But so did Maradona and that was hilarious
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Iniesta or Zidane?
Collapse
X
-
How does that relate to my point? I'm not saying my recollections are perfect. I'm saying you can't fairly assume someone else's opinion differing from yours is down to their poor memoryOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostOh yeah?
You remember every little pass, every little turn, every little feint? Because it's dead easy to remember all Iniesta's from last night.
You know how memory works. I'm happy to go with your memory of how it felt at the time you saw him but that's not the same thing, we're all inevitably judging the two players on different criteria.
And how many moments of brilliance do you need in a game?
Like blood on iron
Comment
-
I'm saying consistency is one of the more difficult things to evaluate given we're comparing our memories of Zidane with our observations of Iniesta.
****'s sake, I wasn't suggesting your memory was any worse (or better) than mine. I'd have thought you could have given me a bit more credit than that..
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
-

Ageist barbd..
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
-
And Iniesta was pretty **** against Milan.
.
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
-

Given the regularity with which some* were having to empty their bladders...
* Camel, Cat and Goat**
** And Elephant/Donkey***
*** And you.
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
-
Obviously one of them was wrongOriginally posted by Tee View PostNot having a go at Iniesta but they are both the same clip and I cannot see what is so impressive about the play in that segment tbh. Pretty standard stuff really and even our own Oussama showed he is capable of doing that.

Here we go :P
Comment
-
Yes, how silly of me, I can see now that in prefacing it all with talk of how consistent Zidane was and focusing on ways a person might forget how often Zidane was great, you were just making a point about how difficult consistency was to assess rather than arguing your caseOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostI'm saying consistency is one of the more difficult things to evaluate given we're comparing our memories of Zidane with our observations of Iniesta.
****'s sake, I wasn't suggesting your memory was any worse (or better) than mine. I'd have thought you could have given me a bit more credit than that.
Like blood on iron
Comment
-
Yes, you're right, I was. And I've outlined why I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.Originally posted by Red_Polo View PostYes, how silly of me, I can see now that in prefacing it all with talk of how consistent Zidane was and focusing on ways a person might forget how often Zidane was great, you were just making a point about how difficult consistency was to assess rather than arguing your case

I'd hardly be arguing that my recollection of consistency is a priori better than yours. I realise others might but we both know that's not arguable and I wouldn't do it, just like you wouldn't, even if what I said could be read that way by the less than charitable..
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