SafHossain03;2520372 said:
I feel as though I have to defend myself, which I shouldnt have to do in a democratic society [saw how well that went, didn't we pede?
].
I'll admit I've not articulated my opinion in a way in which people might agree with me,
but understand as a Liverpool fan I don't want to admit giving rivals credit [see: Drogba saying he doesn't dive]. It's just banter [see: pede calling me a bin-dipper, on the dole etc.; crosses over into insult category], as was my comment about the Portuguese: I'm English and they knocked us out thrice.
I'm sure you're all going to find something to *discuss* about how clueless I am. Because that's exactly what you're doing, ganging up on me and claiming I know very little. Yeah, they are my views, and I should be allowed to express them without them being dismissed as me not knowing anything. That's all I'm gonna say. Maybe I'll stick to the kits thread. *Probably* wont be attacked there.
That's your problem right there. What makes you think that just because you have genuine hatred for somebody, you can discard their achievements and have people agree with it. That's straight-up textbook bias. Biased opinions are uninformed, ignorant and incorrect. Hence they don't go down too well with members in here, and i'm sure in any other place. That's like saying George Bush is a great president and then get mad because majority of people refute that comment. You want us to agree with you, then take off your rose-coloured glasses and say how it really is, i'm sure you can do it.
Nobody tells you to **** off and go away somewhere, people want you to say what's true and unbiased, not biased opinions. Do you think, if i came out and said Messi is a young, immature player that ball hogs all the time and doesn't nothing for the team, nobody would gang up on me? I'd probably have the whole forum on my ass for weeks, because it would be an unsupported comment that lacks much truth. And if i was hating Barcelona (i don't but hypothetically speaking), that wouldn't be an excuse to make such a comment.
Now, just for you, i will tell you what was wrong with all those comments.
Manchester United is much more well-rounded than Chelsea this season and i'm pretty sure that absolutely everybody sees that. If they both played their starting 11s then they would be pretty even most likely (Chelsea winning in some areas and United in others), but looking at the subs bench, Chelsea's doesn't compare. As a Liverpool you hate United, but that doesn't mean that when something is true you should chose to ignore it.
If we take away Gerrard and Torres, then Liverpool will have Reina, Skrtel, Carragher, Aurelio, Arbeloa, Babel, Kuijt, Alonso, Mascherano, Benayon, Crouch. Liverpool fan or not, that's miles above James, Johnson, Campbell, Distin, Hreirdasson, Krancjar, Diarra, Bouba Diop, Mvuemba, Baros, Defoe. The Liverpool players have world class experience, whereas Porstmouth players are just your average EPL players.
Now the point about Ronaldo carrying United. Sure, he scored 30 goals for us in the league out of 78. That's not even half and how many of those did he help defend to conceed only 22 goals in 38 games (lower than any other team)? You have just discredited all the hard work that VDS, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra and Brown have put in to be the best defense in the league for somebody that stuck around the half-way line the whole season? Ronaldo's contribution is phenomenal no doubt, but its a team game and had we had a shaky defense, all the 30 goals he scored wouldn't really mean that much. And what makes you think that just because Ronaldo scored 30 goals, if he wasn't playing, then nobody else would have scored them? Just like with your Torres and Gerrard example. Just because you put Ronaldo on the bench, doesn't mean that United would play with 10 men. Whoever would be instead of him, maybe wouldn't score as many, but there would be somebody else to make up for those goals, maybe more maybe less who knows. But from your opinion i understand that had Ronaldo not been playing this whole season, then United would only score 48 goals? There are other sources for goals you know.
As for you being a competent manager for Chelsea job, i take that that comment was actually aimed at saying that Grant barely did anything for Chelsea, right? If not, then pardon me. Otherwise, Mourinho had a better team last year in my opinion and he still couldn't manage to get into the CL. Sure it made it much easier for Grant to have all those players at his disposal, but manager's job is far from just being able to bring in good players. Infact that's a peripheral part of management i would say. Chelsea were in turmoil when Mourinho left and now look where they are. Ofcoarse its not all down to Grant himself, but don't discredit him either, after the season Chelsea has been through.