trying to replace him after 1. trying naming them. i think you would be surprised. no surprise on who liked your post though.

imo kalou was sh*t, certainly by the standards of chelsea football club during his time here and most definitely by the standard of player that currently competes for his position. i would also question how many "important goals" he scored. if you were going to count them on your digits I doubt you would end up having to use your toes. however, i don't think anyone can really dispute that he was, at the very most "good, but limited" (the original definition that raised so many hackles). in fact, that would be a very generous assessment imo. which makes him a perfect example of how having that many trophies isn't really proof of not being "limited". fair enough. i think the problem has come more from people refusing to accept that "limited" (or "good, but limited") players can win trophies too; and being part of a team that did well is not proof of anything in and of itself. many limited players have played important roles for us (and every other club) over the years, be it as squad players or doing specific jobs that suit their strengths. "he won trophies so he can't be limited" is an incredibly flawed argument (and that was what this was about before the abuse started...and hopefully ended).