|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 24, 2014 8:33:33 GMT
He could easily say Jamo the contact from the Swansea player made me lose my balance, end of. And you would believe him Geoff? You've got to be a WUM.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 24, 2014 8:38:41 GMT
So a WUM Paul in your view, is someone who defends the record of Tony Pulis, who says the England team has bigger problems than simply the issue of the manager, who would like to see diving taken out the game and thinks the penalty for Stoke was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 24, 2014 8:38:45 GMT
He could easily say Jamo the contact from the Swansea player made me lose my balance, end of. I don't think it did though. What Rangel did do however, was a penalty offence but Moses highlighted it (possibly with due course given how bad Oliver was). People can argue the rights and wrongs all day but a shirt pull in the box is a penalty so by hook or by crook the correct decision was made.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 24, 2014 8:42:46 GMT
No Geoff I think a WUM is somebody who signs up to a message board to give us impartial (yet glowing) reports on a manager from an 'outsiders' viewpoint. Then turns out (low and behold) to be not impartial and not an outsider after all. Now that's a WUM, or maybe worse.
|
|
|
Post by PotterEd on Oct 24, 2014 12:46:59 GMT
It doesn't matter. We got the 3 points and the majority of the decent media in football have said and shown that he was wrong. I don't think that we've come out of the whole thing badly at all.
He'll be in the lower leagues in the next 18 months - a typical example of an English manager with zero intelligence and ideas massively above his station ie Tim Sherwood Mark II
|
|
|
Post by richardparker on Oct 24, 2014 14:20:02 GMT
Why are they giving him another bloody platform? He's already explained what he meant by his comments. His explanation is pathetic and hypocritical. Why encourage him to spout it out yet again? I am sick of Garry Monk. He's a poor man's Tim Sherwood. Totally agree. Especially the comparison to Sherwood! You need to look no further than Saturday's match to see what a hypocrite Monk is. After winning a dubious penalty by seeking a confrontation with Ryan in the first half (pre-planned, no doubt), Bony then falls to ground for absolutely no reason (and certainly no contact) from a 2nd half corner. Has this even been mentioned by anyone (it was on MOTD)? Monk having to explain this one might provide him with some perspective on the matter, and help him realize what a silly boy he is.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Oct 25, 2014 6:55:59 GMT
He could easily say Jamo the contact from the Swansea player made me lose my balance, end of. Or he could be professional and just get on with his job
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Oct 25, 2014 8:43:14 GMT
I've just listened to the remarks of Monk in relation to Moses. He says, " he should be done for cheating, done for diving, done for conning the ref ". It isn't the same as saying Moses is a cheat as a person, he simply refers to this one incident. If Monk believed Moses dived, then I've been trying to think what other words he could have used other than cheating or conning? Bilge Tone Geoffrey. Explain in a coherent way, to people on this MB, how that piffling statement (by Monk) - contextually relating to actions of a person - can then be divorced from the very same person? Oh, I've just noticed - you've already been "been trying to think what other words"! Out of your depth?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 25, 2014 8:55:39 GMT
I've just listened to the remarks of Monk in relation to Moses. He says, " he should be done for cheating, done for diving, done for conning the ref ". It isn't the same as saying Moses is a cheat as a person, he simply refers to this one incident. If Monk believed Moses dived, then I've been trying to think what other words he could have used other than cheating or conning? Bilge Tone Geoffrey. Explain in a coherent way, to people on this MB, how that piffling statement (by Monk) - contextually relating to actions of a person - can then be divorced from the very same person? Oh, I've just noticed - you've already been "been trying to think what other words"! Out of your depth? leave it Cuckoo. On another thread about this I tried reasoning with Geoff, who doesn't think that Moses was fouled, by referring to the pictures taken behind the goal of Rangel pulling Moses shirt. I'm not dpsure what is agenda is tbh.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 25, 2014 8:55:51 GMT
Morning Cuckoo,
I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it.
He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them.
As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident.
Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Oct 25, 2014 9:04:07 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident. Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. Your rambling response required brevity, e.g. I can't explain in a coherent way.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 25, 2014 9:19:02 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident. Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. Personally, I doubt if Monk will be charged for saying Moses is a cheat, right or wrong it is his opinion. What the FA will be upset about are the words Monk used about the referee. He said, if I remember correctly, that the referee "cheated" Swansea with the Moses penalty decision. That was a poor choice of words. I'm sure Monk didn't mean it to sound like the referee is a cheat or that he is corrupt but the use of the word "cheat" in a sentence about the referee's decision is sailing very close to the wind. I suspect that this is why Hughes pointed to Monk's youth and lack of experience as a manager. Monk thinks that was patronising - if he puts his brain into gear he will see that Hughes has given him the best defence in this matter. If I were Monk I would apologise to the ref for using the word cheat and tell the FA that he said it in the heat of the moment and never meant it to imply that the ref himself was a cheat. Whether Monk is as intelligent and foresighted as myself and Mark Hughes remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 25, 2014 9:25:07 GMT
Intelligent and foresighted or calculated and disingenuous? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 25, 2014 9:54:09 GMT
Bilge Tone Geoffrey. Explain in a coherent way, to people on this MB, how that piffling statement (by Monk) - contextually relating to actions of a person - can then be divorced from the very same person? Oh, I've just noticed - you've already been "been trying to think what other words"! Out of your depth? leave it Cuckoo. On another thread about this I tried reasoning with Geoff, who doesn't think that Moses was fouled, by referring to the pictures taken behind the goal of Rangel pulling Moses shirt. I'm not dpsure what is agenda is tbh. Vale fan on a wind up, ignore it and it will go away like an unwanted stray mongrel.
|
|
|
Post by awrypotter on Oct 25, 2014 10:00:49 GMT
Intelligent and foresighted or calculated and disingenuous? ;-) 'Calculated and disingenuous' - are you accusing him of cheating?
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 25, 2014 10:10:29 GMT
Monk or Lakeland? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 25, 2014 10:15:18 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident. Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. But IF Monk stands by his post-match comments, then he needs to take an honest look at Bony falling flat on his arse every 5 minutes and leave him out of the team next match. Doesn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 25, 2014 10:17:04 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident. Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. The thing is no one can say that he dived there was a grab by Rangel and the only person who knows is Moses the rest is just conjecture!
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 25, 2014 10:18:44 GMT
Absolutely correct to say oh that diving is wrong whoever does it?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 25, 2014 10:21:04 GMT
But in the absence of any comment from Moses Squeekster, all we have is our own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Oct 25, 2014 10:46:45 GMT
It doesn't matter. We got the 3 points and the majority of the decent media in football have said and shown that he was wrong. I don't think that we've come out of the whole thing badly at all. He'll be in the lower leagues in the next 18 months - a typical example of an English manager with zero intelligence and ideas massively above his station ie Tim Sherwood Mark II Wouldn't put Sherwood in the same bracket as Monk at all.Sherwood says things as he sees it,and I have no problem with that.Monk says things to suit his agenda,his team selection is always spot on and his team's never deserve to be beaten,and are the victims of bent refs.Whatever Gary.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 25, 2014 10:53:11 GMT
But in the absence of any comment from Moses Squeekster, all we have is our own opinions. Opinion is one thing but to label someone a cheat you need facts not an opinion and Moses has accepted an apology off Hartson so he must think he's not a cheat.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Oct 25, 2014 11:10:10 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident.i Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. Personally, I doubt if Monk will be charged for saying Moses is a cheat, right or wrong it is his opinion. What the FA will be upset about are the words Monk used about the referee. He said, if I remember correctly, that the referee "cheated" Swansea with the Moses penalty decision. That was a poor choice of words. I'm sure Monk didn't mean it to sound like the referee is a cheat or that he is corrupt but the use of the word "cheat" in a sentence about the referee's decision is sailing very close to the wind. I suspect that this is why Hughes pointed to Monk's youth and lack of experience as a manager. Monk thinks that was patronising - if he puts his brain into gear he will see that Hughes has given him the best defence in this matter. If I were Monk I would apologise to the ref for using the word cheat and tell the FA that he said it in the heat of the moment and never meant it to imply that the ref himself was a cheat. Whether Monk is as intelligent and foresighted as myself and Mark Hughes remains to be seen. I think it was Leslie's intention to patronize the youngster Monk, knowing it would and did annoy him.Well done Mark!
