SlayerX

Right. Not one message? Awwww. Poor wee fella. Can only dish it out when his cronies are also dishing it. Nice.

And what the hell is this, "The Hibs Avengers Assemble".

Yeahhhhh... I'm the one stalking you. You still haven't replied to any of my messages. What's the matter, only brave when you have people looking on? Awww, poor diddums. But it's OK, I'll refraif from "goading" you, as you don't like it.

I gave you ample opportunity to insult me via message, but no, not a peep. Seems you need an audience *smirk*

Thank you! But I don't play online games.

What part do you disagree with? The fact that we have produced players who haven't lived up to their potential? Mate, there's a thread about it. I get the feeling that you're just a contrarian. If I said the Sun was orange you'd be adamant that it's red.

....I see.... Good point? In a roundabout kind of a way, you've made my point for me. Football players are merely a projection of the wider populace. You've demonstrated that quite well. Thank you.

I take it that your avator is from him doing his "wrestling" thing? Funny stuff...... If his talent matched his arrogance then we would have a gem on our hands, but sadly, it doesn't.

Not understand humour? Tongue in cheek? Quip? Ok, Mr I-take-things-way-too-much-at-face-value, obviously the "striker" thing was tongue-in-cheek. Rather, it's a Scottish PLAYER thing. Happy? Hope so. I wanna make you happy.

The "striker" thing was tongue-in-cheek, but we have had our fair share of players who promised much but for one reason or another didn't make the grade. I found a thread about it. I would add Kevin McDonald to the mix. Yes, he's had a good career, but in my opinion he should've been an estabished EPL player, and Scotland regular.

Strangely enough, I was going to add the guy that you have as your avator. He's a couple slices of bread short of a sandwich.

You mean like Garry O'Connor, Derek Riordan, Tony Watt? It's a Scottish striker issue, more than anything else.

You're being kind. It's awful, at best. Every single time that I watch it (Haven't watched it since we got Season 1 in the UK) I keep hearing it say "We're trying to be 'Scrubs'".

What year? 2013. I think. Not here, over at tamb. I'll bet, though, my assertions would've gone down as well here as it did over there.

I don't doubt it. Maybe it's the culture, I don't know. I wonder if the Spanish or German populace would be as congratulatory towards such behaviour from a boy who hadn't even made it yet. Personally, I wasn't amused by any of Feruz's antics, and I was proven right when I said that it would all go to his head.

"The gang tries desperately to win an award" is a commentary on which shows win awards, eg, glossy, sparkly, people friendly and phoney. "It's always sunny" is none of those things. For the people who are saying that the show is "shouty"... yep. It's a bunch of people shouting over each other, and it could not be funnier. Season 13 is scheduled for 2019, due to the acting and directing commitments of the cast. Rob McElhenney is due to write and direct the Minecraft movie, and the others are busy, too.

No. It used to be in the archives, but they deleted most of the content. Trust me. That's what they were like. If I were to guess I'd say that it was 2013. I'm the only one who was appalled by it, and you know what those bunch of hyenas are like.

I remember over at the TAMB they were positively wetting themselves when Feruz got up to his hijinks, all with the "Go on, son!" whenever photographs appeared online with chicks wearing his shirt and nothing much else, etc. Especially from a player who thought that he had made it. Just shows you that fans will tolerate any kind of shenanigans from a player, if said player offers something special, or has the potential to. If a player wants to be a profession then they must act in a manner fitting. Not saying they should all be saints, just let their brains work from time to time. It's obvious that the kid hasn't got guidance. I don't know where his parents are and what values they drummed into him, but I think it's plain to see that they weren't the right ones. It's not really much of a loss, to be fair.

Ramblings points? You slay me with your wit! You just cannot seem to handle the fact that my bold suggestion that we play 3 at the back, almost, worked like a charm. When I suggested it, people here said that there was zero chance that we would deploy such a system, that it was a stupid idea, ya know, stupid to changed failed formula. The manager changed it, and by gum, we ALMOST got a win against the much fancied, and not-as-talented-as-everyone-thinks-they-are, English. *sigh* OK. - My point is that, when all is said and done, there are three central defenders. We've played with two in the middle of our defence for about 20 years now, and apart from a few bright lights, we've failed. Isn't it about time we reverted back to a time when we were actually qualifying for things? Do I have to write this in crayon? Our defenders are pathetic, so they need all the best they can get. - What part of not expecting miracles in one match didn't you understand? Once the players and team gets used to the system, it'll become a more flexible and a lot more sturdy system. Plus, it didn't aid the fact that only Brown really showed up in midfield. Not taking away from Snodgrass, Morrison and Armstrong, because they worked their socks off (And it looks like Morrison will be out for a few months), but they didn't play as well as they can. Plus Anya didn't give us anything. With so many players off form, it usually results in a defeat. - Their players are better than ours? I'd only take Kane, and probably Ali.

So, you're saying, unequivocally, that for no part of the game were we playing with 3 at the back? Not even when we were attacking? I suggest you watch the game again. Were they pushed back when England were attacking? Of course they were, as it's in the very nature of playing 3 at the back. The issue isn't whether it turns into 5 at the back, the issue is that we have 3 in the middle at all times. I think you may be losing the point here. Be it a 3 or a 5, it's still added protection for our center backs. And you say "booting it long", you mean what the two anchromen normally do? Point of fact, I saw less booting it long than usual. And with more time and games played with this system, the players shall become more accustomed to it and it'll be more fluid. It's unfair to play the way that most people want, and fail, then change, for one match, and expect everything to click into place. Why are people obsessed with how "good" the England front players are? Besides Kane, the rest are slightly above average. People fall into the trap by thinking that just because the EPL is good, their national team is good. Don't be that guy. Nearly all of the creative players in their league are foreigners.

I said that three at the back was the best foundation for which to go forward, anything ahead of the three are variables. If we play it for the rest of the campaign, going into the next one, we will qualify. I'm certain of that.

Not really, I said to play 3-5-2. A 3-5-2 wouldn't have morphed into a 5-4-1, maybe a 5-3-2, but not a 5-4-1. I suppose the 3-5-2 could've morphed into a 5-4-1 if one 1 of the 2 worked himself back to help the 4. Besides, you literally saw the panic in Smalling and Cahill's eyes when Martin came on (THAT'S how bad Smalling and Cahill are). If we played with two strikers, from the start, would've worked Also, England played with 4-2-3-1... and they didn't really rip us to shreds. And to reiterate, "Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap." We were within one and half minutes of the strategy working. So, what do you suggest? Going back to the tried and failed 4-2-3-1. Because it really worked when we drew with Lithuania at home, and... well... if I'm going to play this game then this reply would look like a novella. Let's just say, we tried the 4-2-3-1, it failed, move on to something different.

Technically, the first sentence I wrote with regards to three at the back was, "Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap."

It almost worked.... "Oh, that fellow at Radio Shack said I was mad. Well, who's mad now? Ah-hahahahahahaha!* *Treehouse of horror II

Sure. East Germany? When did your coma end?