Carling Cup Semi-Finals

[Xg Corkin]

LMAO at Arsenal, they were well and truly thrashed by Spurs tonight and Spurs fully deserve to be in the final. 5 - 1 the final score. :)

Everton vs Chelsea tomorrow night.

.............Waits on Leigh to enter the thread :)

[Liam]

Did Arsenal play a weaker side? :|

[Xg Corkin]

Yes but Gallas, Sagna, Fabregas were all on in the first half and Abebayor and Eduardo came on in the second half. Arsene Wenger actually thought they had a chance of winning it :D

[Gaskin]

Tottenham played well for once, I was impressed. Wish Arsenal had played a full lineup from the start, would have been such a good game. Tottenham playing well vs Arsenal playing well would show some of the best football in england.

LMAO at Man Utd. Man Utd 0 - 2 Coventry. GG

[Xg Corkin]

LMAO at Man Utd. Man Utd 0 - 2 Coventry. GG

We didn't expect to win it but Arsene Wenger actually thought they had a chance then they get beaten 5 - 1 LMAO. Fabregas came on and played wank ;)

[Gaskin]

They did have a chance, what do you mean you didn't expect to win. Of course you did you idiot. Hi we're Man Utd we expect to lose to **** sides like Coventry. Absoloute tripe.

Arsenal's team was good enough to beat any team, they didn't perform tonight, and were out played. Tottenham deserved the win, and like I said I wish they'd play like that week in and out and then you'd see some decent London Derby's like we used to.

[Xg Corkin]

They did have a chance, what do you mean you didn't expect to win. Of course you did you idiot. Hi we're Man Utd we expect to lose to **** sides like Coventry. Absoloute tripe.

We played our youngest to give them experience and to win the Cup would be an unexpected bonus. Wenger actually thought that Arsenals youngsters could win it but it just showed today that they aren't good enough.

Arsenal's team was good enough to beat any team, they didn't perform tonight, and were out played. Tottenham deserved the win, and like I said I wish they'd play like that week in and out and then you'd see some decent London Derby's like we used to.

So did they not perform in the first leg either when they were completely outplayed?

[Gaskin]

You played a weaker side, and got shat on by an even weaker side. You didn't go into the game expecting to lose to Coventry, that's ****ing bollocks and you know it is.

Arsenal's youngsters did have the potential to win it, but got out played by a decent premiership side (notice how I used the word premiership, not championship).

The first leg they weren't completely outplayed, otherwise the scoreline would have been something a long the lines of tonights. Arsenal's side was completely rattled and not even the likes of Fabregas or Adebayor could change that. Stop being a Man Utd tosser and being a prick for the sake of it.

[jodahunter]

Corkin, Shut the **** up right now. You are talking out of your arse.

Wenger did think arsenals youngsters could win it, he was nearly right shown by the fact that they got to the semi finals, they did just under perform against an in form tottenham side

Ferguson thought he could use Utd's youngsters to beat a lower league side in the early rounds and then put out stronger sides in the later rounds to compete for the cup, Unfortunately he ****ed up and they were beaten by coventry.

[Xg Corkin]

LMAO Arsenal WERE completely out-played in the first leg but got a flukey goal to steal a draw.

@Joda - Another Arsenal supporter? Don't worry im sure you'll finish second in the league, it's better than nothing :)

[jodahunter]

no i'm not an arsenal supporter at all, i feel nothing for that corporate youth stealing football club.

I just see you talking Utd shite and thought i'd put in my two pence.

[Liam]

*windmills in*

[Gaskin]

If Arsenal got a flukey goal to steal a draw when being out played then Tottenham should have scored more. You're being a **** for the sake of it now.

Carryiano Ronaldo will keep you in the title race don't worry.

[Xg Corkin]

I just see you talking Utd shite and thought i'd put in my two pence.

Am I not allowed to rub it in that Arsenal got beaten by there closest rivals 5 - 1. And Arsenal didn't under perform they were just completely played off the park by a better side ;)

@Gaskin - They had numerous chances and were blantatly the better team but just couldn't finish them off. Anybody who watched the match could see it.

[Spindryer]

Well GG Tottingham, you should go onto win final playing like that (Y).

[jodahunter]

Am I not allowed to rub it in that Arsenal got beaten by there closest rivals 5 - 1. And Arsenal didn't under perform they were just completely played off the park by a better side ;)

No that's fine to rub it in against arsenal, but hold your hands up about utd's failures.

[Gaskin]

They were the better team, that's expected. But they didn't completely out play Arsenal in the first leg, if they had completely out played them in the first leg then it would have been what happened in the second leg.

[Xg Corkin]

They were the better team, that's expected. But they didn't completely out play Arsenal in the first leg, if they had completely out played them in the first leg then it would have been what happened in the second leg.

As I said if they took their chances then the scoreline would of been very similair.

[Liam]

*windmills out*

[Gaskin]

As I said if they took their chances then the scoreline would of been very similair.

Nah man.

If Arsenal had taken their chances they could have got about 5 in the first leg. They had like 9 shots on target or something. Such a stupid comment to make, makes me laugh when people say it.

[Enraged Wang 07]

I'm sure Rooney, Giggs, Ferdinand, Vidic and Saha were all playing in that coventry loss?

There is absolutely no way that Manchester United can say they weren't expecting to beat Coventry?

The only reason Wenger believed that Arsenal would walk over Tottenham is because of their form so far this season, how Spurs have been performing added to how they did last year.

Spurs were in a different league tonight and there's nothing you can take away from them.

[IcemanLeigh]

Seriously. Arsenal were completely outplayed in both the first and second leg. Tottenham just took their chances far better in the second leg. Anyone who watched both legs would tell you that.

On a more serious note though. YID ARMY! GET IN YOU ****ING BEAUTY.

