Stuart Linnell.... (11 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 24, 2013

I love how people get upset when Linnell has opinions many don't agree with, at the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, I don't listen to CWR very often, so don't know what's been said, but I'm going to guess Linnell has guests who disagree with him, giving both sides of the argument, that's impartiality, giving both sides. If this isn't the case, and I'm wrong, fair enough, I apologise.

I'd wonder how many people would criticise Linnell if his views on the matter were polarised to the side of ACL, presenting his arguments in the same manner. :thinking about:

As I weren't a member of SBT, nor did I browse the site before I joined, I can't say for sure, but I doubt many people were giving Linnell this much grief when he stuck up for Thorn with such zeal (lets face it, he was an awful manager) on the grounds he weren't backed, because that would mean he's in affect criticising SISU. :thinking about:

rupert_bear · Apr 24, 2013

Someone mentioned BBC Liverpool They have football phone-ins every day and have more than one panelist many ex-players such as Tommy Smith, Graeme Sharpe, Jimmy Case and they are brutal to the point and don't hold back. Linnell can have an opinion but should have someone there to balance things out, this is where CWR fall down in my opinion, too many of the guests are wishy washy

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

SBTaylor says....I'd wonder how many people would criticise Linnell if his views on the matter were polarised to the side of ACL, presenting his arguments in the same manner.

The point in question is.....This is exactly how he is with regards to SISU.....Who's fault is it that 99% of callers are anti-SISU???
I certainly don't mind Linnell putting across a point because SISU cba to say anything to the public, but not when he "Vehemently puts down callers"
PWKH has appeared on the talk in and put across a well balanced point on the Stadium issues. Perhaps Mr. Linnell should force the issue with SISU about getting a Representative on the show!
The biggest failing that comes across to me is Linnell isn't being impartial...quite the opposite in fact.

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
SBTaylor says....I'd wonder how many people would criticise Linnell if his views on the matter were polarised to the side of ACL, presenting his arguments in the same manner.

The point in question is.....This is exactly how he is with regards to SISU.....Who's fault is it that 99% of callers are anti-SISU???
I certainly don't mind Linnell putting across a point because SISU cba to say anything to the public, but not when he "Vehemently puts down callers"
PWKH has appeared on the talk in and put across a well balanced point on the Stadium issues. Perhaps Mr. Linnell should force the issue with SISU about getting a Representative on the show!
The biggest failing that comes across to me is Linnell isn't being impartial...quite the opposite in fact.

No, my point is that people only want to listen to what they want to, in the case of many here, people get all upset when someone is going against the grain of PO, my question is whether he'd face so much hostility if he was just as non-impartial and shot fans as he did but supported SISU, I would guess that people would say Linnell 'tells it how it is' etc. rather than, he's impartial etc. it's that kind of hypocrisy that is riddled in the 'ACL camp'.

I never said Linnell was impartial, I was asking a question, which hasn't been answered yet. The question was does he have guests with views that are 'anti-SISU'? Yes, even the people who phone in, so both views are being aired, it's like a live debate isn't it? Mind you, any schmuck can phone in. But it's still impartial because the BBC haven't got a stance on the matter.

You've just personified what I've just said when you was on about PWKH, he gave his truth, many, like you believe him because it's what you want believe.

psgm1 · Apr 25, 2013

what grinds is how he attacks fans, yets doesn't allow reply! He only allows HIS opinion. if you disagree, he says you are a vocal miority, yet if the same people are on the same side of the argument, then all of a sudden its fine to say its the majority.

Its not the fact he is opinionated, its the arrogance and poor hosting! Its funny that the stations he work for aren't commercially based, yet he is a FREELANCE presenter! He abuses his privileged position IMHO

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 25, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
No, my point is that people only want to listen to what they want to, in the case of many here, people get all upset when someone is going against the grain of PO, my question is whether he'd face so much hostility if he was just as non-impartial and shot fans as he did but supported SISU, I would guess that people would say Linnell 'tells it how it is' etc. rather than, he's impartial etc. it's that kind of hypocrisy that is riddled in the 'ACL camp'.

I never said Linnell was impartial, I was asking a question, which hasn't been answered yet. The question was does he have guests with views that are 'anti-SISU'? Yes, even the people who phone in, so both views are being aired, it's like a live debate isn't it? Mind you, any schmuck can phone in. But it's still impartial because the BBC haven't got a stance on the matter.

You've just personified what I've just said when you was on about PWKH, he gave his truth, many, like you believe him because it's what you want believe.

You make a number of valid points. A lot of the criticism starts from a viewpoint that the BBC is meant to be "impartial". Now, it's absolutely valid to debate how this impartiality should manifest itself through an individual presenter on a sports show - it's not like the BBC news are overtly pushing one political party (please, no more debates about Thatcher's funeral).

However, local radio is also expected (I think) to report on and investigate (albeit, probably in a limited way) local issues.

Our club has owners who have taken us down a division, halved (roughly) our gates, brought regular transfer embargoes, engaged in a very public dispute with the owners of our stadium, put a group company into administration (leaving everyone unsure what was actually in that company) etc etc and yet Stuart seems oddly reluctant to give credence to any views that are critical of them.

In my view, that's why (for some of us) he's losing credibility.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

SBTaylor says... Mind you, any schmuck can phone in. But it's still impartial because the BBC haven't got a stance on the matter.

Is that your opinion of callers then???...to call them Shmucks!!!......The BBC pride themselves in being impartial, so why employ someone like him?
Are they Shmucks because they have a different opinion to you? Or do you put yourself in a higher class of person?
You are a 17 years old kid who hasn't lived yet, but has an opinion that nobody is allowed to question...A little taster...4-5-1. Diamond, call it what you will,
How are CCFC. playing over the last half a dozen games playing this system?
Pressley plays Philliskirk on his own...Totally unproven in a lone Striker role..Why?....Pressley plays Wilson on his own...Totally unproven in a lone Striker role..Why?......The system does not work at CCFC. because we don't have the calibre of player to use it.......Fact!

ajsccfc · Apr 25, 2013

'Any schmuck' means anybody, not 'all of these people are schmucks'

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

ajsccfc said:
'Any schmuck' means anybody, not 'all of these people are schmucks'

What right has this prick got to call people Shmucks?

Colonel Mustard · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
What right has this prick got to call people Shmucks?

As misguided as Taylor might have been in using the term, it was quite mild, not directed at anyone specifically, and did not cover all callers.

This mock outrage to divert the discussion isn't very impressive.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

Colonel Mustard said:
As misguided as Taylor might have been in using the term, it was quite mild, not directed at anyone specifically, and did not cover all callers.

This mock outrage to divert the discussion isn't very impressive.

No mock outrage mate.....The facts are there, SL will "Talk Down" to callers that
have a differing opinion to himself. He has "Cut off" callers saying we've got a bad line, yet I could hear the caller clearly, and I live in South Wales. He has taken the P**s out of callers(James Bond)...Always comes up with "I know whats going on" but can't say what! Giving a valid point of view is great, but Linnell is not there to "Take sides" Which is someting he blatantly does!
Load of bollocks

Sick Boy · Apr 25, 2013

There didn't seem to be all of this criticism when Linnell was saying how great Thorn was?

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

@ Colonel Mustard...

FYI mate, this prick has actually called people on this forum "A shmuck" Not misguided, FACT!
Your "Holier than thou" doesn't wash with me either

ajsccfc · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
What right has this prick got to call people Shmucks?

You quoted my post where I already explain that he isn't doing that. It's a fairly common phrase.

You invalidate your faux-outrage by calling him a prick anyway.

Colonel Mustard · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
FYI mate, this prick has actually called people on this forum "A shmuck" Not misguided, FACT!

You have to listen to yourself from time to time.

Your "Holier than thou" doesn't wash with me either

An unfortunate phrase to aim at an atheist.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

ajsccfc said:
You quoted my post where I already explain that he isn't doing that. It's a fairly common phrase.

You invalidate your faux-outrage by calling him a prick anyway.

Swallowed a dictionary for breakfast?....Why say it's a common phrase?
Possibly would be if you are Jewish, which I'm not. Anyway the only reason you replied was because it was my post. I don't recall you saying anything to him when he called forum members a Shmuck! Oh! it was me he called a Shmuck, that's why!:facepalm:

ajsccfc · Apr 25, 2013

I replied because you make a habit of misreading fairly innocent phrases to cause argument whether intentionally or not, and that invariably leads to pages of misquotes and mindless nonsense.

He called nobody in particular a schmuck in that post (reading comprehension isn't a Jewish trait) and you hit the roof and called him a prick. This place would be a lot more agreeable if people weren't so quick to anger.

