stanton101 wrote:Up his arse again adi baby, well done.
Go back and read it again.[/quote]
I'd rather not, quite frankly I thought you were talking shite the first time round.
This team doesn't want to play for the manager anymore, fact.
This team hasn't performed for the manager for a long time, fact.
A season that promised much, is petering out rapidly, fact.
Still, is unable to motivate his players, fact.
The manager doesn't know his best X1 or where to play them, fact.
You with me so far?
What utter rubbish to suggest we're missing the likes of Hawkins and guttridge! So did we miss them at the start of this season then, nonsense, we were top or near the top before we've collapsed. And both were injured for large parts of last season and yet we still made the play-offs.
And what is so wrong with changing the manager, while we're still hovering around the play off positions? Absolutely nothing, because make no mistake if we hadn't already got the points in the bag, this team would be fighting a relegation battle. They were battered today, the manager was clueless, the whole thing was a mess.
Still's been found out, teams have done their homework and he hasn't got a plan B to cope with it, times up I'm afraid.
But you stick with him, cup half full an all that.
P.s Just out of curiosity, who keeps playing Boucaud every week, regardless of form???[/quote]
You should try re-reading things. It might stop you making yourself look stupid.
1) Writing fact after your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
2) We do miss Hawkins and Guttridge. They both offered things we no longer have. They might have missed time during last season but our best results and performances involved at least one of them. That's my opinion, which as others (and I'm sure you're included in) have said before to me, I have the right to state. I note that someone else has questioned if we've replaced them which you don't seem to have jumped on. Can't think why that would be. Maybe they don't tend to make you look stupid.
3) Try linking your 'up his arse' comment to your question about who picks Boucaud. Then ask yourself this: If I keep questioning the inclusion of a player, how far up his arse can I be? And then, think about how it's you that tends to defend Boucaud, which must also mean your defending his selection by Still. Once you've put all of that together, I'd suggest you'll probably want to have a sit down because you'll probably be exhausted having never actually thought about anything that much.