Another Michael Theoklitos howler....

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

I find the  headline / report really dis-tastefull.Reserve matches are used to keep fitness etc, so why a headline showing everyone how utterly incompetant his attempt was is any good to club / fans / management or Theo is beyond me.Even if they are trying to sell him, thats not the best advert, its like saying."Buy this new Car, its crap"Poor journalism I think.

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find the  headline / report really dis-tastefull.
Reserve matches are used to keep fitness etc, so why a headline showing everyone how utterly incompetant his attempt was is any good to club / fans / management or Theo is beyond me.
Even if they are trying to sell him, thats not the best advert, its like saying.
"Buy this new Car, its crap"

Poor journalism I think.
[/quote]

Do you prefer journalism that is dishonest? Do you want the fans to have no idea how bad a player is?  If so, then the papers should also downplay anything good that happens. Either than or let''s just get rid of free speech and all drive Volkswagens or Ladas.

[Brendo 0]

[quote user="Destort"]

Boo Theoklitos.. The ONLY keeper in the world who would ever do this.

I find the reporting of this ''reserve game'' incredibly pathetic.

Goalkeepers do make mistakes. I notice in the last reserve game it wasn''t reported ''Theoklitos keeps clean sheet'' in big bold headline text.

Even keepers like Foster and last night Hannemann make the wrong decisions.

[/quote]

Maybe so, but im yet to see him actually play well at all...

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I find the  headline / report really dis-tastefull.
Reserve matches are used to keep fitness etc, so why a headline showing everyone how utterly incompetant his attempt was is any good to club / fans / management or Theo is beyond me.
Even if they are trying to sell him, thats not the best advert, its like saying.
"Buy this new Car, its crap"

Poor journalism I think.
[/quote]

Don''t get this I must admit. They only reported on what happened and I think they reported it pretty accurately.

[Romantic 0]

I would have thought that Theo''s mis-judgement is indeed worthy of journalistic attention. We''ve all been concerned about him and his abilities / confidence etc and had hoped that the reserve games would help him to establish himself. Howleroos such as this won''t help and I for one am interested to hear about him dailing again to deal with a defensive mistake placing him under pressure.

[John 0]

[quote user="Romantic"]I would have thought that Theo''s mis-judgement is indeed worthy of journalistic attention. We''ve all been concerned about him and his abilities / confidence etc and had hoped that the reserve games would help him to establish himself. Howleroos such as this won''t help and I for one am interested to hear about him dailing again to deal with a defensive mistake placing him under pressure. [/quote]Indeed [Y]

[Destort 0]

[quote user="Big Bad John"][quote user="Romantic"]I would have thought that Theo''s mis-judgement is indeed worthy of journalistic attention. We''ve all been concerned about him and his abilities / confidence etc and had hoped that the reserve games would help him to establish himself. Howleroos such as this won''t help and I for one am interested to hear about him dailing again to deal with a defensive mistake placing him under pressure.
[/quote]

Indeed [Y]
[/quote]

It''s along the same lines as using ''Cureton fails to score.... again'' as a headline. It''s not the content, it''s the way it''s written.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Did you guys see the match ??I didnt so im not gonna say it was a howler

[Graham Humphrey 13]

I did see it and it was a horrible error.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Although it did liven up an incredibly dull match so it''s not all bad.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

This is more about prejudice than reality. Why does Francomb''s poor back-pass not even get a mention in Bailey''s article? That would de-sensationalise it, is why. There is a sickness at the heart of this kind of treatment of a player that I''m beginning to think is a sickness affecting the club''s fortunes over the past years.

[Guest]

Perhaps the Pink''un report is harsh, but no more harsh than the official site report is generous. As I mentioned in another thread, the phrases the OS use almost make it sound contentious... the foul itself was as clear a foul as a goalkeeper can make. Maybe some blame for the build up should be laid at Francomb for the backpass but unless my memory is playing tricks the Aussie still had plenty of time to whack it into row Z.

[Barclay Kid 0]

[quote user="Lenny-boy"]

I did go and Theo made one big, horror epic, howler on a gigantum scale. An accident waiting to happen. Mr unpredictable.

clean sheet gone, point gone. he did make two half decent ''saves'' but did not have a lot to do.

the rest of the negatives were.... poor penalty Damon. He was captain, but why didnt curo or cody take it?

Martin is NOT a left midfielder, mcveigh and Cureton are past it, just no pace at all and Norwich are a titchy side bar three.

on the plus side, there are some really promising footballers coming through. Dawkin came on in place of Martin and looked very good indeed, a left footed midfielder with a bit of pace and prepared to take on his man!!!, both kelly and Dumic will be good players, and Wiggins though small, has more game time  and was quite energetic.

[/quote]

Because Cody Doesn''t Like Taking Penalties And Cureton Would Have Had No Hope! [:P]

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]This is more about prejudice than reality. Why does Francomb''s poor back-pass not even get a mention in Bailey''s article? That would de-sensationalise it, is why. There is a sickness at the heart of this kind of treatment of a player that I''m beginning to think is a sickness affecting the club''s fortunes over the past years.[/quote]

I didn''t think it was that bad a backpass myself but I guess you thought otherwise. Even if you think it was, surely you can see that he had more than enough time to deal with it properly? There really isn''t an excuse for that kind of blunder I''m afraid.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Jen_Jen"]Because Cody Doesn''t Like Taking Penalties[/quote]

He''s a sodding striker!

(As an aside Lathrope was truly awful. No way will he carve out a career in professional football.)

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)]

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]

I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.

And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)]
[/quote]

Wouldn''t the spree killler be the one who has to kill many in short order, then? Seriel killer last for years sometimes, but they do not kill 1 a month. Chikatilo was at it for over a decade in the old USSR. I am sure Peter Sutcliffe in Yorkshire was not killing one a month because he was in the papers for years but his total was not over 20. Those guys are serial killers.

[singing canary 0]

ummm... and forget about the seven he let in on his home debut..!! (norwichs worst result in history)..!!!

lets face it would you be confident him starting in the first team again .?

[Gingerpele 0]

No  it was not his fault, he was just having an emotional day....

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="singing canary"]ummm... and forget about the seven he let in on his home debut..!! (norwichs worst result in history)..!!!

lets face it would you be confident him starting in the first team again .?[/quote]I don''t think so... even on score, for example even the 6-0 loss to Fulham most would rate as a worst result.....

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)][/quote]

Wouldn''t the spree killler be the one who has to kill many in short order, then? Seriel killer last for years sometimes, but they do not kill 1 a month. Chikatilo was at it for over a decade in the old USSR. I am sure Peter Sutcliffe in Yorkshire was not killing one a month because he was in the papers for years but his total was not over 20. Those guys are serial killers.

[/quote]Yeah, you''re right. The only answer I can find is that "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people

over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between

each murder" but that''s from Wiki [:$]. Based on that the poster that you disagreed with had it sort of right but confused within thirty days with more than thirty days.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)][/quote]

Wouldn''t the spree killler be the one who has to kill many in short order, then? Seriel killer last for years sometimes, but they do not kill 1 a month. Chikatilo was at it for over a decade in the old USSR. I am sure Peter Sutcliffe in Yorkshire was not killing one a month because he was in the papers for years but his total was not over 20. Those guys are serial killers.

[/quote]Yeah, you''re right. The only answer I can find is that "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people

over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between

each murder"

but that''s from Wiki [:$]. Based on that the poster that you disagreed

with had it sort of right but confused within thirty days with more

than thirty days.

[Lenny-boy 0]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]

[quote user="Jen_Jen"]Because Cody Doesn''t Like Taking Penalties[/quote]

He''s a sodding striker!

(As an aside Lathrope was truly awful. No way will he carve out a career in professional football.)

[/quote]

it was Damon''s first game back for some time, but I know what you mean.

I would not employ a striker that did not want to grab the ball to take a penalty.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)][/quote]

Wouldn''t the spree killler be the one who has to kill many in short order, then? Seriel killer last for years sometimes, but they do not kill 1 a month. Chikatilo was at it for over a decade in the old USSR. I am sure Peter Sutcliffe in Yorkshire was not killing one a month because he was in the papers for years but his total was not over 20. Those guys are serial killers.

[/quote]Yeah, you''re right. The only answer I can find is that "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people

over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between

each murder"

but that''s from Wiki [:$]. Based on that the poster that you disagreed

with had it sort of right but confused within thirty days with more

than thirty days.[/quote]Yeah i was wrong about the 30 days, i also got my info from wikipedia, but have obviously misread it. So as its been more than 30 days and if you count the colchester game as more than one howler/murder then he is indeed a serial killer of howlers.

[Nuff Said 5,082]

Is there anyone else who finds the two independent threads in here surreal in the extreme?

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Silly bunt.  A 30 day period does not a serial killer make. It is numbers. You were correct about the 3, but way WAY off base with the 30 day time limit. No such thing as a time limit on what it takes be qualify for status as a serial killer.   Or is this some new regulation passed by the EU?

[/quote]

I''m pretty sure you''re wrong there HC. I think I''m right in saying that the time between the first and last murders and the time in between each one makes the difference between a serial killer and a spree (or possibly sequential, I''m not entirely sure) killer. The phrase ''serial killer'' is used most often because we''re conditioned to believe that this is the worst of all.

And as far as I''m aware it''s nothing to do with the EU [;)]
[/quote]

Wouldn''t the spree killler be the one who has to kill many in short order, then? Seriel killer last for years sometimes, but they do not kill 1 a month. Chikatilo was at it for over a decade in the old USSR. I am sure Peter Sutcliffe in Yorkshire was not killing one a month because he was in the papers for years but his total was not over 20. Those guys are serial killers.

[/quote]

Yeah, you''re right. The only answer I can find is that "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between each murder" but that''s from Wiki [:$]. Based on that the poster that you disagreed with had it sort of right but confused within thirty days with more than thirty days.
[/quote]

Yeah i was wrong about the 30 days, i also got my info from wikipedia, but have obviously misread it.

So as its been more than 30 days and if you count the colchester game as more than one howler/murder then he is indeed a serial killer of howlers.
[/quote]

Funny! 

I have never heard this 30 day limit before regarding murders, and if wikipedia is the source, I would not assume it is accurate without checking somewhere more reliable.  It may be that 30 days IS the deciding factor, but I used to read a lot of books about serial killers and there was never any mention of 30 days about anything. No, I was not doing research into a possible career as the next Ted Bundy.

[Nuff Said 5,082]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

Funny! 

I have never heard this 30 day limit before regarding murders, and if wikipedia is the source, I would not assume it is accurate without checking somewhere more reliable.  It may be that 30 days IS the deciding factor, but I used to read a lot of books about serial killers and there was never any mention of 30 days about anything. No, I was not doing research into a possible career as the next Ted Bundy.

[/quote]Suddenly things become a lot clearer! Can I ask why you stopped reading about serial killers HC? [;)]

[Michael Bailey - Sportsdesk 0]

For your info, boys and girls.Have a look...Love a good debate, me. Although I''ve left the serial murderer issue well alone.

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

Funny! 

I have never heard this 30 day limit before regarding murders, and if wikipedia is the source, I would not assume it is accurate without checking somewhere more reliable.  It may be that 30 days IS the deciding factor, but I used to read a lot of books about serial killers and there was never any mention of 30 days about anything. No, I was not doing research into a possible career as the next Ted Bundy.

[/quote]

Suddenly things become a lot clearer!

Can I ask why you stopped reading about serial killers HC? [;)]
[/quote]

  I found them to be fascinating.  How does someone who does not have obvious problems turn into a serial murderer?  I''ve read probably a couple of dozen of the biographical accounts of various ones, and I guess I stopped reading them because after a while, they sort of blend in, in terms of what makes them who they are.  While each story is different, the screwed up child hoods, neglectful parents 9in various ways) and so on generally tell the same basic story.

  What they also all have in common is they do not look like monsters, which is what I meant by having no "obvious problems". They''re almost always the regular guy down the block,  not some brutish, scary looking thug.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Speaking of cereal killers.....I could just murder a bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes...