Pickford


Status
Not open for further replies.
I cant believe what I'm reading from some on here, the boy had a great game and that shirt is his now.
His kicking ability is probable the best from a goalkeeper in the PL.
 
Why because you know nothing about goalkeeping and are talking a pile of rubbish, you have changed your tune as this thread has gone one and I don't think for one moment he was "poor" in the first half.

I am pretty sure this is just to get people to bite.

He was poor first 50 minutes. I posted that whilst watching him for 50 minutes and I have not in this thread backtracked on that view. Not once. So what the fuck are you talking about?

Last 40 he played well.

So what would you make of that....? I reckon you would make exactly what I made of it. A 'decent' debut in difficult circumstances. Did he do anything to suggest he was 'special' or an 'outstanding prospect'. Absolutely not.

So what exactly is wrong with this post? Where exactly have I confused you?

I cant believe what I'm reading from some on here, the boy had a great game and that shirt is his now.
His kicking ability is probable the best from a goalkeeper in the PL.

I thought his kicking was excellent. However it would be foolish to say he was 'great' today and that he is suitable to walk into our #1 shirt.
 
Err...I suggest you actually think before posting.

He has to prove he is a great prospect. He is not a great prospect by default, until people offer evidence that he is rubbish. It doesn't work that way.

Today he did not prove he was a great prospect (note that this is not the same as saying he is rubbish). That is a correct assessment unless you would like to offer evidence that he did prove he was.

Glad to help you with your English comprehension you f***ing idiot




I'm pretty sure nobody has said anything that would oppose this view...what is your problem?
By saying he's not a great prospect means you don't think he's a great prospect. It seems pretty simple to me.

I give up, I hope for your sake you're pissed.
 
Yes you did. You claimed I 'pulled him apart then backtracked'. No I did not do either.

I didn't.

Well what has he done to show he is outstanding in that one game. Surely it's not up to me to disprove he is outstanding....that kind of lark has to be proved and yes...tough game, poor defence, can't blame him for the goals, but he was not 'outstanding'.

It isn't knocking him or factually wrong to say that so what is your problem?

He's done nothing to show he's outstanding in that game. It's the absurd way you're expecting him to be outstanding in that game and inability to be anything but criticial measuring him against Given whilst not giving Pickford the same opportunity to impress and then measuring him against Sorensen and ignoring he was anything but outstanding originally.

Can you be at least fair on Pickford and measure his debut against Given's and Sorensen's?

And it is you who is knocking him. You're judging him against some people somewhere saying he's an outstanding prospect and expecting him to be outstanding in one game. You're measuring this against some ideal of two players you have, skewed by a whole career behind them, not one game. You have absolutely lot the plot on this one.
 
Sunday, 21st January 1996 in a 0-0 draw at Leicester City, That was Givens first game for us, Can you remind me about how Given did in that game, did he have a shaky start? Did he punch any he should have caught?

Fact is you spoke to soon, against a very good team and behind a very poor defence I thought the lad showed enough to give me hope we might have a canny keeper on our hands, if we dont break him. Ohh and his passing was way better than our others keepers and some of our outfield players.


Well done you for googling shit... sadly you just expose yourself as knowing nowt and not being there.

Most of us saw him...or didn't because it was a fuckin pea souper, at Roker Park a few days after this on his home debut when we beat Grimsby 1-0....although that could still be a lie because I never saw the goal, but I remember this kid standing up when the opposition striker was through on goal and he stood up long and moved forward and was commanding and decisive and we all spoke about him...saying...'who's this kid'. He was excellent that night and went on being so; but you try googling any of that shyte.

Nah forget it. Clown.
 
Last edited:
Well done you for googling shit... sadly you just expose yourself as knowing nowt and not being there.

Most of us saw him...or didn't because it was a fuckin pea souper, at Roker Park a few days after this on his home debut when we beat Grimsby 1-0....although that could still be a lie because I never saw it, but I remember this kid standing up when the opposition striker was through on goal and he stood up long and moved forward and was commanding and decisive and we all spoke about him...saying...'who's this kid'. He was excellent that night and went on being so; but you try googling any of that shyte.

