Will posters on this site ever be happy?

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I''m sorry John but you have this wrong. It was Nigel Worthington''s team that lost 5-0 to stoke but it was Martin Hunters team that won at Birmingham. Peter Grant musn''t be judged until the last Worthington player has left the building. I''m not quite sure if this applies to Huckerby and Earnshaw as well as Robinson, Hughes, Thorne and Doherty, time will tell.

 

[/quote]

Oh dear nutty.  You''re not serious are you? 

I''ve put up with this sort of garbage for long enough, under the guise of "free speech".  I''ll accept the fact that it''s taken several light years for some people to wake up and realise that the problems with our club are much more fundamental than who the manager happens to be.  But there''s no excuse for it any longer.  You know the truth, but you''d rather go on scapegoating Worthy than face up to it. 

[/quote]

Nutty thought Worthy was doing a great job until the last, seems to think Robinson Thorne Doherty and co are great players and that it is...  ummm...  errr   he isnt really sure whos fault it is we are 15th.

[chicken 0]

CJF - what about the other 9 players in the starting line up? You mention three players there - one that can not get on the pitch most weeks. Its funny how your list only a few weeks ago would have had Etuhu up at the top of most hated and Doherty not on it at all!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Mystic.. no I''m not serious, I thought that was quite obvious, I doubt John was being serious either. He was pointing out that if Grant isn''t to blame when we lose with these players then Worthington must take the credit when we win. He had forgotten that when we win it''s Hunters team and.......

oh, I''m bored and I''m sure you can work it out really.

CJF, for someone who used to be so good at digging up evidence to prove a point this is a poor post. I doubt you can find where I said Worthy was doing a great job until the last, but you would find where I said he had been succesful during his time at the club.

I challenge you to tell me why Robinson plays every game for Grant. Why Grant has played Hughes in preference to Safri. Why Colin is still picked for every game. Why Doherty is Grants first choice centreback. Why Etuhu plays every game for Grant. Why Thorne is prefered to Jarvis by Grant. All these players are not good enough to play for us according to you.

I have an opinion that we would be better playing 442. I have an opinion that the benefits of playing Dublin in his proper position outweigh the advantages of playing him in defence. Just because you don''t agree with that you don''t have to make stuff up about what you percieve my opinions to have been in the past.

 

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]The line - "yeah but Peter Grant hasn''t had a chance to bring in his own players yet" is a good one and helps hide a multitude of sins but how many players need to arrive before, in some peoples eyes PG actually takes responsibility - three players - five players - seven players a whole squad? With this line of argument can we agree  - it was Nigel Worthington''s team who won away at Birmingham, won at home to Cardiff and therefore NW should take the credit and not PG?[/quote]

I''m sorry John but you have this wrong. It was Nigel Worthington''s team that lost 5-0 to stoke but it was Martin Hunters team that won at Birmingham. Peter Grant musn''t be judged until the last Worthington player has left the building. I''m not quite sure if this applies to Huckerby and Earnshaw as well as Robinson, Hughes, Thorne and Doherty, time will tell.

 

[/quote]OK Nutty, I see where you are coming from - we lost to Stoke 5 -0 but it''s still too early for PG to be responsible - it was Dave Stringer who played an important part in bringing PG to Carrow Rd and in turn it was Ron Ashman who brought in Dave Stringer, so it''s clearly Ron Ashman''s fault. I like this line of argument, it helps deflect the fact we have yet another hopeless boss brought in by an equally incompetent board, if PG was the best option at time of interview, then I will eat my trousers along with my scabby Y fronts

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mystic.. no I''m not serious, I thought that was quite obvious, I doubt John was being serious either. He was pointing out that if Grant isn''t to blame when we lose with these players then Worthington must take the credit when we win. He had forgotten that when we win it''s Hunters team and.......

oh, I''m bored and I''m sure you can work it out really.

CJF, for someone who used to be so good at digging up evidence to prove a point this is a poor post. I doubt you can find where I said Worthy was doing a great job until the last, but you would find where I said he had been succesful during his time at the club.

I challenge you to tell me why Robinson plays every game for Grant. Why Grant has played Hughes in preference to Safri. Why Colin is still picked for every game. Why Doherty is Grants first choice centreback. Why Etuhu plays every game for Grant. Why Thorne is prefered to Jarvis by Grant. All these players are not good enough to play for us according to you.

I have an opinion that we would be better playing 442. I have an opinion that the benefits of playing Dublin in his proper position outweigh the advantages of playing him in defence. Just because you don''t agree with that you don''t have to make stuff up about what you percieve my opinions to have been in the past.

 

[/quote]

my earlier post was a bit stupid...apologies nige.  You are right the current squad isnt good enough as we are 15th.  A top manager could be able to do something we will have to wait until the transfer window to find out if Grant can.

However, why does he pick them?  who knows, I certainly know we have an appalling midfield which is from what I have seen far worse without Safri playing. Etuhu...  one good game in 4 or 5....  oh dear.

 

RE Chicken:  As for Etuhu - not good enough thanks - Sell if possible.