Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

OneBoro End of Season Awards 2016/17


Recommended Posts

Source for what?

 

I assume you did not solely base "Villain" on performance. In that case, what deemed Ramirez the villain of the season?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    17

  •  

    16

  •  

    7

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Source for what?

 

I assume you did not solely base "Villain" on performance. In that case, what deemed Ramirez the villain of the season?

 

I didn't make him my villain of the season.

 

I said you can't compare Ramirez who we know as fact caused a problem with Downing when it's based on supposition alone.

 

I didn't name a villain of the season as there are a number of people I'd put into that category rather than one person alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Source for what?

 

I assume you did not solely base "Villain" on performance. In that case, what deemed Ramirez the villain of the season?

 

I didn't make him my villain of the season.

 

I said you can't compare Ramirez who we know as fact caused a problem with Downing when it's based on supposition alone.

 

I didn't name a villain of the season as there are a number of people I'd put into that category rather than one person alone.

 

Right, and where did this fact come from? You know what I'm fishing for. For all I care, I based everything related to Downing on articles whilst the very same was done for Ramirez. Unless I missed some Ramirez interview with him saying "I caused problems, I didn't want to play, and I purposely got sent off."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"“His attitude in training has been really good,” he added. “Gaston has been really positive and that is important for me when it comes to pick the squad.

 

“I would have no problem playing him on Saturday because he has shown me he can be positive.”

 

"“It was difficult for him but he has to change his mentality. He is here and he has to help us. It was difficult for him to put that behind him."

 

Last article is pure speculation with agent talk. I thought we didn't put much into that. I'm truly sorry if I come across stubborn and pitiful, but you can't criticise me for picking Downing on speculative grounds and then link me articles full of *** to support any claims suggesting Ramirez' poor behavior. 

 

I fully agree - Ramirez was a villain too, but I find it seriously hard to follow your argumentation when mine was deemed invalid given the nature of speculation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Did you read the rest of that article and the other two as well or just cherry pick a couple of lines that suited the point you're trying to make.

 

There is no speculation around the fact he wanted to leave. There is no speculation about the fact that he was unhappy when he couldn't leave. Karanka may well have talked him up but then against Stoke he brought him off at half time because of his complete lack of interest in the game and criticised him if I remember rightly. He dropped him for the City game, he gave him a weekend off before that to try and 'get his head straight.' Agnew brought him back into the team and then after the debacle at Bournemouth he was dropped never to return. I suppose it's possible that both Karanka and Agnew had other reasons for their actions but it's hard to see what they were.

 

Players have alluded to other players not being fully committed and this isn't just Downing talking, I'm pretty sure Gibson and Friend have said something similar. I can't see any reason for Gibson to say it unless it's true because it's not like he has to defend himself against anything as his performances have been good all season long. Friend, to me, doesn't seem the type to be openly critical of people for no reason. It's a pity they didn't simply come out and name Ramirez mind as it would have knocked it all on the head.

 

If you want me to also speculate on things then I'll say that I don't believe Ramirez was injured in January and I think he just wanted out and was faking it until he could try and force a move. I think we needed him in that month when we had some winnable games and he wasn't there. I think that after he came back he was mostly useless in a way that suggests he wasn't even slightly interested in being here. That's all speculation though based on my belief of what happened. However, the other stuff isn't speculation and nothing that has been said about Downing is anything other than speculation (so far). That might change in the future of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I read the articles. Wanting to leave, refusing to play, or playing poor are all different things. I wholeheartedly agree with you - And I did say that. I am merely trying to compare your analysis of the situation surrounding Ramirez with that of Downing. 

 

If Downing had handed in a transfer request, we could've said the exact same things about Downing (probably). Remember, he left Downing out of the squad against City and benched Ramirez and Negredo. 

 

"Now in the difficult moment I need 18 fighters in my team. Where the players show me that they are ready to play and they are fighting and they are going to fight for the club is on the training ground every day. I am with them every day and on Friday, I will always choose at least 18 fighters" 

 

And prior to this quote, rumours of Downing and Karanka was already starting to flare up. Karanka responded: 

 

"I showed him matches and analysis why he wasn't playing, because tactically he has missed something. He now knows hwy he hasn't been playing but I've always said he's a key players for us as he's one of the few players with Premier League experience" 

 

I know we won't get anywhere with this as do you. But I hope you can at the very least follow my argumentation albeit perhaps too hermeneutic of nature to your liking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I can't follow the argument because you still have presented one. The Downing stuff is based on supposition, the Ramirez stuff isn't. I don't know what else to say about it really. That's what it comes down to and that's all my point is on the subject. You can think what you like about any player as far as I'm concerned but one is based on fact and one is based on rumour so they are different situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't follow the argument because you still have presented one.  The Downing stuff is based on supposition, the Ramirez stuff isn't.  I don't know what else to say about it really.  That's what it comes down to and that's all my point is on the subject.  You can think what you like about any player as far as I'm concerned but one is based on fact and one is based on rumour so they are different situations.

 

Fact? What fact? You are correlating Ramirez' performance with his wish to leave. That is not a fact, but is your interpretation. 

 

I normally think you are spot on about many things, but you are seriously misusing "fact" when you are blatantly analysing anything related to Ramirez. If you blame his poor performances on his wish to leave during the winter transfer window, then that's your interpretation - it's not a fact. If you look at him during a game and find his attitude poor, you are analysing, it's not a fact. I have done the exact same thing but you refuse to acknowledge it and cast it aside as mere supposition when you are doing the same thing. 

 

I don't think many "facts" exist in football. I know you love to look at "facts", statistics etc., and generally brush aside all external factors potentially affecting performance such as fans.

 

Also, I can't bring forward any argument, I guess. I've tried several times now, and apparently, I have failed miserably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say 'nominations'? I meant 'breakdown of the minutiae of what consitutes a villain'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Fact? What fact? You are correlating Ramirez' performance with his wish to leave. That is not a fact, but is your interpretation. 

 

I normally think you are spot on about many things, but you are seriously misusing "fact" when you are blatantly analysing anything related to Ramirez. If you blame his poor performances on his wish to leave during the winter transfer window, then that's your interpretation - it's not a fact. If you look at him during a game and find his attitude poor, you are analysing, it's not a fact. I have done the exact same thing but you refuse to acknowledge it and cast it aside as mere supposition when you are doing the same thing. 

 

I don't think many "facts" exist in football. I know you love to look at "facts", statistics etc., and generally brush aside all external factors potentially affecting performance such as fans.

 

Also,  I can't bring forward any argument, I guess. I've tried several times now, and apparently, I have failed miserably.

 

I'm not analysing anything in relation to him.  He wanted out and we wouldn't let him go those are the facts I'm talking about.  Karanka subbed him at half time against Stoke and then dropped him for the next game.  Again that's a fact.  Agnew picked him and then eventually dropped him completely.  Again another fact.

 

Karanka suggested there were issues with his performance relating to what happened if you actually read the articles linked earlier he clearly says Ramirez has to get over the fact that he wasn't allowed to leave.  That's not me saying it, that's the manager and whatever else he may also have said he makes it quite clear that Ramirez was still letting what happened in January effect him.

 

I made it clear I was speculating when I said his poor performance afterwards came as a result of not being allowed to leave - 'If you want me to also speculate on things...'  I couldn't really be any clearer than that so yes that bit is obviously my interpretation of things.  The rest isn't though, the rest is what actually happened.  

 

Bloody foreigners eh?  Always looking for an argument it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fact? What fact? You are correlating Ramirez' performance with his wish to leave. That is not a fact, but is your interpretation. 

 

I normally think you are spot on about many things, but you are seriously misusing "fact" when you are blatantly analysing anything related to Ramirez. If you blame his poor performances on his wish to leave during the winter transfer window, then that's your interpretation - it's not a fact. If you look at him during a game and find his attitude poor, you are analysing, it's not a fact. I have done the exact same thing but you refuse to acknowledge it and cast it aside as mere supposition when you are doing the same thing. 

 

I don't think many "facts" exist in football. I know you love to look at "facts", statistics etc., and generally brush aside all external factors potentially affecting performance such as fans.

 

Also,  I can't bring forward any argument, I guess. I've tried several times now, and apparently, I have failed miserably.

 

I'm not analysing anything in relation to him.  He wanted out and we wouldn't let him go those are the facts I'm talking about.  Karanka subbed him at half time against Stoke and then dropped him for the next game.  Again that's a fact.  Agnew picked him and then eventually dropped him completely.  Again another fact.

 

Karanka suggested there were issues with his performance relating to what happened if you actually read the articles linked earlier he clearly says Ramirez has to get over the fact that he wasn't allowed to leave.  That's not me saying it, that's the manager and whatever else he may also have said he makes it quite clear that Ramirez was still letting what happened in January effect him.

 

I made it clear I was speculating when I said his poor performance afterwards came as a result of not being allowed to leave - 'If you want me to also speculate on things...'  I couldn't really be any clearer than that so yes that bit is obviously my interpretation of things.  The rest isn't though, the rest is what actually happened.  

 

Bloody foreigners eh?  Always looking for an argument it seems.

 

I will not stop before I have conquered yer lands - again. 

 

You can have your women, I prefer my scandis.

 

Also downing is a villain

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...