Nah forget it. Clown.

Why talk about his second game? His first game was televised. Most of us will have seen it regardless.

First game is everything - your rules.
 
By saying he's not a great prospect means you don't think he's a great prospect. It seems pretty simple to me.

I give up, I hope for your sake you're pissed.

He cannot be a great prospect until he proves he is a great prospect. It is a de facto position he isn't one.

Sorry if you have had to type out my words and still not realise that. To be a great prospect, he has to do great things.

Today he did not. Therefore it seems perfectly obvious. did I miss something here....are you claiming that players are 'great prospects' simply because people say so...because ther was no evidence of 'greatness' today. Unless you would like to offer some?

This does not mean I think he is rubbush. Just not great. Prove that wrong right now will you?
 
He cannot be a great prospect until he proves he is a great prospect. It is a de facto position he isn't one.

Sorry if you have had to type out my words and still not realise that. To be a great prospect, he has to do great things.

Today he did not. Therefore it seems perfectly obvious. did I miss something here....are you claiming that players are 'great prospects' simply because people say so...because ther was no evidence of 'greatness' today. Unless you would like to offer some?

This does not mean I think he is rubbush. Just not great. Prove that wrong right now will you?

But you're judging he cannot be a great prospect in one game, one game where he wouldn't get the same opportunities to show he was a great prospect in the way two keepers you are measuring him against wouldn't have or didn't either, in their first game.

How much did Shay Given catch throughout his career btw??
 
Why talk about his second game? His first game was televised. Most of us will have seen it regardless.

First game is everything - your rules.

Well now you are a clown, because I have very clearly said throughout this thread and never deviated from it that I thought he had a decent game. No more.

He had a poor first 50 mins. Happy to put that down to nerves. Playing behind a poor defence. The goals were not his fault but that aside, he was poor first 50. Last 40 mins he was good. Overall, a decent debut in difficult circumstances. Happy to give him more games. Seems 'decent', did nowt today to justify the 'amazing' hype. A perfectly acceptable assessment.

If you had f***ing bothered to read the thread then I wouldn't be having to repeat this for the fourth time.
 
But you're judging he cannot be a great prospect in one game, one game where he wouldn't get the same opportunities to show he was a great prospect in the way two keepers you are measuring him against wouldn't have or didn't either, in their first game.

How much did Shay Given catch throughout his career btw??

Quite right.

The onus is not on me to disprove his 'great prospectness....' Silly idea. He has to prove he can and will be great. He did nothing to prove that or suggest that today.

This does not mean he can't be great in the future or that he might not show it in coming games....just that he didn't show it today. And therefore its a perfectly acceptable assessment to say he didn't look a 'great prospect' today.


There is nothing wrong, erroneous or outrageous about that statement. Claiming there is...is far more ludicrous.

I bet he's devastated the OP doesn't rate him.

You need to read the thread... You've been stupid on page one.
 
Well now you are a clown, because I have very clearly said throughout this thread and never deviated from it that I thought he had a decent game. No more.

:D :D

Are we in different time zones or something and it's distorting what I typed? WTF is that all about?

He had a poor first 50 mins. Happy to put that down to nerves. Playing behind a poor defence. The goals were not his fault but that aside, he was poor first 50. Last 40 mins he was good. Overall, a decent debut in difficult circumstances. Happy to give him more games. Seems 'decent', did nowt today to justify the 'amazing' hype. A perfectly acceptable assessment.

Yadayadayada - you're just trying to justify the negative bollocks you've typed over the last God knows how many pages. I can't see anyone saying he was amazing - only you using it as a starting point to be critical from.

If you had f***ing bothered to read the thread then I wouldn't be having to repeat this for the fourth time.