If I said 'any idiot can win the lottery' it doesn't mean everyone who wins the lottery is an idiot.

cloughie · Apr 25, 2013

Urban dictionary meaning

smuck

It is a Hebrew Word for the Foreskin that gets chopped off at birth. So when a person that is educated or a Jew calls you a Smuck. He or She is calling you a useless piece of dick

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

@ Cloughie....

Thanks for that input mate, but you don't have to be educated to say it, although you're right in saying it's a derogatory Hebrew word .

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 25, 2013

ajsccfc said:
You quoted my post where I already explain that he isn't doing that. It's a fairly common phrase.

You invalidate your faux-outrage by calling him a prick anyway.

Guess I'm the bad guy when I say schmuck, but you're perfectly off the hook when you call people: fuckers, pricks and cunts. :thinking about:

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
SBTaylor says... Mind you, any schmuck can phone in. But it's still impartial because the BBC haven't got a stance on the matter.

Is that your opinion of callers then???...to call them Shmucks!!!......The BBC pride themselves in being impartial, so why employ someone like him?
Are they Shmucks because they have a different opinion to you? Or do you put yourself in a higher class of person?
You are a 17 years old kid who hasn't lived yet, but has an opinion that nobody is allowed to question...A little taster...4-5-1. Diamond, call it what you will,
How are CCFC. playing over the last half a dozen games playing this system?
Pressley plays Philliskirk on his own...Totally unproven in a lone Striker role..Why?....Pressley plays Wilson on his own...Totally unproven in a lone Striker role..Why?......The system does not work at CCFC. because we don't have the calibre of player to use it.......Fact!

It obviously weren't my opinion on every caller, you ought to know that, but there are schmucks who go phone in, take Dan, take the guy who said we should sign Carew in L1 guy, they are schmucks.

4-5-1/the diamond... That shit formation the best teams teams in the world play? Has any team won the World Cup playing 4-4-2? No. Is 4-4-2 being used less and less every season? Yes. Is it becoming out of date? Yes.

Your resolution to making up for inexperienced players upfront is to play 2 inexperienced strikers? Hmmm, case closed Sherlock.

Here's an actual fact, Leon Clarke who is arguably the best striker in the league is injured. We're we going to miss his goals? Yes, did we? Yes. How would have playing 4-4-2 changed our fortunes? It would have and at best, you're delusional for thinking so.

Definition of Schmuck: foolish or contemptible person - which perfectly describes you hence why I've called it you on few occasions.

I don't see how bringing my age into it has anything to do with the argument, even then, you got my age wrong. If it was on how we acted, I can't see how you surpass 12-14.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
It obviously weren't my opinion on every caller, you ought to know that, but there are schmucks who go phone in, take Dan, take the guy who said we should sign Carew in L1 guy, they are schmucks.

4-5-1/the diamond... That shit formation the best teams teams in the world play? Has any team won the World Cup playing 4-4-2? No. Is 4-4-2 being used less and less every season? Yes. Is it becoming out of date? Yes.

Your resolution to making up for inexperienced players upfront is to play 2 inexperienced strikers? Hmmm, case closed Sherlock.

Here's an actual fact, Leon Clarke who is arguably the best striker in the league is injured. We're we going to miss his goals? Yes, did we? Yes. How would have playing 4-4-2 changed our fortunes? It would have and at best, you're delusional for thinking so.

Definition of Schmuck: foolish or contemptible person - which perfectly describes you hence why I've called it you on few occasions.

I don't see how bringing my age into it has anything to do with the argument, even then, you got my age wrong. If it was on how we acted, I can't see how you surpass 12-14.

Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning one who is stupid or foolish; or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person. The word entered English from Yiddish, where it has similar pejorative meanings, but its original meaning in Yiddish is penis.[1][2] Because of its vulgarity,[3] the word is euphemized as schmoe, which was the source of Al Capp's cartoon strip creature the shmoo.[4] Variants include schmo and shmo.
In Jewish homes, the word was "regarded as so vulgar as to be taboo."[5] Lenny Bruce, a Jewish standup comedian, wrote that the use of the word during his performances in 1962 led to his arrest on the West Coast "by a Yiddish undercover agent who had been placed in the club several nights running to determine if [his] use of Yiddish terms was a cover for profanity."