What a game. Great to see Spurs playing like that and Superb to finish on a last minute goal. I am so happy and full of drink right now. Arsenal were completely rattled by Spurs out of the traps and didnt ever worry them.

Jermaine Jenas was absolutely outstanding tonight and Im not usually his biggest fan. Alot of the Arsenal 'youngsters' (Gilberto apparently included) looked out of their depth, and if i'm completely honest, Fabregas and Eduardo didnt look much better when they came on.

5-1. Over the moon right now. Spurs completely deserved the win over the two legs and in all honesty I think that 6-2 is a ridiculously flattering scoreline on Arsenal.

As a parting gift I shall leave you with this:

Que Sera Sera!
Whatever will be, will be!
We're going to Wembley!
Que Sera Sera!

QUE SERA SERA!
WHATEVER WILL BE, WILL BE!
WE'RE GOING TO WEMBLEY!
QUE SERA SERA!

[Xg Corkin]

Seriously. Arsenal were completely outplayed in both the first and second leg. Tottenham just took their chances far better in the second leg. Anyone who watched both legs would tell you that.

Thank you Sir ;)

[Corthag]

From first leg:

shots on Target
Arsenal 4 Spurs 5

Shots off Target
Arsenal 3 Spurs 5

Blocked Shots
Arsenal 2 Spurs 3

From the match reports pretty much everyone says arsenal were lucky.
COME ON YOU SPURS!!!!!

[Gaskin]

Thank you Sir ;)

You're not allowed in this discussion for claiming Man United didn't expect to beat Coventry, sorry.

What is funny, regardless of the fact Tottenham playing well and deserving their win. This is probably the only time they'll ever beat Arsenal in the next 10 years, that's why everyone's so excited. It's quite cute really.

[Spindryer]

Arsenal were lucky with what exactly? I don't mind taking back seat when Tottenham beat Arsenal as you guys fully deserve to give us some banter for it but mindless trolling and trying to spark an argument will do nothing for your once spotless rep Corthag..

[Corthag]

Don't bet on it Gaskin the recent games have been close with Spurs taking the lead in most. In the most recent game in the premiership Arsenal were lucky to win.

@ Spin, i didn't start the argument that was between gaskin and corkin, i just joined in. I'm arguing that Arsenal were lucky not to lose in the first leg.
And my rep is spotless, i was the biggest postwhore this site has ever known, thats anything but spotless :D

[Gaskin]

Arsenal were 'lucky' to win? That's the only excuse you can come up with. In the most recent game in the premiership where Arsenal played a full side, you lost. Lost, L O S T, no excuses, lost. In the most recent carling cup game, we lost, for the first time in 980880808808 years, with a semi decent side. Props on winning, honestly the side put out would beat most premiership teams, but enjoy the champagne of beating Arsenal. But it'll all dry up soon, I can assure you.

[Xg Corkin]

You're not allowed in this discussion for claiming Man United didn't expect to beat Coventry, sorry.

We played our youngest to give them experience and to win the Cup would be an unexpected bonus. We have more important things on our mind like the FA Cup, Premier League and Champions League.


What is funny, regardless of the fact Tottenham playing well and deserving their win. This is probably the only time they'll ever beat Arsenal in the next 10 years, that's why everyone's so excited. It's quite cute really.

Very unlikely as Tottenham should have already beaten Arsenal twice this season.

[Corthag]

We did lose Gaskin its a fact that can not be denied but the gap is not a big as you would like to think...

This is probably the only time they'll ever beat Arsenal in the next 10 years

[Gaskin]

Arsenal are weak this season, yet still playing ****ing immense. They will only get stronger from here on. Seriously the Arsenal era is upon us.

*taps foot at Corkin* Leave this thread, please. Mr "We didn't expect to win" no longer has respect from me.

[Xg Corkin]

Arsenal are weak this season, yet still playing ****ing immense. They will only get stronger from here on. Seriously the Arsenal era is upon us.

Half of their players will probably off left by then and out of the team they played tonight not one youngster has enough quality to be playing for one of the best teams in England.

taps foot at Corkin* Leave this thread, please. Mr "We didn't expect to win" no longer has respect from me.

Uh oh, no respect from Gaskin :eek:

[Gaskin]

Wow. You just showed you actually know nothing about football.

Go back to glory hunting.

Edit: Respect football opinion wise. I'd still give you one in the bum.

[Corthag]

Gaskin the youngsters at arsenal have alot of potential no one would deny that but it does not mean they will reach that potential and other clubs can buy/bring through players aswell. Spurs are meant to have some very highly rated youngsters aswell, so maybe the SPurs era is just about to start ;)

[Renegade]

Wow. You just showed you actually know nothing about football.

Says 'Defoe is better than Keane'?

:rolleyes:

[Xg Corkin]

Fabianski, Justin Hoyte, Traore, Diaby, Denilson and Bendtner aren't good enough players to win you trophies, FACT!

Edit: Respect football opinion wise. I'd still give you one in the bum.

No, Thank You.

[Gaskin]

Gaskin the youngsters at arsenal have alot of potential no one would deny that but it does not mean they will reach that potential and other clubs can buy/bring through players aswell. Spurs are meant to have some very highly rated youngsters aswell, so maybe the SPurs era is just about to start ;)

Maybe it will one day. But unfortunately for Spurs young rising players will move of to bigger names, and until Tottenham becomes a big enough name to keep them their I can't see an era coming just yet.

Denilson is easily good enough to be in the best team in the world, he will be one of the best players around. Walcott will become a superstar.

Renegade, as a striker I do believe Defoe to be better than Keane. Do you have a problem with that? You do? Oh well.

[Corthag]

Fabianski, Justin Hoyte, Traore, Diaby, Denilson and Bendtner aren't good enough players to win you trophies, FACT!



No, Thank You.

