Gary Lineker

[shaunieboy77 73]

Replace the pundits with fans. 

[Mason 47 1,373]

I must admit he's never bothered me before, but since the restart I've found him to be a reprehensible smarmy twerp.

It comes across like there's a million other things he'd rather be doing than talking about Norwich.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Lineker? I wonder why? Knocking Spurs out of the cup was one thing, taking 4 points off Leicester this season another!

As for OGS and that meathead Maguire, I guarantee you had we taken Liverpool or Man City to the brink, both Klopp and Guardiola would have given us credit - they are gents. Not fussed myself, onto Arsenal! 

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

12 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I must admit he's never bothered me before, but since the restart I've found him to be a reprehensible smarmy twerp.

It comes across like there's a million other things he'd rather be doing than talking about Norwich.

What a great word that is. Must be a first on here.

Makes a change from the usual four letter word beginning with ' tw ' ending with ' t ' 😀

[Aggy 752]

5 hours ago, curious yellow said:

There's a difference between giving credit and saying someone's brilliant. 

Nobody is crying by saying the coverage is disrespectful to our team. 

If you're happy about paying a licence fee to someone who likes to giggle about a foreign player's surname, then kudos to you. 

Err...I’ve got no idea if you’re winding me up or being serious. Who mentioned the licence fee? When did I say I was happy about it? When did I say I like any of the pundits?

All i said was some posters have an inferiority complex if they think interviewing the manager and captain of a quarter final winning side instead of the losers is somehow being disrespectful. I can only presume you agree about the inferiority complex point as you’ve now switched the goalposts to refer to the licence fee instead.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Aggy

[SplatCat 18]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

Yep, not really sure why saying they were there for the taking was a ‘hilarious’ comment. We had chances and could well have won it, so he was right. 

Erm .. yes we had chances, yes we could have won it, no they were not there for the taking with their £500m+ team. That's the difference.

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

4 minutes ago, SplatCat said:

Erm .. yes we had chances, yes we could have won it, no they were not there for the taking with their £500m+ team. That's the difference.

 

Rubbish    , you've said yourself that we could have won, therefore they must have been there for the taking..... it's exactly the same thing.  We really missed a chance there, they were defo not at their best and had we been at  our best, we'd have taken them.

ie . beaten them, or as you said, won it.

[Aggy 752]

15 minutes ago, SplatCat said:

Erm .. yes we had chances, yes we could have won it, no they were not there for the taking with their £500m+ team. That's the difference.

 

What does the cost of their squad have to do with whether they were ‘there for the taking’ or not?
 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Let’s not forget, Gary Lineker has a special affinity with the FA Cup because it looks like stainless steel tribute to his head.

[ron obvious 1,499]

6 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

What a great word that is. Must be a first on here.

Makes a change from the usual four letter word beginning with ' tw ' ending with ' t ' 😀

Used it many times on here. One of my dad's favourites (from his time in the navy I believe).

[SplatCat 18]

25 minutes ago, Aggy said:

What does the cost of their squad have to do with whether they were ‘there for the taking’ or not?
 

Because if you are playing a team that has cost way more than yours you will have done incredibly well to beat them, you won’t have done what you should have done.

Just like if we stay in the premier league we will have done incredibly well, not done as we should have done, as so many seem to think.

[Aggy 752]

12 minutes ago, SplatCat said:

Because if you are playing a team that has cost way more than yours you will have done incredibly well to beat them, you won’t have done what you should have done.

Just like if we stay in the premier league we will have done incredibly well, not done as we should have done, as so many seem to think.

If Man Utd had dominated the game, pinned us in our own half so we never had a sniff at goal, they wouldn’t have been ‘there for the taking’.

If (as was the case) we had a few pretty decent chances, or got into positions where we should have made more of our chances (Cantwell’s overhit pass to Pukki for instance), then they were there for the taking.

It’s really that simple. All it means is we had a real decent chance of winning it - had we taken our chances, we would have won. It doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have done well if we had beat them. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Aggy

[Jools 584]

Jug-ears Lineker gets paid over a million pounds of taxpayers hard-earned to tell us about something we've already witnessed.

He also gets paid handsomely for promoting crisps that are highly nutritional and very good for you 🙃

Because he gets paid over a million pounds per year he's become a champagne socialist -- i.e. A first-class, hypocritical **** of the highest magnitude. 

 

[Herman 9,712]

A working class lad that has done well in other words Jools. I thought you Kippers were all for that sort of thing?

[The Real Buh 3,423]

You can get paid as much as you like on sky, but when you are forced to pay for the BBC I think you have a right to mad about idiot Linekar and his Dopey mates. The BBC is on borrowed time.

[Herman 9,712]

Rupert would be proud of you. 

[Canarywary 104]

I'm surprised by this thread. I always thought the BBC pundits, including Wright and Shearer were pretty positive towards us. Our style of football and the way the club is run is constantly getting praised. Danny Murphy coined the now famous 'best team to be bottom' line on BBC.

Jonathan Pearce (a commentator rather than a pundit I suppose) spent a good few minutes praising us and was practically getting emotional about the prospect of us going down when he was introducing the Everton match!

I live with a Villa fan and was thinking the other day how he must feel pretty sore about how much Norwich get bigged up compared to them. And we're bottom of the league!

