and kalou was absolutely sh*t, never mind limited. 

 

 

 

paulo ferreira was the definition of a "good, but limited player" 

Absolute bollocks.

Ferreira in his prime was a brilliant defender, and there's a reason we held onto him for so long.

Ferreira in his prime was a brilliant defender, and there's a reason we held onto him for so long.

 

His magnificent fringe? 

Ferreira in his prime was a brilliant defender, and there's a reason we held onto him for so long.

 

i disagree on the first bit. he was consistently solid but unexceptional. at his best he was "mr. 7 out of 10". 

 

as for why we held on to him for so long...what is this reason you speak of? 

Largely reliable when called upon

Largely reliable when called upon

 

so, you could maybe say "good, but limited"? 

 

alrighty-then. 

i disagree on the first bit. he was consistently solid but unexceptional. at his best he was "mr. 7 out of 10". 

 

as for why we held on to him for so long...what is this reason you speak of? 

 

He played in the defense that conceded the fewest goals in the history of the Premier League.

 

He's was much better than average, if only for his first two or three seasons at Chelsea. 

He's was much better than average, if only for his first two or three seasons at Chelsea. 

 

"consistently solid, but unexceptional"?

 

"mr. 7 out of 10"? 

 

"good, but limited"? 

 

More absolute bollocks.

More absolute bollocks.

 

"a player who will never be man of the match but will always score 7/10 for his individual display."?

"consistently solid, but unexceptional"?

 

"mr. 7 out of 10"? 

 

"good, but limited"? 

 

 

I'm just saying that to be part of the greatest defense the Premier League has ever seen you have to be more than just "good but limited".

 

I understand the point you are trying to make but with regards to Ferreria, especially in his first two seasons at the club, I think that description does him a disservice personally. 

Calling him unexceptional is idiotic at best. He was excellent for us over a long period, so much so that we took an age to find an adequate replacement. 

kalou can match that, apart from the europa league (a final mikel sat on the bench for the entirety of). 

 

and kalou was absolutely sh*t, never mind limited. 

 

phil neville has 6 premier league trophies, 3 fa cups and a champions league. he was sh*t too. wes brown has 5 league titles, 2 fa cups, 4 league cups and 2 champions leagues. also sh*t. 

 

paulo ferreira was the definition of a "good, but limited player" (what sydney blue actually said...something which i take to mean being solid but unexceptional, doing a job without being outstanding; and you have taken to mean "dur dur dur someone sed a bad things about miceal...mbh angrys...stats i must has stats") : 2 champions leagues, 2 uefa cups/europa leagues, 3 premier league titles, 4 fa cups, 2 league cups. that pisses on mikel. so there. 

So your saying Mikel is too football what you are too speech, absolutely pants

I understand the point you are trying to make but with regards to Ferreria, especially in his first two seasons at the club, I think that description does him a disservice personally. 

 

does this description do him a disservice? 

 

"a player who will never be man of the match but will always score 7/10 for his individual display."?

 

Calling him unexceptional is idiotic at best. He was excellent for us over a long period, so much so that we took an age to find an adequate replacement. 

 

"solid, but unexceptional". 

 

someone who will never be man of the match but will always be 7/10, say. 

 

as for finding a replacement...he was still here. we needed to replace him, years and years before he left. what does that say? i would take both our right-backs now over him, even at his best tbh. 

Edited January 8, 201412 yr by talkofthetownsend

So your saying Mikel is too football what you are too speech, absolutely pants

 

"to" not "too". 

 

kinda helps if you don't make little f*ck-ups like that when you are criticising someones writing. 

What an arsehole you are

Absolutely.

What an arsehole you are

 

again, you start the abuse. 

Youre just a troll

"to" not "too". 

 

kinda helps if you don't make little f*ck-ups like that when you are criticising someones writing. 

Boring jerk.

I've had that townsend prick on ignore for ages - now you clowns start quoting his inane ranting all over the place - fair made me throw up my afternoon biscuits it has.

Youre just a troll

 

nope. you just can't seem to cope with different opinions and make it into a childish mud slinging match. 

 

to be clear...my point was that having lots of trophies isn't necessarily a proof of quality. this isn't tennis. players who are not the very best at what they do win things too. 

 

it is funny how arguments i make, with actual points and stuff, get insulted by you and other knobheads like dkw, who offer literally no points of their own other than insults and cursing...but i am apparently the "troll" in that situation. 

 

Boring jerk.

 

i couldn't care less about grammar or whatever, i don't even use caps, but c'mon...if you want to insult the quality of my writing...don't make schoolboy errors in yours. 

 

I've had that townsend prick on ignore for ages - now you clowns start quoting his inane ranting all over the place - fair made me throw up my afternoon biscuits it has.

 

hey...it's the guy who likes every single post where someone disagrees with me or insults me...putting his head above the parapet for a change.

 

hi yorkley! doing a post to tell me you've got me on ignore now, huh? good for you man. that is classic.   

nope. you just can't seem to cope with different opinions and make it into a childish mud slinging match. <br /><br />to be clear...my point was that having lots of trophies isn't necessarily a proof of quality. this isn't tennis. players who are not the very best at what they do win things too. <br /><br />it is funny how arguments i make, with actual points and stuff, get insulted by you and other knobheads like dkw, who offer literally no points of their own other than insults and cursing...but i am apparently the "troll" in that situation. <br /><br /><br />i couldn't care less about grammar or whatever, i don't even use caps, but c'mon...if you want to insult the quality of my writing...don't make schoolboy errors in yours. <br /><br /><br />hey...it's the guy who likes every single post where someone disagrees with me or insults me...putting his head above the parapet for a change.<br /><br />hi yorkley! doing a post to tell me you've got me on ignore now, huh? good for you man. that is classic.

<br /><br /><br />We all have our own points of view and we all share them.<br /><br />The way you post on here leads most of us to think that you're jusy a pillock who likes to argue and annoy people. <br />

You will note im certainly not the only one slagging you so you should maybe think about why that is

<br /><br /><br />We all have our own points of view and we all share them.<br /><br />The way you post on here leads most of us to think that you're jusy a pillock who likes to argue and annoy people. <br />

 

yes...a pillock because i think that the amount of trophies a player has isn't definitive proof of quality and used examples such as phil neville, wes brown and solomon kalou...players who are at best "good, but limited". 

 

a pillock because i do not believe that paulo ferreira (a player who by his second season with us wasn't even starting half our matches and by his third season was clearly a back-up player struggling to get games in front of out of position defensive midfielders) was "excellent for us over a long period". 

 

a pillock because i believe that paulo ferreira was a player who, at best, was consistent yet unexceptional (a regular 7/10 player at his peak who was never going to win a man of the match award but could be relied upon not to drop below a certain level, a sentiment shared by our then and current manager). 

 

yes. i can see your problem. 

 

although perhaps you could at least attempt to point out why these points are so unreasonable that you have to resort to abuse rather than pointing out why you disagree...and that doesn't just go for you. alternatively you could just go "absolute bollocks" or call me an "arsehole".  that makes you clever.