Platt or Pleat?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
David Pleat appreciation thread
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 5europeancups View Postlawrenson to start with.
but I agree Platt is good even if it is just for a few great goals in the late eighties early nineties and a last minute super goal against belgium coutesy of a gazza pass.

Pleat and Taylor are among my favourites too.
Talking of Platt how the **** did he get a coaching role at City!? He talks absolute codswallop as a pundit.'Religion is killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend'
Comment
-
Yes, definitely. The thing I like about him too, is that he sometimes gives his opinion of players now (whom were youth players) from a somewhat scouting perspective. Like in quite a few games, he spoke about Benayoun and being familiar with him when he was still a junior player and saying that he was a striker somewhat in the Owen mould or something. Sometimes he seems a bit simplistic, although he does atleast say something which is somewhat beneficial to hear from. Which is a lot more than you can expect from a lot of other pundits, commentators and "experts".Originally posted by Shaggy View PostTaylor's good too - the pair of 'em are about the most insightful around, somewhat unbelievably, although I think Pleat offers more tactical insight than Taylor.
Comment
-
I agree Pleat's good. I'm trying to recall who first called it...
http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...9676#post69676
It's good you chaps have finally caught up.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
Comment