Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I am more fascinated by the inference that the term is correct because 'football has a language of it's own.'

Yes, you're getting it. 

And I've given you examples; just because you've meekly dismissed them as not relevant doesn't make them so I'm afraid. 

It's not just football either. Context is everything. Let's look at diving. It's literal meaning is to plunge head first into water. In the context of Football it's feigning contact to win a foul. In Boxing, to take a dive is to throw a fight.

If Yellow Wal said that Bamford is a diver, you wouldn't jump in with your size 9s and say, "Errrrr, if you look at Wiki then it means jumping into water, he doesn't do that". And yet here you are taking umbrage with a perfectly legitimate objection to the journeyman tag being given to Leroy Fer in a footballing context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, Purple I am aware of that.

We seem to be getting deep here and you are correct, but the term is by precise dictionary definition related only to the level of qualification involved and nothing else and not derived from the the need of the workman to move around to find employment. Most didn't in any case and were assigned permanently to one employer.

Neither can there be many modern day footballers who have to constantly move from club to club to play, and I wouldn't label any that do journeymen in any case.

I am more fascinated by the inference that the term is correct because 'football has a language of it's own.'

I am happy to go one level deeper and leave it there. The dictionary definition only relates to what they were, which was a level below master craftsman. It doesn't take in why they were called journeymen, which was because they were paid by the day, and that did often involve moving around to find a day's work. As opposed to the master craftsmen, who had a studio and worked there, or carried out long-term projects at country houses and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Hardly a journeyman. From us to QPR to Swansea.in five years.

From us to QPR to Swansea to another club in 5 years, and not a Journeyman?

I am down on Fer as I was so excited when I first saw him play for us, he seemed to have so much potential, but he just hasn't developed and fulfilled his earlier promise. So you could say he is an ideal candidate for our recruitment model of identifying players who are under-performing, but we can probably find players who are better and cheaper abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Yellow Wal said that Bamford is a diver, you wouldn't jump in with your size 9s and say, "Errrrr, if you look at Wiki then it means jumping into water, he doesn't do that". And yet here you are taking umbrage with a perfectly legitimate objection to the journeyman tag being given to Leroy Fer in a footballing context. 

But "dive" is a general term not just connected with diving into water and to call Bamford a "diver" is actually correct.

I am getting nothing except that you seem top want to create a new language entirely related to football.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am happy to go one level deeper and leave it there. The dictionary definition only relates to what they were, which was a level below master craftsman. It doesn't take in why they were called journeymen, which was because they were paid by the day, and that did often involve moving around to find a day's work. As opposed to the master craftsmen, who had a studio and worked there, or carried out long-term projects at country houses and the like.

So you are now denying the dictionaries. Which one The Oxford, Chambers, Wiki?

I repeat. Most journeymen did not move around for work, ie uproot, in the Middle Ages. Most were by necessity connected to a guild, usually in the employment of a master craftsman. Fixed employment. It is a term of status not of lifestyle, irrespective of the origins.

Footballers who move from club to club are, by definition, inaccurately labelled as such even though football apparently has it's own language which refutes any dictionary definition.

 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I am getting nothing except that you seem top want to create a new language entirely related to football.

Why would I create it? It already exists.

I genuinely don't know what you're pressing at here. A journeyman in football is quite simply not what you refer to. Even your precious Wiki gets it and has a separate page to define "journeyman" in a sports context and even has its own page for "journeyman" in a boxing context. And this is despite you not being able to find another definition in any English language dictionary you have consulted.

How many English language dictionaries have you referred to that supports calling Bamford a diver, something we appear to agree on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone shouts at a player to stick it in the mixer, do you think of an appliance for mixing foods? Or a soft drink that can be mixed with alcohol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this.

 

So you now need to quote Wiki as a standard for accuracy? Marvelous.

Consult a real dictionary at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

When someone shouts at a player to stick it in the mixer, do you think of an appliance for mixing foods? Or a soft drink that can be mixed with alcohol?

All these weird footballing term you keep throwing up may well be within the vocabulary of the average street corner boy on a regular basis, but it hardly makes them correct in the proper sense with regards English language usage. 

But wiki says they should be apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't generally use Wiki but as you did initially I thought it might be a helpful medium to guide you towards understanding what is a very simple concept.

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

All these weird footballing term you keep throwing up may well be within the vocabulary of the average street corner boy on a regular basis, but it hardly makes them correct in the proper sense with regards English language usage. 

But wiki says they should be apparently.

You're floundering now, Broadstairs. You were a bit silly, we've all been there.

Football has a vernacular that doesn't always conform to "the proper sense with regards English language usage."

I'm staggered this needs explaining to a football fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

I don't generally use Wiki but as you did initially I thought it might be a helpful medium to guide you towards understanding what is a very simple concept.

You're floundering now, Broadstairs. You were a bit silly, we've all been there.

Football has a vernacular that doesn't always conform to "the proper sense with regards English language usage."

I'm staggered this needs explaining to a football fan.

How can I possibly be floundering when faced with the absolute nonsense that you are spouting?

Or is it just another example of the usual lack of debating skills that is often exhibited on this forum that reveals a need to attack the man not the ball, as they say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Football has a vernacular that doesn't always conform to "the proper sense with regards English language usage."

Do you dispute this?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How

Just now, canarydan23 said:

"Football has a vernacular that doesn't always conform to "the proper sense with regards English language usage."

Do you dispute this?!

How can I possibly dispute this with you going to such great lengths to justify it?

That doesn't make it in the slightest bit an accurate use of the English Language.

I happen to like accuracy in the use of our language, especially when publishing it on any media, including a football forum and if somebody bandies about a word like "journeyman" without this tenet I take pleasure, even light heartedly, in sometimes picking upon the matter.

What's the expression for "tongue in cheek" in the language of football, by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've learned something today Broadstairs. Smile and be glad.

Did you really think people were referring to food processors when they said to put it in the mixer? I think my wife would have something to say if I put a size 5 mitre ball in her Magimix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

You've learned something today Broadstairs. Smile and be glad.

Did you really think people were referring to food processors when they said to put it in the mixer? I think my wife would have something to say if I put a size 5 mitre ball in her Magimix.

What on earth are you on about now? 5 mitre Footballs in your wife's Magimix. Eh?

I rest my case.

At least you seemed to have stopped going around in circles, just like a Magimix in fact, with your argument even though it doesn't seem to stop you continuing to spout rubbish.

 

Yes, I have learned something today, but I won't insult you by telling you what it is. 

P.S. Buy a proper dictionary for your wife's next birthday present, she could educate you a bit and away from the basic language of the football terraces that you seem to revel in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the floundering starts again.

You were so close to understanding something, Broadstairs. One day it might happen; I don't think it's going to be today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canarydan23 said:

And the floundering starts again.

You were so close to understanding something, Broadstairs. One day it might happen; I don't think it's going to be today.

Give up fella.

 

You are being silly now. Do you really think that I am the slightest bit interested in understanding the language of the football terraces, if that's what your ramblings are now referring to? 

Just do yourself a favour and just give up.

(Besides that mixer of yours probably needs cleaning.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

So you are now denying the dictionaries. Which one The Oxford, Chambers, Wiki?

I repeat. Most journeymen did not move around for work, ie uproot, in the Middle Ages. Most were by necessity connected to a guild, usually in the employment of a master craftsman. Fixed employment. It is a term of status not of lifestyle, irrespective of the origins.

Footballers who move from club to club are, by definition, inaccurately labelled as such even though football apparently has it's own language which refutes any dictionary definition.

 

 

No. I am clearly not doing that. I am pointing out that the dictionary definition as you quoted it does not help with explaining why they were called journeymen and what was the significance of that, and thereby how the term relates to describing footballers.

I should hardly be surprised that your posts miss the point, since your pontificating on another thread about Pontus Jansson and his  career with Sweden was factually wrong in pretty much every significant respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

How can I possibly be floundering when faced with the absolute nonsense that you are spouting?

Or is it just another example of the usual lack of debating skills that is often exhibited on this forum that reveals a need to attack the man not the ball, as they say.

