Javier Garrido

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="The New Boy"]Has the word OR been removed from the English language? [/quote]  No, but your statement was at best unclear, ambiguous enough for at least two people to question it..................[/quote]

You mean to complex for two people with a reading age of 5 to comprehend it.

[/quote]

Or maybe you could try and see what we''re saying, rather than being so punctilious.

[chicken 0]

To be honest I read the or but wasn''t sure that you were implying that both had skill and pace.

You could have said that you doubt he could deal with the skill of Snodgrass or the pace of Redmond. That would be much clearer.

As for my reading age, I have a degree and have worked as a property manager dealing with contracts etc as well as my current role for local authority having to know policy and procedures almost off by heart. I think that probably qualifies me to have a reading age of at least 6!

To be honest, there are a couple of newish users on here that just need to wind in their necks a little bit. They state their opinion like fact and then proceed to belittle and insult people that disagree.

If you want to have an opinion and not have anyone disagree perhaps a blog would be a better platform. We discuss things here, and if you make rash assumptions or statements people will naturally call you out on them.

[Guest]

I don''t know much about Olsson. But if Hughton rates him, then it''s good to know we have two decent left backs on our books to push each other this season. Competition for places is a good thing.

Last season we saw the same first team players flogged to death because Hughton clearly didn''t believe the squad players were good enough to do a job for the team.

If only Hughton had the same kind of dilemma as the Olsson/Garrido situation in central midfield, where we still look rather lightweight, despite the promising addition of Fer.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote]

Pilkington is very naturally skilful. Since we''ve been in the Prem he''s made a mug of some of the best fullbacks in the game with his twists and turns.

[/quote]

Yeah but is much less effective on the right, and Garrido is a left back.  

I''d almost certainly rather play against Pilkington than Snodgrass, once Snodgrass enters the 18 yard box you have no chance. Hopefully he will enter it a bit more next season.

I absolutely love both of them though, and for me Pilkington is still first choice if he can put his injury problems behind him. Pilkington to tire out the full back, Redmond on for the last fifteen, what an exciting prospect.  

[/quote]

Ok, well I was talking in more general terms about their strengths for the position they play rather than matching it up as a contest like right winger vs left back.

 

For me Pilkington''s ability to use either foot is more of a worry. Whichever side you show him he can still do something to hurt you and he is more likely to have a quick burst of pace.

 

With Snodgrass you know he really wants to get it on his left foot, although he is good at facing defenders up and trying to commit them.

 

 

[Salopian 1]

From all the reports I have read, they are both good going forward and with excellent crossing ability. The major differences between them are that Garrido may be a more natural defender, but Olsson has more pace.

 

So it may come down to how well Garrido defends. We know of him that he struggles against quick wingers, and that he can occasionally lose concentration and make a mistake. He seems to be a good reader of the game, which helps overcome his lack of pace to some extent. Olsson''s qualities are unknown to me, except that he is quick and could play wide left, and that we signed him relatively cheaply (- does his contract run out next year?) He has a lot of Premiership experience.

 

So it seems to come down to who is chosen at first and how consistently he plays well - possession of the position is important. I wouldn''t like to bet who plays against Everton, but I have a sneaking suspicion it could be Olsson.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="chicken"] To be honest, there are a couple of newish users on here that just need to wind in their necks a little bit.  [/quote]

Oh that thing again.... the ''joined date'', the virtual equivalent of physical size and strength. Can somebody explain the hierarchy then? Wiz joined in 2003 so he must be the cream of the crop, king of the roost? 

Could you provide a graph which shows the correlation between account age and validity of opinion? I''d like to see whether I''ve progressed from the bottom tier to the second from bottom tier, so that I can find some people with younger accounts to belittle.

[quote] If you want to have an opinion and not have anyone disagree [/quote]

I don''t care if you disagree? I''ve already said "opinions are like a*sholes, everybody has one". You seem more bothered with what I have written, which is that I don''t rate Garrido. Couldn''t give a shizzle me nizzle whether you agree. Good on for you not agreeing. I don''t want to share my chocolate starfish with you anyway chick. 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Salopian"]

I wouldn''t like to bet who plays against Everton, but I have a sneaking suspicion it could be Olsson.

[/quote]

I''m more concerned with how are right back performs in that particular game, with Baines on the left side! 

[Juggy 0]

[quote]

With Snodgrass you know he really wants to get it on his left foot, although he is good at facing defenders up and trying to commit them.

[/quote]

There is truth in what you say, he does always want to cut in with his left, but the bit which must petrify defenders is when he goes in on his left and the back out with his right in the eighteen yard box. The penalty against West Brom for example, when he cuts back out to the byline you are toast. 

Anyway this is a silly one, because both Snodgrass and Pilkington are tremendous players. We are blessed to have four excellent wingers, people understimate Elliott Bennett too (when played on the right). 

It is reason to be excited. Pilkington needs to stay fit though. 

[chicken 0]

TNB wrote: "Can somebody explain the hierarchy then?"

Nobody said that there was one. I was actually suggesting that people need to be more respectful - especially if they have just walked into the room, so to speak.

Which leads me on to:

TNB wrote: "I don''t care if you disagree? I''ve already said "opinions are like a*sholes, everybody has one". You seem more bothered with what I have written, which is that I don''t rate Garrido."

A very poor analogy. You can change an opinion, or be influenced to form one on something you previously did not have. Everyone is born with a sphincter - not much you can do about it.

Also, if I am more bothered by what you have said than you are about me then why I have not resorted to petty insults and degrading comments.

Even the one I am quoting from includes incredibly defensive stances.

I have no problem with you having an opinion - I do have a problem with people that state an opinion as if it is a fact and then defend it with insults and rudeness.

Like I said, suggesting/assuming that signing Garrido was a mistake seriously questions his participation in last season and Hughton and co''s judgement on a player.

In the premier league you need a squad, you need to be able to rotate and you need to be able to pick different qualities for different games.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

Second to Mark Bowen, Garrido is the best ''top flight'' left back we''ve had ,possibly in our history, so I wouldnt necessarily write him off just yet?

I also believe that in certain games, particularly away, when we''re likely to have backs to the wall, ,i.eChelsea,Man City,Man Utd etc, that Hughton might just ''double up'' down the left, with Olsson playing LM & Garrido LB?

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Until we signed Olsson he was the best left back we have had for a long long time. I have a feeling Olsson may be a slight upgrade, time will tell. With injuries and suspensions both will get games, nice to have competition and I sense Olsson starts a bit ahead of him in the pecking order

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

Second to Mark Bowen, Garrido is the best ''top flight'' left back we''ve had ,possibly in our history, so I wouldnt necessarily write him off just yet?

[/quote]

That''s a very bold statement, wouldn''t Dennis Van Wijk have something to say about that? 

[KeelansGlove 0]

Every year the game changes a little and it becomes very difficult to judge how players of different eras would have stacked up in todays Premier League.

I''m with GJL happy to see Garridos name on the team sheet anytime.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="The New Boy"]Has anybody else got the feeling that Garrido will struggle for games this year?

It''s an odd one, isn''t it? Almost as if we were contractually obliged to buy him at a pre-arranged fee and on a pre-agreed contract, because Olsson is obviously his replacement.

I''ve been a bit underwhelmed by Garrido and Hughton likely has to (what with him being a former top class left back himself). Would it be normal for a club to choose to sign Garrido on a permanent even if the intention was to replace him, or would we otherwise have signed a cheaper (possibly young) left back as cover?

It just seems a little unusual to have too very high profile left backs, probably both very well paid, at the same time? Although I guess that continuity is healthy and too much change is not. 

I just have the feeling that Garrido only has this one season left. Could prove me wrong of course, it was said when he arrived that he was an attacking full back with an excellent cross, and perhaps we will see a better Garrido in a more direct team? But still, Olsson is naturally blessed with pace and has been known to score goals, so even in a more direct team - Olsson would seem the obvious candidate? 

I suppose it is a nice position to be in, in a way, but there is also the potential that we will just be left with a very handsomely paid reserve player here? Reminds me a little of Robert Green + Julio Cesar at QPR..... two big players, one place on the pitch. 

[/quote]

Norwich were contractually obliged to buy him - the player said so himself (although I''m guessing you knew and the question was a little tounge in cheek).

Olsson is a better left back and will be in the starting 11 come 17th August if he is fit. I wouldn''t call Garrido particulary ''high profile'' and I wouldn''t imagine he is particulary high paid, he has been a back up more than starter ever since leaving Spain.

[/quote]

No, no, no. Allow me to explain. We were aware that we had agreed a fee with Lazio for Garrido and were obliged to buy him if he played a certain number of games and he decided that he want to come, but what must also have been in place is a pre-agreed contract with Garrido.

So, Norwich obliged to offer Lazio £2.5m for Garrido if he plays 25 games. Check. But if we didn''t want him then we''d just offer him £95 a week, Karl Oyston style, wouldn''t we?

So we must also have agreed a contract with Garrido, which were were contractually obliged to offer if he played 25 games. So, for example, £15k a week for two years. 

The finer details we do not know. My point really is that we appear to have been contractually obliged to sign Garrido, yet wanted to replace him, and as a result we have been left with too likely very well paid left backs. One of who may well become surplus to requirements, or as close to that as possible. 

This isn''t actually a great example of financial management is it? We don''t appear to get everything right. We have placed the ball in their court, rather than in ours. So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him? Seems a little backwards to me. 

[/quote]

 

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

 

Because he was crap.

 

 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

Because he was crap.

[/quote]

Oh what short memories Norwich fans have. First David Fox, next Marc Tierney. He was our best player in the first half of the 2011/12 season before injury. Tierney was not crap. Only Norwich fans will give undivided loyalty to current players and even players who have yet to sign but talk about their former players in such disrespectful and derogatory terms.

So in three years everybody is going to remember Tierney as ''crap''? Great. We may as well remember Holt as crap too then, and Lambert, why not the entire 2010/11 team? 

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

Because he was crap.

[/quote]

Oh what short memories Norwich fans have. First David Fox, next Marc Tierney. He was our best player in the first half of the 2011/12 season before injury. 

Tierney was not crap. Only Norwich fans will give undivided loyalty to current players and even players who have yet to sign but talk about their former players in such disrespectful and derogatory terms.

So in three years everybody is going to remember Tierney as ''crap''? Great. We may as well remember Holt as crap too then, and Lambert, why not the entire 2010/11 team? 

[/quote]

 

My memory isn''t short, in fact I''d wager it can go back further than yours.

 

However, Marc Tierney was never our best player in any half of any match let alone a season. He always gave 100% but he is extremely limited as a footballer. He played a part in a wonderful story but we grew beyond his capabilities. He''s now playing Championship football for a decent club and good luck to him.

 

But he was crap.

 

 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Warren Hill"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

Because he was crap.

[/quote]

Oh what short memories Norwich fans have. First David Fox, next Marc Tierney. He was our best player in the first half of the 2011/12 season before injury. Tierney was not crap. Only Norwich fans will give undivided loyalty to current players and even players who have yet to sign but talk about their former players in such disrespectful and derogatory terms.

So in three years everybody is going to remember Tierney as ''crap''? Great. We may as well remember Holt as crap too then, and Lambert, why not the entire 2010/11 team? 

[/quote]

My memory isn''t short, in fact I''d wager it can go back further than yours.

However, Marc Tierney was never our best player in any half of any match let alone a season. He always gave 100% but he is extremely limited as a footballer. He played a part in a wonderful story but we grew beyond his capabilities. He''s now playing Championship football for a decent club and good luck to him.

But he was crap.

[/quote]

He wasn''t crap he was a very good attacking left back with a great little cross on him. 

[Six Pack 93]

chicken wrote: Olsson, if you have seen him play before, is probably better going forward and has more pace but I''m not sure that he is as defensively sound as Garrido.

Defensively sound ??? Well we got him from Blackburn - so he''s got a giant "R" branded on his buttock !

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

 

I am not sure of your footballing history or whether you have ever been involved with the game at any level but let me try to make a positive contribution to your education. Teams and squads are built over time and are constantly evolving. The Manager that stands still and feels he has got all he wants in his squad will only go one way - backwards. Competition is key and having two players fighting for each position is the minimum requirement. Players will always be moving. In the Manager''s eyes some will lose form and fitness, others will improve. It is forever a changing picture. Every supporter will have his favourite player(s) but it achives little by rubbishing players at the Club or those who have served the Club in the past. There are far too many people on this Forum who present their own dogmatic, boss-eyed views of things as facts.They are not and I get the impression that these people have never actually been within a million miles of actually kicking a football in anger. On the other hand, there are a number of contributors who make sensible, reasoned arguments and illustrate that they have had experience of the game. They know who they are.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

I am not sure of your footballing history or whether you have ever been involved with the game at any level but let me try to make a positive contribution to your education. Teams and squads are built over time and are constantly evolving. The Manager that stands still and feels he has got all he wants in his squad will only go one way - backwards. Competition is key and having two players fighting for each position is the minimum requirement. Players will always be moving. In the Manager''s eyes some will lose form and fitness, others will improve. It is forever a changing picture. Every supporter will have his favourite player(s) but it achives little by rubbishing players at the Club or those who have served the Club in the past. There are far too many people on this Forum who present their own dogmatic, boss-eyed views of things as facts.They are not and I get the impression that these people have never actually been within a million miles of actually kicking a football in anger. On the other hand, there are a number of contributors who make sensible, reasoned arguments and illustrate that they have had experience of the game. They know who they are.

[/quote]

So basically you are a superior armchair manager because you are one of the tens of thousands of kids who had a couple of trials and played a few senior games at step ten.  

Love it when people bring up ''experience''. Go on then.... show me your wikipedia entry and I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game. 

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

I am not sure of your footballing history or whether you have ever been involved with the game at any level but let me try to make a positive contribution to your education. Teams and squads are built over time and are constantly evolving. The Manager that stands still and feels he has got all he wants in his squad will only go one way - backwards. Competition is key and having two players fighting for each position is the minimum requirement. Players will always be moving. In the Manager''s eyes some will lose form and fitness, others will improve. It is forever a changing picture. Every supporter will have his favourite player(s) but it achives little by rubbishing players at the Club or those who have served the Club in the past. There are far too many people on this Forum who present their own dogmatic, boss-eyed views of things as facts.They are not and I get the impression that these people have never actually been within a million miles of actually kicking a football in anger. On the other hand, there are a number of contributors who make sensible, reasoned arguments and illustrate that they have had experience of the game. They know who they are.

[/quote]

So basically you are a superior armchair manager because you are one of the tens of thousands of kids who had a couple of trials and played a few senior games at step ten.  

Love it when people bring up ''experience''. Go on then.... show me your wikipedia entry and I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game. 

[/quote]

Are you confirming what I suspected? That you have never actually had involvement with the game at any level? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. As a matter of interest, do you know what step 10 is? Don''t reply in a hurry. It will give you time to do the research. 

 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="Webbo118"]

I have already been accused elsewhere of being antagonistic elsewhere, so here goes. [/quote]

Not by me you haven''t? You haven''t antagonised me. 

[quote] Why am I not surprised to see you and the word "backwards" so closely linked? It seems perfectly sensible to me to have two good left backs, competing for the position, and one who is able to play in midfield. [/quote]

Taken out of context. This is the bit that I thought seemed backwards: "So we gave Lazio and Garrido the option of him signing for us, rather than them giving us the option to sign him?". That Lazio had the option to sell him to us, rather than us having the option to buy him. With the Kei Kamara deal we had the option to buy Kei, not vice versa. This smacks of the club feeling stung by Naughton (basically doubling his value and pricing us out of a move). 

[quote] Why on earth would one be "surplus to requirements?".[/quote]

Well why was Marc Tierney "surplus to requirements"?

[/quote]

I am not sure of your footballing history or whether you have ever been involved with the game at any level but let me try to make a positive contribution to your education. Teams and squads are built over time and are constantly evolving. The Manager that stands still and feels he has got all he wants in his squad will only go one way - backwards. Competition is key and having two players fighting for each position is the minimum requirement. Players will always be moving. In the Manager''s eyes some will lose form and fitness, others will improve. It is forever a changing picture. Every supporter will have his favourite player(s) but it achives little by rubbishing players at the Club or those who have served the Club in the past. There are far too many people on this Forum who present their own dogmatic, boss-eyed views of things as facts.They are not and I get the impression that these people have never actually been within a million miles of actually kicking a football in anger. On the other hand, there are a number of contributors who make sensible, reasoned arguments and illustrate that they have had experience of the game. They know who they are.

[/quote]

So basically you are a superior armchair manager because you are one of the tens of thousands of kids who had a couple of trials and played a few senior games at step ten.  

Love it when people bring up ''experience''. Go on then.... show me your wikipedia entry and I will bow to your superior knowledge of the game. 

[/quote]

Are you confirming what I suspected? That you have never actually had involvement with the game at any level? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. As a matter of interest, do you know what step 10 is? Don''t reply in a hurry. It will give you time to do the research. 

[/quote]

I would think that about 90% of the able bodied men in this country have been involved in the game at "any level". I refuse to answer such a stupid question. 

Yes Level 10 is the Eastern Counties League Division One (second tier), home to such prestigious teams as Dereham Town Reserves. I assume that I got your level about right?  

[Hairy Canary 702]

For patronising pomposity New Boy, you are in a class of your own.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]For patronising pomposity New Boy, you are in a class of your own.[/quote]

I''m not the one who thinks that he is Jose f''in Mourinho because he played a few games for Dereham Town Reserves. 

[Hairy Canary 702]

I didn''t say you were Mourinho, just patronising.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]I didn''t say you were Mourinho, just patronising.[/quote]

I love the way that somebody can start a conversation with:

 

"I am not sure of your footballing history or whether you have ever been involved with the game at any level but let me try to make a positive contribution to your education", and I get called the patronising and pompous one. 

My replies were very much a reciprocation of his tone. 

[Rolf Harris 31]

meow

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]For patronising pomposity New Boy, you are in a class of your own.[/quote]His style is very similar to a banned poster who used to forcefully tell us that Anthony McNamee was the next best thing and Wes Hoolahan was crap.Very similar.........