Perhaps a bit harsh, Fabianski has looked pretty poor from what i have seen of him but Traore, Diaby and denilson could be very good players, only time will tell.

@ Gaskin, i was not saying it will be the Spurs era but that it you can't tell whose era it will be till perhaps after that era or during that era. Atm it is not the arsenal era shown by the fact they have not won the league in 3(?) seasons.

[Gaskin]

"No, please." changed to "No, Thank you" Why the sudden change in heart?

Plus at least Corthag has shown sense in the thread, Corkin... anything?

[Xg Corkin]

Denilson is easily good enough to be in the best team in the world, he will be one of the best players around. Walcott will become a superstar.

Two players out of all Arsenal yougsters and I still don't think Denilson will get much better.

Renegade, as a striker I do believe Defoe to be better than Keane. Do you have a problem with that? You do? Oh well.

Keane is twice the player ;)

Plus at least Corthag has shown sense in the thread, Corkin... anything?

Nope because I know that there will only be maybe one or two players from Arsenal's youngsters who will become Top Class players.

[Gaskin]

Player maybe, but not striker.

No Corkin, I just named two players as examples. I didn't want to overwhelm you, I mean you already think Man United didn't expect to beat Coventry, you obviously have a lot going through that head right now.

[Corthag]

"No, please." changed to "No, Thank you" Why the sudden change in heart?

Plus at least Corthag has shown sense in the thread, Corkin... anything?

What i'm showing sense know before i was accused of trolling people make up your mind! :D

[Gaskin]

Spindryer accused you of trolling. Not me.

Edit: This thread would be good if it was only Arsenal and Tottenham fans... and Liam.

Instead we have a deranged Man Utd fan who thinks they didn't expect to beat Coventry, and a Crewe fan (nuff said there really ;)) who keep butting in. That's the trouble with forums and freedom of speech and all. :D

[Corthag]

I know hence why i put people not Gaskin :)

Atleast Bentner is good at heading he just needs to learn which way he is shooting :D

[Enraged Wang 07]

They will only get stronger from here on. Seriously the Arsenal era is upon us.


As much as i agree with you on your accusations of the Man Utd expectations, that is an absolute Fallacy.

It's completely the opposite of that, i think it's downhill for Arsenal from now on this season.

After not being able to maintain their lead over Man Utd, Losing players to the African Nations, Some of their more important players either not performing or being injured and now being knocked out by their rivals in the semi's, i think this has shattered them.

Good luck to them, and i do enjoy watching them these days, but sadly this is where the Gunners train comes to a halt.

[Xg Corkin]

No Corkin, I just named two players as examples. I didn't want to overwhelm you, I mean you already think Man United didn't expect to beat Coventry, you obviously have a lot going through that head right now.

What I meant was that we didn't expect to win the trophy with our yougsters but Arsene Wenger did!

[Gaskin]

LLoyd: I meant in coming season's, not just this one my friend.

Think what you like, I honestly accept your opinion Lloyd. But just remember what I said.. ;)

Corkin: Yeah, I'm sure. And Arsene Wenger didn't expect to win anything, he thought his team had the potential. Which they did. So you have no point.

[Xg Corkin]

We didn't expect to win it but Arsene Wenger actually thought they had a chance then they get beaten 5 - 1 LMAO. Fabregas came on and played wank

Read that again to yourself ;) Why do you think I put it in their ? Because I was referring to the Carling ****ing Cup

[Corthag]

Only time will tell who is right; Gaskin or Wang.

To be fair Wenger did think his youngsters could win the cup and they only just fell short beating premiership opposition in the process, nothing to be ashamed of. Unlike losing to Coventry :D

[Gaskin]

Corkin, you directly quoted me saying 2-0 Coventry GG etc and said "We didn't expect to win it".

Then you proceeded to explain why you thought Man United didn't expect to win the game v Coventry. Stop trying to pretend that I mis interpreted what you said, that's bullshit.

[Xg Corkin]

No. I was referring to the Carling Cup. Read it as you may but I know what I meant.

We didn't expect to win it but Arsene Wenger actually thought they had a chance then they get beaten 5 - 1 LMAO. Fabregas came on and played wank

Thats what I said, if you think that when I typed it I meant the Utd vs Coventry match then that would mean I thought Arsene Wenger actually thought they had a chance of beating Coventry? Doesn't make sense does it ;)

[Corthag]

Does it matter Utd lost to Coventry, arsenal lost to spurs neither team are going to win it end of.

Who do you think will win the other semi? I'm going with chelsea.

[Gaskin]

Corkin: Blatant lie. I'm sorry but I will never believe you. The way you quoted it and directly answered, then carried on by trying to prove you're right showed what you meant.

Corthag: Chelsea will win, and then Tottenham will win the cup.

[Corthag]

Lol did you see that Adebayor shoved bentner in the face during tha game. Gallas just shouted at both of them.

[Xg Corkin]

Can't admit your wrong Gaskin?

Who do you think will win the other semi? Chelsea and then Chelsea will win the cup.

Corkin: Blatant lie. I'm sorry but I will never believe you. The way you quoted it and directly answered, then carried on by trying to prove you're right showed what you meant.

Not once did I argue that Man Utd didn't expect to beat Coventry, I did argue that we didn't expect to win the Cup. Quote me if im wrong ;)

[Gaskin]

No that's what you're doing it. EVERYONE interpreted it that way because it was blatantly obvious what you were saying. Please stop being a ****ing prick.

That's because Bentner is wank and Adebayor was like GTFO of my team.

[Corthag]

That's because Bentner is wank and Adebayor was like GTFO of my team.

LOL he scored a nice goal though :)

[Xg Corkin]

No that's what you're doing it. EVERYONE interpreted it that way because it was blatantly obvious what you were saying. Please stop being a ****ing prick.


No, some people are just stupid and can't read properly.

[Gaskin]

Yes I'm sure. When you quote someone, reply to it and then proceed to try and prove your point, it's hard not to interpret it as what you 'supposedly' put.

[Xg Corkin]

Yes I'm sure. When you quote someone, reply to it and then proceed to try and prove your point, it's hard not to interpret it as what you 'supposedly' put.

My point was that was that United didn't expect to win the Cup with their yougsters but Arsenal did.

I know what I wrote so don't try and tell me different because not one post reffered back to the United vs Conventry match. Anyway im out of here, sick off people speaking bullshit on forums.

[Corthag]

OK how about shut up?? You are clearly not agree so agree to disagree and be quiet and lets get back to saying how bad arsenal are :)

5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1

[kHz HaVoK]

WOW! i jus been reading the arguments, pointless really, spurs won and are in the final, played well and arsenal were poor with the youngters!

End Off!
Nothing else worth argueing about!

[IcemanLeigh]

To bring up a point that was made about 20 posts ago, The last game between Spurs and Arsenal in the premiership was far closer than any arsenal fan would like to admit. Tottenham were very short of an already weak defense on that occasion and were nothing in comparison to what the full strength spurs team should look like. Rather than saying arsenal were lucky, I will say that Tottenham were very unlucky on that day to not even come out with a result, and really, even the win.

Im expecting a response on this one; and maybe I am just being a deluded optimistic fan, but I genuinly think that there is very little difference between Arsenal and Spurs in terms of quality. Arsenal have been slightly fortunate (in my opinion, also possibly not the right word) to have started the season well and introduce some of their younger players into a winning and confident side. Spurs on the other hand had a terrible opening, with none of the club being properly backed, the board wanted the manager out, the manager wanted to sign players, and all the talk has been of Berbagod leaving. Also the copious amounts of injuries didnt exactly help

Now that the fitness levels have been raised on the spurs team, the board are united as one, and injured players are finding their feet again, I genuinly think that a full squaded Arsenal vs Spurs would be one hell of a tough game to call.

[Corthag]

Hence the thought that spurs could push into the top 4 this season, alas not to be though. At the start of the season spurs had 3 left backs out injured along with other defenders. No squad in the premiership could cope with that its just unlucky.

[OB1theGeordie]

Hmmm.... yeah tottenham deserved it. Well done them. I'm envious of their chance of silverware.

Wenger's young guns fail near the final hurdle again. Didn't they come close last season? not sure don't really follow em.

All this spurs getttin the better of arsenal mumbo jumbo is great, however, unfortunately for spurs they don't play arsenal every week, theres another 18 teams to try and take points off. Hence the gunners are alot further up the table. Tottenham have always struck me as inconsistent.

Tottenham are improving fast but it's too little too late. They would have us belive that the top 4 was for the taking this season. Maybe next year eh?

At least your not a media circus pile of cack like the toon.

[MofoDmo]

LMAO at Man Utd. Man Utd 0 - 2 Coventry. GG

Love it :)

[kHz HaVoK]

Chelsea vs Everton?

C'mon The Chelsea!

No lamps or terry, wright phillips is a doubt but should play!
Fancy anelka to get his first chelsea goal tonight and chelsea to win 2-1 :D

[IcemanLeigh]

1-1 draw, chelsea to go through on aggregate.

[NeoKubrick]

I genuinly think that a full squaded Arsenal vs Spurs would be one hell of a tough game to call.
Arsenal at their best can beat anyone in the world, and with a full squad? heh

Gaskin the youngsters at arsenal have alot of potential no one would deny that but it does not mean they will reach that potential and other clubs can buy/bring through players aswell. Spurs are meant to have some very highly rated youngsters aswell, so maybe the SPurs era is just about to start
No, Spurs' academy will dry up eventually if it hasn't already; Chelsea poached the brains behind Tottenham's youth academy (Frank Arnansen) a couple of years ago. And let's not forget that these youngsters have reached the Champions League final (and no, it wasn't Henry who carried the team when the going got tough).

Half of their players will probably off left by then and out of the team they played tonight not one youngster has enough quality to be playing for one of the best teams in England.
Fabianski, Justin Hoyte, Traore, Diaby, Denilson and Bendtner aren't good enough players to win you trophies, FACT!

That's a stupid thing to say: Toure, Clichy, Fabergas, Flamini, and Van Persie, and Eboue were blooded through the youth academy. They are all first-team players and playing in a top team joint top of the league. Yaya Toure for example was in the youth academy and is now plying his trade with Barcelona.


Quit parroting the tabloids.

[Corthag]

How many of those players actually came through the Arsenal youth academy and how many were bought from other teams. And Arsenal didn't win the Champions league final so that proves they are not good enough to win trophies?? Not saying i agree with that hence the ??

Regarding your comments on Spurs' youth acamdemy/reserves it has not dried up we have players like Pekhart, Berchiche, Terry, Dervite, Mills, Rose to name a few who are all highly thought of.

[NeoKubrick]

How many of those players actually came through the Arsenal youth academy and how many were bought from other teams.

Regarding your comments on Spurs' youth acamdemy/reserves it has not dried up we have players like Pekhart, Berchiche, Terry, Dervite, Mills, Rose to name a few who are all highly thought of.
Well, how many of those cited players were bought from another club? That's an utterly idiotic statement. Arsenal's youth academy isn't what it is because they buy the most promising youngsters; it's because Arsene Wenger, Liam Brady and Steve Bould mould these players in a system which is the envy of Europe.

You said: "Gaskin the youngsters at arsenal have alot of potential no one would deny that but it does not mean they will reach that potential and other clubs can buy/bring through players aswell. Spurs are meant to have some very highly rated youngsters aswell, so maybe the SPurs era is just about to start"

Now, which of those cited Tottenham players have participated in bringing their team to a Carling Cup final and semi-final? How many of Arsenal's? So, what can you deduce from this? Will it be Spurs' or Arsenal's era in the next few years based on the youth players?

Nonsensical argument.

[Corthag]

I think you also need to look at the ages of these players with the arsenal players you mentioned being older than the Spurs ones. Also maybe Spurs have a different way of bringing through these youngsters than arsenal. which can not be criticised yet as we can not judge if it has been successful or not as it has only been in place 2/3 years but the overall changes at tottenham have been successful shown by two 5th place finishes in the prem.

[IcemanLeigh]

Now, which of those cited Tottenham players have participated in bringing their team to a Carling Cup final and semi-final? How many of Arsenal's? So, what can you deduce from this? Will it be Spurs' or Arsenal's era in the next few years based on the youth players?



To be fair you can deduce from that, that Arsenal actually play their youngsters (I use the term youngsters loosely) in the competition and Spurs dont. Who is to say that if Spurs played their youngsters they wouldnt have got them to the semi finals? The debate about what to do in the carling cup is a different one. But Spurs play their full strength squad with a few changes in the carling cup where as Arsenal choose to play these 'youngsters'.

[NeoKubrick]

To be fair you can deduce from that, that Arsenal actually play their youngsters (I use the term youngsters loosely) in the competition and Spurs dont. Who is to say that if Spurs played their youngsters they wouldnt have got them to the semi finals? The debate about what to do in the carling cup is a different one. But Spurs play their full strength squad with a few changes in the carling cup where as Arsenal choose to play these 'youngsters'.
Well, we can infer that the Tottenham manager(s) doesn't(don't) think that they [Spurs' youngsters] can compete at that level; whereas, Wenger does think that his youngsters can compete at that level and they have competed at that level. There's the difference: the gap between what each manager believes of his youth team and they're best qualified to make that judgement.

[Corthag]

And then look at the ages of the Arsenal 'youngsters'

[NeoKubrick]

And then look at the ages of the Arsenal 'youngsters'
Fabianski (22), Sagna (24), Justin Hoyte (23), Gallas (30), Traore (18), Hleb (26), Denilson (19), Silva (31), Diaby (21), Walcott (18), Bendtner (20).

Are you and Leigh saying that's the opposite of a youth side? Average age is 22.9

Cerny (33), Chimbonda (28), Dawson (24), King (27), Lee (30), Lennon (20), Jenas (24), Tainio (28), Malbranque (28), Keane (27), Berbatov (26).

Average 26 (approx).


Don't try to be pedantic, Cor and Leigh. When people refer to the Arsenal youngsters, people are referring to the side as a whole, not individuals - obivously Gallas and Sliva aren't young.

[Corthag]

We are not being pedantic, personally i don't class 22+ as a youngster. And surely it is as much about experience when it comes to describing a youngster as it is age.

[Gaskin]

Neo: Thank god, someone who can say what I struggle to put into words without ranting off on one.

And last time I checked an average age of 22 is quite young..

[IcemanLeigh]

In fairness 22ish is a fairly young side. I will admit that when I make the 'youngster' joke I am referring mainly to Gilberto and only Gilberto. On the same note though.. I would quite honestly say that I only really consider Fabianski, Traore, Denilson, Walcott, and Bendtner to be youth players if I'm honest. Nothing to do with Arsenal, just my own personal opinion. From that selection only Denilson really stands out. Possibly Walcott too but I think there are better young English players out there and he seems a bit overhyped to me. I will agree with you that the Arsenal squad was younger than the spurs one... Mostly because it is fact, but not forgetting that I dont remember anyone claiming any different. (Even considering that most of that is just because of goalkeeper age, aswell as the oldest of the rest of the selection being on their way out in terms of spurs first team players..)

Well, we can infer that the Tottenham manager(s) doesn't(don't) think that they [Spurs' youngsters] can compete at that level; whereas, Wenger does think that his youngsters can compete at that level and they have competed at that level. There's the difference: the gap between what each manager believes of his youth team and they're best qualified to make that judgement.

This statement however is complete tripe in all honesty. You cannot compare the two since the managers philosophy toward the competition is so different. Your statement is compeltely ridiculous. You have absolutely no idea whether ramos thinks his second string team would be able to compete or not. Tottenham were not there yesterday to simply 'compete', they were there to win. I can't completely fault Wengers philosophy toward the Carling cup. As a bigger club over recent years arsenal have enjoyed more success and so treat the carling cup as a good stage for these players to get experience. Fair enough. Personally I think that tarnishes the name of the competition, but it is also a good way of giving players experience as well as (and lets be honest here for a minute) showing off some of these players to clubs who may be interested. By this statement you could suggest that Wenger didnt think his Premier league team could compete against spurs because he didnt pick them. Sound ridiculous.. Yes, we all know they could, and probably wouldn't have lost 5-1 (maybe 4-1 Alamunia would have saved Keane's.. ;) ) But they wernt selected so obviously the manager doesnt think his team would have competed.

There is the difference. Spurs were there to win, Arsenal were there to 'compete'. Which quite clearly they didnt.

P.S, did you up the average age for the players that came on to minutes played ratio? ;)

[IcemanLeigh]

Double post: Ooooh, hell of a goal. Spurs - Chelsea final then? or can Everton pull it out of the bag?

[kHz HaVoK]

Yeoooo....
Peach of a goal by j.cole, what a pass by malouda!

Should be a good final, which i might be at :D

[IcemanLeigh]

Yeoooo....
Peach of a goal by j.cole, what a pass by malouda!

Should be a good final, which i might be at :D

How? I would love tickets but I am almost sure that I will never be able to get any.

[kHz HaVoK]

I don't no, my mate gets me all the match tickets for chelsea and i could of went to last years final aswell!

[IcemanLeigh]

After a little bit of research, it appears all tickets (or most at least) are sold through the clubs. I guess chelsea being in finals more often it will be easier to get tickets for their end. Spurs tickets are gonna sell out quicker than cakes outside a weight watchers meeting, and seeing as im not a club member I highly doubt, unless I stumble upon someone who is, that I will even come close to getting tickets.

[kHz HaVoK]

i could always get u a ticket for the chelsea end :D

[IcemanLeigh]

I watched the semi final in an Arsenal pub.. So I dont see why not :P.

[kHz HaVoK]

i'll see what i can do then

[IcemanLeigh]

lol, no not really. I would lvoe to go, but I wouldnt be able to contain myself and would probably end up in a bloody mess on the floor ;) Thanks for the offer though.

[Xg Corkin]

No Worries! just were a chelsea top ;)

Posted by: xCorkinx v2

[Corthag]

No Worries! just were a chelsea top ;)

Posted by: xCorkinx v2

wear. Don't you study english in ireland?

Some on my mates went to watch Utd play Pompey and sat in the home (Pompey) end whilst supporting Utd (away team) when Utd scored one of them jumped up and started cheering so the other mate had to pull him down before they got beaten up.

[IcemanLeigh]

Just to settle an old arguement in this thread:

They were the better team, that's expected. But they didn't completely out play Arsenal in the first leg, if they had completely out played them in the first leg then it would have been what happened in the second leg.

Here is a quote direct from the Arsenal website:

Tottenham had dominated the opening rubber but the tie was delicately poised at 1-1 when the first whistle blew tonight.

If the Arsenal website can admit that the first leg was 'dominated' by Tottenham, then why do you have such a hard time?

[NeoKubrick]

This statement however is complete tripe in all honesty. You cannot compare the two since the managers philosophy toward the competition is so different. Your statement is compeltely ridiculous. You have absolutely no idea whether ramos thinks his second string team would be able to compete or not. Tottenham were not there yesterday to simply 'compete', they were there to win. I can't completely fault Wengers philosophy toward the Carling cup. As a bigger club over recent years arsenal have enjoyed more success and so treat the carling cup as a good stage for these players to get experience. Fair enough. Personally I think that tarnishes the name of the competition, but it is also a good way of giving players experience as well as (and lets be honest here for a minute) showing off some of these players to clubs who may be interested. By this statement you could suggest that Wenger didnt think his Premier league team could compete against spurs because he didnt pick them. Sound ridiculous.. Yes, we all know they could, and probably wouldn't have lost 5-1 (maybe 4-1 Alamunia would have saved Keane's.. ;) ) But they wernt selected so obviously the manager doesnt think his team would have competed.

There is the difference. Spurs were there to win, Arsenal were there to 'compete'. Which quite clearly they didnt.

P.S, did you up the average age for the players that came on to minutes played ratio? ;)

Er, right, dolt. Everyone knows Wenger will select a team comprising young inexperienced players. If Ramos or any other manager believed that a team comprising young inexperienced could compete (learn the definition of compete, please: "To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory" (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compete&x=0&y=0)) against Arsenal's youths, they would field young inexperienced players. Wenger's philosophy towards the Carling Cup is based on his belief that his young players can compete (have you learned what 'compete' means yet?), and a semi-final and runner-up placement in the last two years is a validation of his belief, no? If Ramos or any other manager had that same belief in their young players, he would have that philosophy towards the Carling Cup.

This is simple cause and effect, kid. Cause being the belief of a manager towards his young players and the effect being the philosophy towards the Carling Cup. Different 'cause'; different 'effect'. To claim that a difference in 'effect' is not caused by a difference in 'cause' is "compeltely ridiculous".

"There is the difference. Spurs were there to win, Arsenal were there to 'compete'"

Hell of a difference, eh? Time for the brolly, old boy: it's raining logic and reasoning, again. ;)

[IcemanLeigh]

Im sorry but you havn't got a leg to stand on this time Neo. That is literally complete and utter mouth shite.

There can only be two things you are trying to say here. One is that the definition of 'compete', which you have so nicely quoted from a dictionary saying that to compete is to want to win. From a basic definition yes, that is true. So to that point you are suggesting that Wenger got it completely wrong? They obviously couldnt compete as they clearly couldnt win. In fact, lets face it, they were lucky to only lose 6-2 over two legs.. If there was an admission in there then I would understand that point.. But in fact there is none.

The other definition would stem itself from another defition. Since you enjoy dictionary quotes, here's one for you that you might want to check next time you are reading up on your Oxford:

Context;.. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

Just for clarity:

determines its meaning.

This is simple english, child. The context in which Wenger thinks his Carling cup team can 'compete' (have you learned what 'context' means yet?), is that he believes they can make good progress through the competition, whilst gaining good experience playing for the club. The fact that they have reached the final (last year due to first team players I might add) and lost in the semi finals, is a validation of this belief. If Wenger was there to win it, he would not put any handicap on his team, but instead play the strongest team avaiable to him. This is what Tottenham did. Spurs COULD have played their youngsters against Arsenal the other day. It COULD have been a good game and they COULD have won. Instead, they played their first team (i.e not aiming to simply 'compete' with Arsenal, but instead play to 'Beat' Arsenal "To beat: To defeat or subdue, as in a contest." Which they did... 5-1. ;)

[NeoKubrick]

Firstly, I don't know why you're trying to weasel out of admitting that you didn't know what 'compete' meant. Even, more funny, you tried to rescue yourself by citing the definition of 'context'. You demonstrated that you didn't have two clues to rub together in an effort to figure out what 'compete' meant; therefore, the context which the word was placed in is entirely irrelevant and your citation of it, even more so. You can't twist words to your own definitions to suit your current stance in an argument - no matter how much 'context' you use. Example: are Tottenham competing for the Premiership title this year? See. I digress.

Im sorry but you havn't got a leg to stand on this time Neo. That is literally complete and utter mouth shite.

No, you're projecting. You haven't a leg to stand on the grounds that you were trying to argue on yesterday. Now, defeated and dejected, you've simply crawled and retreated to the safe grounds of "We won: naahnaahnaah". After all, it's all well and good to say that after the fact, not before it. It's entirely irrelevant after the fact if Arsenal or Tottenham could compete. Wenger believed that his young side could compete before the fact: that side drew with Tottenham in the first leg. And his belief was based on other facts: that side beat Blackburn away from home (and how did Tottenham fare against Blackburn at home?). By your deluded reasoning, Tottenham's first-team couldn't beat Arsenal's young side and therefore based upon the draw in the first leg of the semi-final, they wouldn't be aiming to "beat" them in the second leg. You see, it's absolute nonsense what you're trying to posit.

Which they did... 5-1. ;)

That they did, Leigh, but then you come on here with your childish reasoning and let an Arsenal supporter scalp you. I guess I'll be the brains and tactician behind our FIFA team with decisions like that. :p

[IcemanLeigh]

In what world are you living in!?

Are you genuinly saying that you seriously think I dont know what the term 'compete' means? That is the most ridiculous statement you have made yet. I thought it was all in the spirit of the condescending arguement style, but apparently not?

There are several things that shock me. Are you suggesting that you believe a word only has one single definition and the context that it is said in has no bearing upon that definition what so ever? That I am afraid, little boy, (You are right, it is fun to put in nonsensicle ridicule in the middle of a point) is crazy. It is simple fact that a word has more than one definition, especially when placed in a different, or even taken out of, context. This is not 'weaseling' my dear boy, it is common sense.

Also, does it not seem strange that you are the one quoting the original dictionary definition, then you go on to throw around ridiculous claims about people not understanding the meaning of words? Maybe the need to look up the definition, then remove only one of the said definitions to use to your effect would lead to other conclusions. You can't twist words to your own definitions you know..

Under the same page of definitions you will also find that it states compete to mean "To measure oneself against others" Why is it that your quoted definition is more relevant than that one.. Perhaps because it suits your current stance in an arguement?

There has been no retreating onto safe ground either. I would have quite happily said all of this to you before the game. The fact is that Tottenham won, and therefore if Wengers idea of putting out the squad he did was in an attempt to win then he got it wrong did he not? Of course that is based on hindsight. It would not exist as a question if it was not..

It is okay, posting your nonsense with no idea of a simple concept such as context doesn't suprise me. I could say it strikes me as childish.. but it doesn't. Just niave.

I look forward to reading the response about how I have tried to 'weasel' my out of something. It is an interesting theory that you bring up though, projecting.

I stick by it. (which in some twisted way will some how manage to mean that I am attempting to double negatively in a backwards world twice over in a post that I made last week, when I didnt mention a parallel universe, 'weasel' my way out of saying it.

Spurs played their team to win. Ramos and Tottenham's philosophy was to win the win the competition. Spurs havn't enjoyed success in 9 years and so this philosophy cannot really be questioned. Arsenal's philosophy can however be questioned, but who am I to pass judgement upon it. Wenger clearly feels that the carling cup is a lesser priority to him and so he doesn't play the strongest team available but instead plays the team that he feels he can get away with at a bare minimum to 'compete'. So yes, I would still stick by it being the difference..

[Dark]

Yep Leigh is definately right.
Obviously if Wenger wanted to win the competition he would of played his best team. I think Leigh has said it all earlier anyway and you clinging on to his use of the word 'compete' is pathetic.

[Corthag]

Neo you talk complete bullshit.

In fact i'm pretty sure they are putting NeoKubrick in the dictionary as a example of bullshit.

[MofoDmo]

I hope Hutton signs for Spurs tbh
Get him out of the ****ing SPL.

His dive against us was a complete and utter digrace.
Got a player sent off for it aswell.

Hate the **** tbh :mad:

[Roadpog]

Arsenal dint play there "youngsters" they played there first team with injuries so some youngsters got played arsenal dont want to loose to tottenham no matter what thats a fact cause its a big derby one of the biggest in the premiership if u knew this u wouldnt try and rescue arsenal

[Gaskin]

Arsenal dint play there "youngsters" they played there first team with injuries so some youngsters got played arsenal dont want to loose to tottenham no matter what thats a fact cause its a big derby one of the biggest in the premiership if u knew this u wouldnt try and rescue arsenal

You're clearly a Tottenham fan? No other fan (maybe United) could possibly be that stupid.

Arsenal did play a ''weaker'' side, it wasn't because of Injuries, they kept the same squad through out the cup it was only that Hleb and Gallas were included because of the youngster injuries, your facts are the wrong way round sunshine. Fabregas was brought on due to another Injury, and then Adebayor and Eduardo in the 60th+ minute to try and salvage something from a somewhat battering to which the experience lacking side were receiving. Stop being a tit and go jerk off to the fact you've made a final for the first time since 2002 or something and finally managed to beat a side after 22 games. Good day.

[Roadpog]

nah im not tottenham or united not even or premiership its just i keep up to date

[Gaskin]

Well you're not as up to date as you may think my friend. :D

[MofoDmo]

YASS!!! The *******'s pretty much gone! :D

**** off out of the SPL you **** :)

Prepared to get one of the most cheating *******'s that the SPL has to offer :)

GIUY!