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 25, 2014 11:32:14 GMT
Morning Cuckoo, I see you are agreeing with me as usual. IF Monk thinks Moses dived, and still thinks he did and in his mind believes that one incident is cheating, then in a democracy he surely has a right to say it. He will now come under huge pressure to withdraw his remarks from a number of sources, if he realises he made a mistake he should withdraw them, if he believes what he said was true then in my view he has to stand by them. As far as I know he is only referring to this one incident. Hartson and Monk have unwittingly done a disservice to the whole issue of diving by deflecting the arguments onto themselves and in effect they are now on trial, rather than the issue of gamesmanship. Your rambling response required brevity, e.g. I can't explain in a coherent way. This poster is an attention seeker. he obviously gets off on being obtuse under the disguise of (pseudo-)reasonable statements which very rarely stand up to any real scrutiny. Still as this is a forum at least he stimulates an argument and is not an aggressive troll......... no matter how disingenuous he is in his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 25, 2014 11:54:20 GMT
I think in terms of this particular thread iglugluk, and probably most others for that matter, 99.99% of people would probably disagree with me.
However if my comments could be seen by a wider range of football fans, then that percentage may drop considerably, that should tell you something.
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 25, 2014 12:20:02 GMT
But in the absence of any comment from Moses Squeekster, all we have is our own opinions. Opinion is one thing but to label someone a cheat you need facts not an opinion and Moses has accepted an apology off Hartson so he must think he's not a cheat. He did dive and he did cheat just like loads of others every week. I blame the authorities and commentators for peddling this 'he had the right to go down' bollocks. I can't be doing with cheating no matter who they play for, even us.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 25, 2014 12:42:47 GMT
I think in terms of this particular thread iglugluk, and probably most others for that matter, 99.99% of people would probably disagree with me. However if my comments could be seen by a wider range of football fans, then that percentage may drop considerably, that should tell you something. Absolutely correct Geoff ( except for the spurious 99.99% figure which is just hyperbole ), that would be because this is a Stoke City supporters forum ,not a football fanzine. Your comments do provoke interesting debate, however, so keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 25, 2014 12:43:51 GMT
Opinion is one thing but to label someone a cheat you need facts not an opinion and Moses has accepted an apology off Hartson so he must think he's not a cheat. He did dive and he did cheat just like loads of others every week. I blame the authorities and commentators for peddling this 'he had the right to go down' bollocks. I can't be doing with cheating no matter who they play for, even us. His shirt was tugged by Rangel as he went past him,was it enough to knock him over who knows but a tug is a tug!
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Oct 26, 2014 10:40:31 GMT
He did dive and he did cheat just like loads of others every week. I blame the authorities and commentators for peddling this 'he had the right to go down' bollocks. I can't be doing with cheating no matter who they play for, even us. His shirt was tugged by Rangel as he went past him, was it enough to knock him over who knows but a tug is a tug! I'll help you out Squeeks - no it wasn't
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 26, 2014 10:54:26 GMT
His shirt was tugged by Rangel as he went past him, was it enough to knock him over who knows but a tug is a tug! I'll help you out Squeeks - no it wasn't That's not the point though mate contact was made just like yesterday when we should of had a penalty in my opinion but it's gone now.
|
|