Isegrim

The point is whether or not the comments were racist. Well IMHO calling someone a Negro out of anger is racist. It is a comment meant to hurt. It's not nigger, though, which has definite negative connotation. It'd be the difference between Pakistani and Paki, I guess. So where is Negro then. I know calling someone a Pakistani is saying where they come from. How does that equate to Negro? Negro essentially means the same as black. It's in no way derogatory. Paki means someone from pakistan so I am assuming you dont think that is racist either? Negro is neither Turkish nor English for black so why use it. It was a stattement based on someones race intended to cause emotional distress. Your argument is flawed because Paki is a derogatory term for Pakistani, whereas Negro and Black are interchangable. I wasn't even referring to a different language; Negro is a term used interchangably with Black in the English language. So you really think, Emre just wanted to be as polite as possible and had no intention of winding someone up by using foul language?

Not for the sake of it, but certainly there have been a number of poor aquisitions, and it doesn't seem to have improved the squad any, despite greater depth. Well, we'll have to judge how someone like Roeder is doing in the transfer market when he signs the same amount of players. I think there will always be some players who turn out to be rubbish. That happens at every club, be it Manchester, Arsenal, Spurs or us... Them having not improved their squad is questionable tbh. Anyway, the new, trendy spursbashing is really getting boring tbstbs. SPUDS R RILLY SHIET!11!! LOL

Exactly. Amazing that those calling for Chopra to have been given a chance, are mainly those who think Luque should fuck off Not me; I'd love Luque to fuck off though Well, I'm just stating that I wonder how Chopra would have done if he had been given the same chances as Ameobi. And I don't necessarily consider Chopra as a player of Premierleague standard... As for Luque, I think you can have somewhat different expectations from a Spanish ex-international who is picking up enormous wages every week.

Eh? His current contract is still running until 2010 and he is already on alleged 60k a week. He hasn't really earned a pay raise on these enormous wages, has he?

Banning would do the same tbh...

So they'll be looking for an expert chicken-choker from the Suffolk area. Any names spring to mind? Let the swan eating asylum-seekers deal with the problem...

Solano the start of a move that lead to a goal. Wow, there is a wonder...

F***ing hell, what is Solano doing on the bench?

Hay guys, what is going on in this thead?

Anton Ferdinand as well. I guess we'll be in for him if West Ham go down... What part of mentioning Ferdinand didn't you understand?

I think that is what most people are thinking. Nobody was expecting or wanting Roeder to make second rate permanent signings for the sake of it. But it really was about bringing bodies in short term to be prepared for a worst worst cast scenario. Its failing to learn the numbers lesson from the summer thats bothering me - as it stands we could lose 4 or 5 players in June which means we'll need 8 or 9 in in my view - integrating that many is hard so 1 or 2 now would have lessened the load. I fear this problem is "eased" by handing the likes of Bramble, Moore and Sibierski new contracts... Isn't that what people want, though? Bodies? Can't have it both ways. What, bodies and football ability are exclusive? Never knew that, but thanks for the explanation. This is the whole point. people are saying 'I don't care if we sign people who aren't great, we just need bodies!' Then people are lamenting the notion of having players they don't rate stay longer. Who are those people? I don't know them. I know a couple of people thinking a stop gap solution until the next summer like signing Hasselbaink during last summer, or Cole in the winter would have been a decent choice as those players would really added bodies and a certain quality to the team. I don't know people advocating having players for the sake of it, name me one please. The likes of Moore and Bramble were never rated anyway (except by some dozy Australian kangaroo shaggers). So even if we added bodies to the team, players should be above their ability. Or at least I would excuse the shortcomings from youngsters from the reserves, but not if it is someone picking up good wages

It was something I have always said. What if Chopra had got the same amount of chances as Shola Ameobi? I am not particularly rating Chopra, especially from the international games I saw he was always miles behind Ashton. But there he was always used as a right winger. Chopra seems to have an eye for the goal, and I think he still might develop into a decent player for a team that plays to his strengths.

I think that is what most people are thinking. Nobody was expecting or wanting Roeder to make second rate permanent signings for the sake of it. But it really was about bringing bodies in short term to be prepared for a worst worst cast scenario. Its failing to learn the numbers lesson from the summer thats bothering me - as it stands we could lose 4 or 5 players in June which means we'll need 8 or 9 in in my view - integrating that many is hard so 1 or 2 now would have lessened the load. I fear this problem is "eased" by handing the likes of Bramble, Moore and Sibierski new contracts... Isn't that what people want, though? Bodies? Can't have it both ways. What, bodies and football ability are exclusive? Never knew that, but thanks for the explanation.

Would be nice if he actually started to use his pace this way... I miss TOPTOOL in those sort of threads...

I think that is what most people are thinking. Nobody was expecting or wanting Roeder to make second rate permanent signings for the sake of it. But it really was about bringing bodies in short term to be prepared for a worst worst cast scenario. Its failing to learn the numbers lesson from the summer thats bothering me - as it stands we could lose 4 or 5 players in June which means we'll need 8 or 9 in in my view - integrating that many is hard so 1 or 2 now would have lessened the load. I fear this problem is "eased" by handing the likes of Bramble, Moore and Sibierski new contracts...

I think that is what most people are thinking. Nobody was expecting or wanting Roeder to make second rate permanent signings for the sake of it. But it really was about bringing bodies in short term to be prepared for a worst worst cast scenario.

Utter rubbish in my opinion. I've seen managers changing the style of play within weeks even though with limited players or players with limited talent. Roeder has had 12 months including a whole pre-season. Except of the very young defenders coming in most players who started are either internationals or wannabe-internationals or still players of a higher calibre. I can expect those players to understand and realise instructions given to them from the managing staff. And regarding our awful build up of the game from the back it was significant that actually it were the likes of Huntingdon and Edgar who were rather looking for doing the right pass than just hoofing the ball up front. Latter is something I easily expect to get restricted, but it isn't. You are correct, Roeder has had a full pre-season and has been in the job 12 months now but the one consistent theme of his tenure from day one has been, through no fault of his own, an inability to pick his best team week in week out, much less work with them on the training pitch. If you expect him, on top of every other thing he has to do in his role as manager, to put his energy and efforts into making a group of players who he would have mostly regarded as back-up or players he'd like to replace with the majority of players or players not ready (academy players), into a team that plays good controled football, I'd say you're not only being unrealistic, but unfair also. His first priority is results, not performances. Like I said, lets wait and see what manifests out on the pitch when he gets to work with his best team on the training pitch on a consistent basis, I'm positive when that happens, we'll see a team that plays better football. In the meantime I'll take 3 points thank you and to hell with performances. Yes, and I regard many results as lucky or if you want it the other way round, some of our non-results simply down to our performances. We were very fortunate to beat the likes of Tottenham away, drawing ManU, even the game against Villa was fortunate. But we dropped the points against teams like Sheffield, Fulham, Bolton etc. because of our poor performances. As I said I am happy about the results, but are not very optimistic in Roeder really being able to give a team any sort of shape. He hasn't been able to accommodate the likes of Parker and Emre for example - and there were plenty of opportunities. He hasn't been stopping the likes of Given and Bramble bumping the balls straight to the opposition etc. That's all things who have nothing to do with injuries or other exterior circumstances. In my eyes they are down to a lack of managerial ability. Maybe I am unfair, I like to get proven wrong in case he is really to get the best out of what he considers his best team (also I think it's unlikely that a manager will ever have this privilege).

Utter rubbish in my opinion. I've seen managers changing the style of play within weeks even though with limited players or players with limited talent. Roeder has had 12 months including a whole pre-season. Except of the very young defenders coming in most players who started are either internationals or wannabe-internationals or still players of a higher calibre. I can expect those players to understand and realise instructions given to them from the managing staff. And regarding our awful build up of the game from the back it was significant that actually it were the likes of Huntingdon and Edgar who were rather looking for doing the right pass than just hoofing the ball up front. Latter is something I easily expect to get restricted, but it isn't.

I do agree, but I don't see even hints in Roeder really addressing the style of play, and that's what is worrying me. We've seen some work done at the back under Pearson, but even that isn't really convincing me so far as positioning is still a major cause of trouble for the likes of Taylor et al. Even glimpses of progress would do for me...

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th. Can I clarify this? Are you seriously drawing a comparison with Roeder and one of the greats of British football management? No. I'm saying even one of the greats of British football management couldn't have broken our squad (with all it's troubles) into the top 5 at this point of the season. Given that Roeder is an average manager at best, his performance has been excellent. I'm not saying that another manager would have got many more points. We probably would have won a couple of games without just resorting to luck though.

I think the risk of jinxing it is rather when people are saying he will have a great second half of the season...

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th. And that does mean? That does mean that you expect too much too soon from an anhialated squad where you can barely name 5 core players from the season. Don't agree at all. Even considering our injuries and the annihilated squad Roeder took over, we have enough players in the squad who should be able to play a decent football. But our team isn't really working together and can hardly assemble a string of successful passes. The off the ball movement from a lot of players is shocking. And we still have the likes of Given and Bramble just cluelessly bumping the ball forward as if they were really playing in the times of Shankly. Yes, I do expect a manager addressing this rubbish immediately.

If Bill Shankly himself had come in when Roeder did, I reckon we'd be about 7th. And that does mean?

I reckon he has done a decent job so far when you look at the results. What worries me is that he hasn't been able to give the football we play any shape or character so far. Our football looks tot casual, too clumsy for my liking. And I don't think you can blame it on the injuries. The performances have often been poor, the team is rarely creating things from open play and in too many games we have been riding our luck to get the results. So far I am not too impressed overall by his input tbh.

"Freddy, what is about the deal for a striker we were talking about?" "Not now Glenn, Kenny is still doing his Excel-sheet about the Premiership injury history. I guess you will be pleasantly surprised about the outcome."