As for (look to highlighted section of your post)...The answer is YEShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative)#cite_note-6....A little known team back in 66(England played 4-4-2. and WON the WC......Don't tell me they didn't...I was there!
So you think playing unproven young strikers up on their own is right? That's the way to destroy young kids that are just turning Pro. They are not experienced enough to do the job. As for your example of "Winning WC's" and 4-4-2 being out of date, you've got a lot to learn. I've never said don't play Diamond, it's a good formation, but when we haven't got the class of player who is fit atm to do it we shouldn't play it. SP has changed to 4-4-2 only after we've gone behind...Not good enough. Very poor tactically...reminds me a lot of AT.
Bringing your age into it has a lot of bearing on the subject. You think you're the "Font of all knowledge"...Wake up time son... you're not. You're still wet behind the ears, I'm still learning at 60. and believe me, I've done, been, seen, far more than you probably ever will (Within Football Circles) and also life itself. You've got a lot of knowledge to gather in front of you. Learn a bit more before telling an old man how to suck eggs!:thinking about:

theferret · Apr 25, 2013

Things we have learned from this thread:

1. The lunatics, if they haven't taken over already, are poised to hoist the flag of insanity high above Sky Blue Towers any moment now.
2. Sky Blue Kid is a shmuck (or schmuck) depending on preference (mine being with a 'c' because it required the use of more phlegm).
3. More than ever I am committed to life as a Pastafarian and I give myself wholly to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the loving embrace of his noodly appendage.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

"Sir Alf was the first man to advocate the 4-4-2 system and it's been with us for more than 30 years. All the world's best teams use it, with a little more flexibility admittedly, and it was Sir Alf who launched it.

"What I admired most about his England career was that he didn't have the greatest players to work with when he began the World Cup campaign in 1966. He had a few - Bobby Charlton and Bobby Moore were truly great players - but he shaped them all into the finest team in the world.

"You don't get higher than lifting the Jules Rimet Trophy.

"That was the pinnacle of his life and it is now his legacy."

Like I said I don't like young boys telling what is right and what is wrong...Choke on it son!

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

Lol....
And you never swear on the forum do you Torchy?

Mucca Mad Boys · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning one who is stupid or foolish; or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person. The word entered English from Yiddish, where it has similar pejorative meanings, but its original meaning in Yiddish is penis.[1][2] Because of its vulgarity,[3] the word is euphemized as schmoe, which was the source of Al Capp's cartoon strip creature the shmoo.[4] Variants include schmo and shmo.
In Jewish homes, the word was "regarded as so vulgar as to be taboo."[5] Lenny Bruce, a Jewish standup comedian, wrote that the use of the word during his performances in 1962 led to his arrest on the West Coast "by a Yiddish undercover agent who had been placed in the club several nights running to determine if [his] use of Yiddish terms was a cover for profanity."

As for (look to highlighted section of your post)...The answer is YEShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative)#cite_note-6....A little known team back in 66(England played 4-4-2. and WON the WC......Don't tell me they didn't...I was there!
So you think playing unproven young strikers up on their own is right? That's the way to destroy young kids that are just turning Pro. They are not experienced enough to do the job. As for your example of "Winning WC's" and 4-4-2 being out of date, you've got a lot to learn. I've never said don't play Diamond, it's a good formation, but when we haven't got the class of player who is fit atm to do it we shouldn't play it. SP has changed to 4-4-2 only after we've gone behind...Not good enough. Very poor tactically...reminds me a lot of AT.
Bringing your age into it has a lot of bearing on the subject. You think you're the "Font of all knowledge"...Wake up time son... you're not. You're still wet behind the ears, I'm still learning at 60. and believe me, I've done, been, seen, far more than you probably ever will (Within Football Circles) and also life itself. You've got a lot of knowledge to gather in front of you. Learn a bit more before telling an old man how to suck eggs!:thinking about:

Firstly, I don't really know why you've just another definition of the word schmuck, we've established it's meaning, and I already knew it meant penis, and it meant foolish etc.