Listen to yourself man. Twisting and turning, chucking abuse about and getting all hett up :D

I understand perfectly well what you've done. You chucked some instant judgements in and a bit of negativity and have been pulled up on it. You then set your barometers massively high and don't accept reason to try and make your total bullshit bollocks and f***ing stupid standpoint seem reasonable. Then anyone who questions you apparently hasn't read or understood what you've typed (despite you being the one making claims about the likes of me posting things I haven't). :D
 
Quite right.

The onus is not on me to disprove his 'great prospectness....' Silly idea. He has to prove he can and will be great. He did nothing to prove that or suggest that today.

This does not mean he can't be great in the future or that he might not show it in coming games....just that he didn't show it today. And therefore its a perfectly acceptable assessment to say he didn't look a 'great prospect' today.


There is nothing wrong, erroneous or outrageous about that statement. Claiming there is...is far more ludicrous.



You need to read the thread... You've been stupid on page one.
Eh.
 
He cannot be a great prospect until he proves he is a great prospect. It is a de facto position he isn't one.

Sorry if you have had to type out my words and still not realise that. To be a great prospect, he has to do great things.

Today he did not. Therefore it seems perfectly obvious. did I miss something here....are you claiming that players are 'great prospects' simply because people say so...because ther was no evidence of 'greatness' today. Unless you would like to offer some?

This does not mean I think he is rubbush. Just not great. Prove that wrong right now will you?
So no young players can ever be called a great prospect on that basis, if that's your reasoning for him not being a great prospect then fair enough.
 
I didn't.



He's done nothing to show he's outstanding in that game. It's the absurd way you're expecting him to be outstanding in that game and inability to be anything but criticial measuring him against Given whilst not giving Pickford the same opportunity to impress and then measuring him against Sorensen and ignoring he was anything but outstanding originally.

Can you be at least fair on Pickford and measure his debut against Given's and Sorensen's?

And it is you who is knocking him. You're judging him against some people somewhere saying he's an outstanding prospect and expecting him to be outstanding in one game. You're measuring this against some ideal of two players you have, skewed by a whole career behind them, not one game. You have absolutely lot the plot on this one.

I quoted you...so you must have said it???

It is a perfectly standard way to go about life to assume nobody is 'outstanding' until they do something 'outstanding'. He didn't do anything 'outstanding' today therefore it is perfectly acceptable to say I don't subscribe to the view he is 'outstanding' yet. In fact his first 50 was poor. He was good after that, but nothing 'outstanding'.

There is nothing wrong with that view. In fact it is absurd to say there is.
 
This does not mean he can't be great in the future or that he might not show it in coming games....just that he didn't show it today. And therefore its a perfectly acceptable assessment to say he didn't look a 'great prospect' today.


There is nothing wrong, erroneous or outrageous about that statement. Claiming there is...is far more ludicrous.

So why all the bullshit in between if this is your standpoint all along?

The only reason I can see for the rest of the bollocks is trying to justify your original judgement, because people jumped on it. I quite agree with what I've quoted from you above.

The rest of your comparisons and comments have been silly, plain silly.

I quoted you...so you must have said it???

You didn't quote what you suggested I'd said. No.
 
:D :D

Are we in different time zones or something and it's distorting what I typed? WTF is that all about?



Yadayadayada - you're just trying to justify the negative bollocks you've typed over the last God knows how many pages. I can't see anyone saying he was amazing - only you using it as a starting point to be critical from.



Listen to yourself man. Twisting and turning, chucking abuse about and getting all hett up :D

I understand perfectly well what you've done. You chucked some instant judgements in and a bit of negativity and have been pulled up on it. You then set your barometers massively high and don't accept reason to try and make your total bullshit bollocks and f***ing stupid standpoint seem reasonable. Then anyone who questions you apparently hasn't read or understood what you've typed (despite you being the one making claims about the likes of me posting things I haven't). :D


Well let me put it plainly like I did in the thread all the way through. Amazing that you cannot read this without me typing it again.

He had a poor first 50mins. He parried too much, was beaten easily twice and had to have it cleared off the line by defenders when it shouldn't have happened. No doubt he was poor. Not terrible, tragic or bad, but poor...first 50 mins. Never deviated from that statement. It's provable so. This does not mean I think he's shyte. It's perfectly possible to say someone starts a match poorly and finishes well. This does not equal me saying he is shit. Why some idiots want to make this the case is odd. In fact as the match went on, I said he had a good last 40 mins. Given those two periods, I think I ended the game in the same position as everyone else. He had a decent match. Was he 'outstanding'. No, certainly not. Was he terrible, no. The people like you come on and read a first 50 minute post and pile in saying 'ohh god you've written him off...new low' when I've done no such thing.

I don't believe I have deviated from this view in the entirety of this thread. Just because you tried to have a go at me claiming I think he's shit when I have not claimed that. You judged me far more that I have judged Pickford. So now I have explained exactly what I have said all through this thread you might be able to stop making fantasy battles up in your head about what I might have said or planned as oppose to what I have actually said.

So why all the bullshit in between if this is your standpoint all along?

The only reason I can see for the rest of the bollocks is trying to justify your original judgement, because people jumped on it. I quite agree with what I've quoted from you above.

The rest of your comparisons and comments have been silly, plain silly.



You didn't quote what you suggested I'd said. No.

You think its bollocks he had a decent game? Because that has been my opinion all the way through.

Yes, I am irritated that people read a post at 50 minutes and thought that I had written him off, when even if that was a full time post...which it wasn't I still hadn't written him off.

It is annoying that people like you have assumed what is not written and ignored what is written. I stand by my 50 minute post. He had been poor up to that point. He made his first real save just after that. If you read the thread I note that also... and it was a good save. Then he went on to have a decent last 40 mins.

None of this is outrageous. observing that he was poor first 50 does not equal me 'qriting him off' nor does it mean I think he's shit.

It is extremely annoying that there are plenty enough fools who believe what they want to instead of what is said.
 
Last edited:
Well let me put it plainly like I did in the thread all the way through. Amazing that you cannot read this without me typing it again.

He had a poor first 50mins. He parried too much, was beaten easily twice and had to have it cleared off the line by defenders when it shouldn't have happened. No doubt he was poor. Not terrible, tragic or bad, but poor...first 50 mins. Never deviated from that statement. It's provable so. This does not mean I think he's shyte. It's perfectly possible to say someone starts a match poorly and finishes well. This does not equal me saying he is shit. Why some idiots want to make this the case is odd. In fact as the match went on, I said he had a good last 40 mins. Given those two periods, I think I ended the game in the same position as everyone else. He had a decent match. Was he 'outstanding'. No, certainly not. Was he terrible, no. The people like you come on and read a first 50 minute post and pile in saying 'ohh god you've written him off...new low' when I've done no such thing.

I don't believe I have deviated from this view in the entirety of this thread. Just because you tried to have a go at me claiming I think he's shit when I have not claimed that. You judged me far more that I have judged Pickford. So now I have explained exactly what I have said all through this thread you might be able to stop making fantasy battles up in your head about what I might have said or planned as oppose to what I have actually said.



You think its bollocks he had a decent game? Because that has been my opinion all the way through.

Yes, I am irritated that people read a post at 50 minutes and thought that I had written him off, when even if that was a full time post...which it wasn't I still hadn't written him off.

It is annoying that people like you have assumed what is not written and ignored what is written. I stand by my 50 minute post. He had been poor up to that point. He made his first real save just after that. If you read the thread I note that also... and it was a good save. Then he went on to have a decent last 40 mins.

None of this is outrageous. observing that he was poor first 50 does not equal me 'qriting him off' nor does it mean I think he's shit.

It is extremely annoying that there are plenty enough fools who believe what they want to instead of what is said.

Beaten easily twice ? Harsh that. Not sure any keeper would have got to those goals. Very good finishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top