Why is not being able to tackle better than not tackling
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If thats how you interpret what I have said then we are wasting our time talking I actually thought I was talking to somebody with a brain, my mistake.

Sorry but I have better things to do than educate somebody who thinks so highly of Eriksen I will just let you sit in your own private bubble and believe.

By the way Santa is real as well

Are you sure? Because it sounds a lot like you can't come up with any sort of justification.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case but thats definitely the way it reads

<yawn>

Yeah I'll assume it's that you can't explain yourself, seeing as you have failed to explain yourself

And I will assume that you are as stupid as you seem, have a good evening

Well this was grown up

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Or it could just be failing to waste time talking to somebody who obviously has no real grasp of the subject in question

comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 10 minutes ago
Or it could just be failing to waste time talking to somebody who obviously has no real grasp of the subject in question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the subject in question?

Cricket

Whilst I will readily admit that I know nothing about cricket, I'm not totally convinced that you aren't now being intentionally dense to try and avoid answering fairly straight forward questions.

If you are interested in explaining to me why exactly not being able to tackle is objectively better than bottling out of tackles at any point than I will happily listen, but if you want to carry on using insults and other methods to wriggle out of giving any serious answers than I feel that I should leave it alone

If you are interested in explaining to me why exactly not being able to tackle is objectively better than bottling out of tackles at any point than I will happily liste
----------------------------------------------------------------------

and if you think I am going to try to explain something that any football orientated person in the wordl already knows then you must also think that I like totally wasting my time.

I use this forum to chat football and have no interest whatsoever in explaining basics to you or anybody else.

Now you go off and tell people how remarkable and brilliant certain players are because 3 times in 90 minutes they do something great and ignore what they do the other 88 minutes then thats fine by me I just wont waste my time talking to you.

Is that ok by you or should I explain anything else that you might demand?

Demanding? I dont see where I have once done that. I'm trying to engage with you and follow your line of argument is all. Is asking questions considered to be the same as demanding answers now?

It also surprises me that you're choosing to accuse me of only focusing on 3 things Eriksen does pair game. Obviously that isn't the case, and obviously eriksen did more than 3 things per game whilst he was with us.

But even if it were true, why is me focusing on 3 good things Eriksen did per game worse than you focusing on the 3 tackles that Eriksen bottled out of per game?

If you want to argue that he bottled out of more tackles than 3 per game, I'd point you to the fact that he did more than 3 good things per game, so the question is still valid.

But anyway it seems that you still don't want to handle my initial question. I personally still think it's because you can't answer it, but that is irrelevant. Either way I'm not getting answer, so I will leave it alone as I intended to.

I personally still think it's because you can't answer it
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope you are dead right your knowledge of the game and the players has totally defeated me and I cant answer your questions they are far far beyond my meagre knowledge of the game.

Its fairly obvious that you have not only played to a high level, but undoubtedly managed and coached at a similar level and your questions are astute and well worded totally defeating me.

Your overall knowledge of the game is simply outstanding so I am actually surprised that you would need me to answer any questions at all really

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person" ) , short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

to$$er

footballers terms for somebody who feels the need to ask the most basic questions and gets upset when somebody wont educate him

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 57 minutes ago
Well this was grown up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And continues to be

Stop ducking the question if it's so basic to answer

Moving like a politician

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 57 minutes ago
Well this was grown up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And continues to be
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprised you would expect anything else from this site

Getting called a to$$er for asking a question is par for the course at this point

Stop ducking the question if it's so basic to answer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why this idiot wants to have a drawn out convo about sweet fack all if he does not know the difference between somebody who is not good at tackling and somebody who bottles a tackle thats his problem. He obviously never played the game in his life

comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 38 seconds ago
Stop ducking the question if it's so basic to answer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why this idiot wants to have a drawn out convo about sweet fack all if he does not know the difference between somebody who is not good at tackling and somebody who bottles a tackle thats his problem. He obviously never played the game in his life
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain how somebody who can't tackle is objectively more helpful to the team than somebody who bottles tackles

Explain how somebody who can't tackle is objectively more helpful to the team than somebody who bottles tackles
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Play with a bottler and find out for yourself

comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 54 seconds ago
Explain how somebody who can't tackle is objectively more helpful to the team than somebody who bottles tackles
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Play with a bottler and find out for yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah he's someone who doesn't make tackles. Same as the guy who can't tackle

Yeah he's someone who doesn't make tackles. Same as the guy who can't tackle
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So you have never played either