To your point about young players: 'if you're good enough, you're old enough', Wilson and Philliskirk haven't been destroyed by playing as a lone striker, in fact, how would playing with another inexperienced striker help? Also, I'm not one for accommodating 1 at best, mediocre, at worst shit, player and actually the team plays better at 4-5-1, we have no worthy striker as Leon and Elliott are out, it's not the system that's failed, not by any stretch of the imagination, we've made chances, but haven't took them, even at Walsall (1st half) all I felt was missing was Leon. Now, as we all know, I play rugby, I play prop, and front is the only position where you have to be 18 to play at adults rugby, I made my debut my 1st team debut for Earlsdon, and we were against Kenilworth, who have one of the best scrums in the league, I came on, and played 50 odd minutes, some scrums I got screwed, some I held my own, and I was against semi-pro props, I'm a rookie, I learned from the experience and no doubt I'll be a better player as a result of being in that situation, if I crumbled, then quite clearly, I'm not good enough, it's exactly the same with Wilson etc. they aren't even that young either, they're both 20 and it's now or never, so if they're good enough, they're old enough.

Now, England played 4-1-3-2 in the final of the 1966 WC final, I've spoke to other eye witnesses, and have confirmed this. Given that you said we played the diamond under Shaw (for all his games, not just 1/2 of the Crewe game in the league) I seriously question your memory, which might not working as it once did.

Alf Ramsey pioneered the 4-4-2 system, but in the final didn't play it, and no team yet has won the final of the WC playing 4-4-2, that's a fact, look on the Internet and you'll find it, the closest team was Italy who played 4-4-1-1 and yes, it does make a difference.

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

Couldn't give a fook what you say son, I was there, and after Germany scored their second goal Ramsey went "All in" and pushed a midfielder up to play 4-3-3 which eventually if my memory serves me correctly we went on to win ...what was the score again, keep getting flash backs, err, um, oh 4-2.
PS....what makes your copy and paste, better than mine???.....which part of Wembley were you in??? Oh sorry, the only thing you were in was your grandad's ball bag!!!:wave:

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

They think it's all over.....It is now:wave::wave::wave::wave:

Otis · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
Couldn't give a fook what you say son, I was there, and after Germany scored their second goal Ramsey went "All in" and pushed a midfielder up to play 4-3-3 which eventually if my memory serves me correctly we went on to win ...what was the score again, keep getting flash backs, err, um, oh 4-2.
PS....what makes your copy and paste, better than mine???.....which part of Wembley were you in??? Oh sorry, the only thing you were in was your grandad's ball bag!!!:wave:

I accept you were there, but in the spirit of the thread, was Stuart Linnell there?

Someone is on the wrong thread . .
and I don't believe it is me.

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

SBTaylor says.....To your point about young players: 'if you're good enough, you're old enough', Wilson and Philliskirk haven't been destroyed by playing as a lone striker, in fact, how would playing with another inexperienced striker help? Also, I'm not one for accommodating 1 at best, mediocre, at worst shit, player and actually the team plays better at 4-5-1, we have no worthy striker as Leon and Elliott are out,

I agree if you're good enough, you're old enough...Why was Wilson brought off against Brentford and Bell on after 64 mins then?
Why was Philliskirk brought off against Orient and McDonald on after 70 mins?
SP left both of these youngsters on their own for 64, and 70 mins respectively. what purpose did that serve?...Nothing.
Except that we saw them get "Imho" hustled off the ball on many ocassions by experienced defenders. If you think differently, then in your own words...You're a Shmuck!
SP is about as "Tactically Aware" as Thorn was...
Finally Read all that I've written son...I said Diamond is a very good formation, when you have the players competent enough to play it. Atm we don't, and haven't since Leon Clarke had to have his operation.
As an afterthought, why did SP play 4-4-2 after taking the kids off in those two games? Could it have been he "Royally Fooked up" playing them on their own and tried to make up for it by trying to get a draw out of those games?

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2013

Otis said:
I accept you were there, but in the spirit of the thread, was Stuart Linnell there?

Someone is on the wrong thread . .
and I don't believe it is me.

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

To be honest Otis It wasn't me who changed the thread.

Sent from my Computer using my fingers...10 of 'em

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Apr 25, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
To be honest Otis It wasn't me who changed the thread.

Sent from my Computer using my fingers...10 of 'em

Click to expand...

Do hope you are including your thumbs in that number

Nonleagueherewecome · Apr 25, 2013

Back on topic: Linnell's a right knob, isn't he?

Otis · Apr 25, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
Back on topic: Linnell's a right knob, isn't he?

Right knob or left knob? Or knob in a 4-5-1 formation sitting just in front of the back four?

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

Nonleagueherewecome · Apr 25, 2013

Back four?

Stuart Linnell.... (11 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency