Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafa Watch

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 724
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 92 142 182 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 202 242 292 692 724 template Next
    #2866
    Originally posted by Glenn Hysen View Post
    Yes, without eyerolling.
    Just that maybe not everyone who wanted Rafa out was fooled by americans or Purslow. I just felt we needed a change and that the players needed a new voice.

    Why dwell in the past and talk about a former manager so much when you can enjoy the presence and King Kenny?

    Whatever. I shall try and not click on this thread again. Sorry.
    I wouldn't have rolled my eyes if you'd engaged with the thought behind my post in the first place rather than asking me if "I'm for real." Thanks for doing so second time around anyway.

    OK, so not everyone thinks they were fooled. My train of thought is that we'd have been a hell of a lot higher than seventh if we'd had decent owners who backed the manager in his last two seasons and we hadn't had an interfering MD who was out of his depth handling the stuff that matters to us - the playing side of the club.

    In short, if those things had been different then a change wouldn't have been necessary as we'd have been challenging.

    So in that sense the people who called for a change either failed or chose not to see that the problem was not the manager but lay elsewhere.

    People often think they're behaving rationally, even when they're not.
    .
    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

      #2867
      I was one of those who thought Rafa needed to go. The ownership situation and Purslow were the main pronlems. This is even more clear now. But the problem still remains that Rafa and the players had stopped functioning successfully together and I still think that a change of owners was not going to redeem that situation.
      Felching ≠ Gerbilling

      Comment

        #2868
        I can see that argument but in the middle of a civil war you usually need to choose sides.
        .
        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

          #2869
          Do you mean the players needed to choose whether to go with Rafa or H&G/Purslow?
          Felching ≠ Gerbilling

          Comment

            #2870
            That isn't what I meant but I think that's true. Gerrard's recent comments show he didn't and, while I can sympathise why, it was a mistake.

            I actually meant we needed to, not least because it would have told the players which side to choose and legitimised them doing so.

            Whether a supporter or a player, if you didn't back Rafa you were effectively backing H&G and Purslow. I realise none of us (except possibly Jacques Brel) did so deliberately but that's what not backing Benitez amounted to.

            I can see the counter-argument and it might have been different if Purslow had appointed Dalglish but he didn't so it wasn't.
            .
            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

              #2871
              Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
              That isn't what I meant but I think that's true. Gerrard's recent comments show he didn't and, while I can sympathise why, it was a mistake.

              I actually meant we needed to, not least because it would have told the players which side to choose and legitimised them doing so.

              Whether a supporter or a player, if you didn't back Rafa you were effectively backing H&G and Purslow. I realise none of us (except possibly Jacques Brel) did so deliberately but that's what not backing Benitez amounted to.

              I can see the counter-argument and it might have been different if Purslow had appointed Dalglish but he didn't so it wasn't.
              Yeah I get that But Rafa had fairly significant backing from the supporters and cuppsy represented a tiny minority. Anyway I declare this a moral grey area and therefore everyone - bar cuppsy - was equally right and wrong.

              Except those who demand the choosing of sides...

              Felching ≠ Gerbilling

              Comment

                #2872
                .
                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

                  #2873
                  Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                  That isn't what I meant but I think that's true. Gerrard's recent comments show he didn't and, while I can sympathise why, it was a mistake.

                  I actually meant we needed to, not least because it would have told the players which side to choose and legitimised them doing so.

                  Whether a supporter or a player, if you didn't back Rafa you were effectively backing H&G and Purslow. I realise none of us (except possibly Jacques Brel) did so deliberately but that's what not backing Benitez amounted to.

                  I can see the counter-argument and it might have been different if Purslow had appointed Dalglish but he didn't so it wasn't.
                  Le petit chat est mort, le muscat du dimanche ne les fait plus chanter.
                  Are we winning?

                  Comment

                    #2874

                    Comment

                      #2875
                      Oh FFS Nigel, i was laughing at the previous post and then you had to come wading in and mess it all up

                      Comment

                        #2876
                        Originally posted by NigelLG View Post
                        Le petit chat est mort, le muscat du dimanche ne les fait plus chanter.
                        Nous souhaitons.
                        .
                        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

                          #2877
                          Originally posted by Craig_H View Post
                          Oh FFS Nigel, i was laughing at the previous post and then you had to come wading in and mess it all up
                          Same as usual.
                          .
                          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

                            #2878
                            Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                            Nous souhaitons.
                            Oui, mais tu n'as rien compris vieil idiot.
                            Are we winning?

                            Comment

                              #2879
                              Originally posted by NigelLG View Post
                              Oui, mais tu n'as rien compris vieil idiot.
                              Oh **** off.
                              .
                              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

                                #2880

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 92 142 182 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 202 242 292 692 724 template Next
                                Working...
                                X