 

I think the phrase is “Play the ball, not the man”. Never heard anyone say “Attack the ball, not the man”. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No. I am clearly not doing that."

 

Yes you are. What exactly are you defending here and what has Pontus Jansson got to do with things? He is a current Swedish international after all and he was captain of his national side. What's factually wrong with that then? I don't recall adding much else in support of the player.

I repeat the term "journeyman" has always referred to status rather than lifestyle and is therefore incorrectly used in relation to footballers who have had many clubs necessitating movement around the country etc.

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. It's really getting quite embarrassing now. Uncomfortable viewing but somehow compelling.

I thought I could talk some sense into you as I have young children but I've failed you BroadstairsR and for that I apologise. I should be able to explain such a simple and basic premise to anyone, regardless of their obvious limitations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canarydan23 said:

Ouch. It's really getting quite embarrassing now. Uncomfortable viewing but somehow compelling.

I thought I could talk some sense into you as I have young children but I've failed you BroadstairsR and for that I apologise. I should be able to explain such a simple and basic premise to anyone, regardless of their obvious limitations. 

Vague insults will never win an argument.

Especially one as weak as yours is.

No need to apologise, btw, I've enjoyed this insight into how the other half lives.

Oh! Vague insult there and for that I apologise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

No need to apologise, btw, I've enjoyed this insight into how the other half lives.

The half with three digit IQs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The half with three digit IQs? 

Blimey there's no way at all I can compete with that.

Terrace language wins then.

My tale is firmly between my legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

"No. I am clearly not doing that."

 

Yes you are. What exactly are you defending here and what has Pontus Jansson got to do with things? He is a current Swedish international after all and he was captain of his national side. What's factually wrong with that then? I don't recall adding much else in support of the player.

I repeat the term "journeyman" has always referred to status rather than lifestyle and is therefore incorrectly used in relation to footballers who have had many clubs necessitating movement around the country etc.

 

I mentioned your Jansson posts because they are a good example of your fallibility with facts and your disinclination to admit you’ve got something wrong.

"He [Jansson] is not just a current Swedish international , Mr. S., he's also the captain of his national side.  As I pointed out, TJ, he has captained Sweden, not least at the latest World Cup and Euro finals.”

Every one of those claims is either at best misleading or simply wrong. As far as competitive games go Jansson is not a current Swedish international. He hasn’t been in the 23-man squads for their last five games, let alone got on as a sub, let alone started a game.

He has captained Swedish second-string teams in at least two friendlies but he is not and as far as I can see never has been captain of the team proper. He certainly was not Sweden’s captain in last year’s World Cup (that was Granqvist) and only filled in for the first game as a player before being left out, and he has never played in a single match for Sweden in a European Championship finals tournament, either in 2012 or 2016, let alone captained the side in such. 

I must say it is a kind of special talent that can get so much so completely factually wrong in two short sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

 

I can only quote Wiki as I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the matter that you clearly have:

"On 15 May 2018, Jansson was named in Sweden's final 23 man squad for the 2018 FIFA World Cup.] On 18 June, Jansson was named in the starting lineup ahead of Manchester United's Victor Lindelöf for Sweden's opening game of Group F in a 1-0 win against South Korea.] Sweden reached the World Cup Quarter-Finals of the tournament after beating Switzerland in the last 16, however England knocked out Sweden in a 2-0 win on 7 July 2018, the match also saw Jansson play in an unfamiliar striker's role, with Jansson brought on as a second half substitute to try score a goal with Sweden trailing at the time.

On 6 September 2018, Jansson was once again named Sweden captain in a 2-0 defeat against Austria."

"He has captained Swedish second-string teams in at least two friendlies but he is not and as far as I can see never has been captain of the team proper."

Factually incorrect then. Does that make both of us wrong or just me, as you seem at great pains to point out?

Is this "special talent" confined to just me?

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Potter now confirmed as new Brighton boss - so Hughton to take over Swansea? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Anyway, Potter now confirmed as new Brighton boss - so Hughton to take over Swansea? 

Would have thought West Brom was more likely. Wouldn't be surprised if he even thought Boro was more attractive than Swansea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×