To be honest I'm not sure what the critics on here are hearing.
 

[curious yellow 184]

12 hours ago, Aggy said:

What does the cost of their squad have to do with whether they were ‘there for the taking’ or not?
 

The phrase "there for the taking" in this context infers that Man U were easy to beat. 

Not "we could have beaten them if we had taken our chances" This could be the case in all games. 

The fact that we played well was put down to them playing badly, just like our goal was down to a goalkeeper error. 

Interestingly you mentioned the Cantwell pass to Pukki. Cantwell was our best player in the first half and it was Shearer who ignored all the good work and chose to critisize that minor error. If the ball had been played any slower the defender would have intercepted, it had to be played quickly or Pukki would have been offside. 

Our licence fee money is being used to overpay these analysts - that gives us the right to stand up for our club. I would prefer a more professional set up with qualified coaches and successful managers. 

[ron obvious 1,499]

1 hour ago, Canarywary said:

I'm surprised by this thread. I always thought the BBC pundits, including Wright and Shearer were pretty positive towards us. Our style of football and the way the club is run is constantly getting praised. Danny Murphy coined the now famous 'best team to be bottom' line on BBC.

Jonathan Pearce (a commentator rather than a pundit I suppose) spent a good few minutes praising us and was practically getting emotional about the prospect of us going down when he was introducing the Everton match!

I live with a Villa fan and was thinking the other day how he must feel pretty sore about how much Norwich get bigged up compared to them. And we're bottom of the league!

To be honest I'm not sure what the critics on here are hearing.
 

Yes, it's only Big Ears of the regular MOTD pundits who sneers at us.

[First Wazzock 902]

14 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Yes, it's only Big Ears of the regular MOTD pundits who sneers at us.

...Wing nut as some people call him

[Herman 9,712]

I think Gary upset some City fans last time we were in the Prem. He had the nerve to have a go at them for their endless whining. I'm not sure how he got to that point. 😀

[Aggy 752]

6 hours ago, curious yellow said:

 

The fact that we played well was put down to them playing badly, just like our goal was down to a goalkeeper error. 

 

If, as you said earlier, they’ve got loads of world class players and, as you alluded to (albeit didn’t expressly say), we haven’t got loads of world class players, then if both sets of players played their best surely we would lose by the simple fact you’re suggesting their players are better than ours. If Man Utd came out and played at their best, they would have annihilated us, as they would probably 10 or 11 sides in the division. 

On one hand our fans say we can’t compete because we didn’t invest enough in good enough players, and now on the other hand you’re suggesting we can beat a top six side without the top six side playing below par. If we can beat a top six side playing at their best, why are we rock bottom? Either we can only beat a top six side when they don’t play very well, or our players have massively underperformed all season.

(As it is, we couldn’t beat a top six side playing below their best which rather explains the situation.)

[NFN FC 1,122]

6 hours ago, curious yellow said:

The phrase "there for the taking" in this context infers that Man U were easy to beat. 

Not "we could have beaten them if we had taken our chances" This could be the case in all games. 

The fact that we played well was put down to them playing badly, just like our goal was down to a goalkeeper error. 

Interestingly you mentioned the Cantwell pass to Pukki. Cantwell was our best player in the first half and it was Shearer who ignored all the good work and chose to critisize that minor error. If the ball had been played any slower the defender would have intercepted, it had to be played quickly or Pukki would have been offside. 

Our licence fee money is being used to overpay these analysts - that gives us the right to stand up for our club. I would prefer a more professional set up with qualified coaches and successful managers. 

"There for taking" means we could have won it as we were playing well and it could've gone either way. It doesn't mean, ever, that a team is easy to beat. 

 

And Cantwell did have a very good game but that pass was crap. 

[curious yellow 184]

28 minutes ago, Aggy said:

If, as you said earlier, they’ve got loads of world class players and, as you alluded to (albeit didn’t expressly say), we haven’t got loads of world class players, then if both sets of players played their best surely we would lose by the simple fact you’re suggesting their players are better than ours. If Man Utd came out and played at their best, they would have annihilated us, as they would probably 10 or 11 sides in the division. 

On one hand our fans say we can’t compete because we didn’t invest enough in good enough players, and now on the other hand you’re suggesting we can beat a top six side without the top six side playing below par. If we can beat a top six side playing at their best, why are we rock bottom? Either we can only beat a top six side when they don’t play very well, or our players have massively underperformed all season.

(As it is, we couldn’t beat a top six side playing below their best which rather explains the situation.)

No, I am talking about the BBC coverage, their opinions and how it can upset some people. 

What you have quoted is the the view that they put over. 

Teams don't have to play badly for us to play well. 

 

[curious yellow 184]

47 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

"There for taking" means we could have won it as we were playing well and it could've gone either way. It doesn't mean, ever, that a team is easy to beat. 

 

And Cantwell did have a very good game but that pass was crap. 

To be available for one to easily obtain or achieve. 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com › ...

Be there for the taking - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

[NFN FC 1,122]

18 minutes ago, curious yellow said:

To be available for one to easily obtain or achieve. 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com › ...

Be there for the taking - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

Yes it would have been easy to achieve if we had taken our chances. The fact it went to extra time supports this. 

It's not that a team are easy to beat, but on the day it was close and we could've won. 

https://www.lexico.com/definition/for_the_taking