Alan Mutton i'm speaking of btw :D

[NeoKubrick]

I hate to shatter your ego, Leigh, but there’s nothing ridiculous about presuming an idiot knows nothing after said idiot demonstrates that he/she knows nothing - even if you‘re that idiot. Are you still having trouble grasping the concept of ‘cause and effect’? You demonstrated that you didn’t know the difference by stating that there was a difference between being there to win and to compete. Therefore, you demonstrated that you didn’t know what ‘compete’ actually means. To think that you know the word ’compete’, after you demonstrated you didn’t, isn’t “common-sense”. I found it amusing that you would make such an elementary error, which would make you look like quite the clown after stating “This statement however is complete tripe in all honesty”. Even more amusing, is your constant weaselling as a result of my picking you up by the collar and lecturing you. I mean, you’ve gone as far as making up suggestions you claim I made to have something you can respond to with veracity. Different argument; same Leigh.

Firstly, where did I suggest that I believe a word only has one single definition? Secondly, where did I suggest that the context of a word has no significance to its meaning? You made up those suggestions in an effort to have something to respond to with, as I said, veracity to appear less stupid. We’re not talking about the principal of the matter; we’re debating an individual case. Though, it’s not a simple fact that a word has more than one definition: words can have one definition (you can’t even climb the high ground without stumbling) and it‘s not the antithesis of common-sense to suggest that. Principally, words can have various meanings, connotations and definitions and all are affected by the context of where the words are placed. Principally, a word can have one meaning when placed in a sentence. I wasn’t arguing the principal of semantics: that notion creeped into your noggin‘ because you knew that you were wrong on the basis of the individual case of ‘compete‘, and as I said, you needed to respond to something (even fabricated) with veracity to make you appear less stupid than the exhibiting stupidity in your last post (it worked with two knuckleheads, though - doff hat to Dark and Corhag).

Now, where did I state my own definition and which word did I twist to apply it to? The only definition I cited was from Dictionary.com, which wouldn‘t make it mine because I‘m not a lexicologist. You can pick any sense of ‘compete’ your lil’ heart desires, but it won’t contradict the general meaning of ‘compete’, or change the fact that to attempt to win is synonymous with to compete for, or to measure oneself against others. It doesn’t matter what context you put ‘compete’ in, because it’s not a complicated word with complex and ambiguous definitions.


To football. By your logic of ‘strongest’ teams, if AC Milan fielded a ‘young’ side of professionals (inferior to their strongest team) against a pub team full of amateurs and drunks in a friendly cup, AC Milan wouldn’t be competing to win the cup. They would be competing to win: Arsenal were competing to win, but they lost. Arsenal’s young side won against Tottenham last year, and, only for the one-man army, Drogba, Arsenal would have won the Carling Cup. So, Wenger’s basis for belief in his young side was founded on solid facts that his side could win at this level (wins against Newcastle and Blackburn this year too), not on what he thought would be the bare minimum to compete and write off the result off as a nothing fixture. You are incorrect to say that the Carling Cup is a lesser priority to Wenger; it’s correct to say that it’s a lesser priority to Wenger’s first-team. There’s no difference between Wenger’s desire to win with his second team than it is for Tottenham’s to win with their first.

In what world are you living in!?

Earth, Leigh, Earth. Drop by sometime.

[Roadpog]

jesus neo i cannot be botherd to read all that

[NeoKubrick]

jesus neo i cannot be botherd to read all that

Well, it's a tough read.

[Gaskin]

Alright bored of you both. Although Neo is right in most aspects of his arguement. Most not being all, but I'm not going to bother..

[Corthag]

I tried to read it all but you talk such **** and with so much blag just padding it out it was sending me to sleep.

That last paragraph seriously what on earth are you on about???
I just got some mates to read it and they are all said you are talking bullshit so it is not just myself and leigh that think that and i was beginning to doubt myself.

[NeoKubrick]

I tried to read it all but you talk such **** and with so much blag just padding it out it was sending me to sleep.

That last paragraph seriously what on earth are you on about???
I just got some mates to read it and they are all said you are talking bullshit so it is not just myself and leigh that think that and i was beginning to doubt myself.

Er, right. So what you're basically have hidden away in that pile of turd is that you're saying you're Wittgenstein, and your mates are Kant and Russell?

[KONSPIRACY]

@ Neo - did you create that post in Word then copy n paste?

If so it may help if you did it again as the character set has now been fixed so should appear as you made it without all the "?" everywhere.

[Renegade]

Does that mean pound signs won't break posts anymore Kon?

[Gaskin]

You owe me £10 Renegade.

Edit: It would appear not.

[Corthag]

Er, right. So what you're basically have hidden away in that pile of turd is that you're saying you're Wittgenstein, and your mates are Kant and Russell?

Seriously who are?

I'm more of a Grayling, not Wittgenstein hes famous for his findings on the agreements between existing philosophical debates of the time. Obviously you read his work on the idea of the power of a philosophical illusion because what you write with your fancy words clearly draws some idiots into a zombie like state of belief. Ofcourse those philosophers you refer to are all dead so obviously me and my mates can not be them but perhaps reincarnations of them?

I much prefer the work of the Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle are my favourites.

[IcemanLeigh]

@ Neo - did you create that post in Word then copy n paste?

If so it may help if you did it again as the character set has now been fixed so should appear as you made it without all the "?" everywhere.

LOL of course he created it in word Chris.. I mean, it only took him a week to write it..

Bravo Neo, i genuinely have to give special praise to you. I have never in my whole entire life, known, or even spoken to someone who is so full of themselves. So a real congratulations there.

Just wanted to admit to you that week long posts saved in word arn't exactly my fortay, and so I apologise for my embarrasingly short post that people can actually read without booking time off work.

Ive got a present for you.. It's here http://community.matchbox360.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=67964#post67964 You can write in there about your completely ridiculous definitions of words to your hearts content, and anyone who can be bothered to waste a year or two reading one of your posts can do so. (Seriously, do they come in podcast form? Im off on holiday this year and the drive may take a few hours, on the way there and back i might just have time to listen to it)

it appears that you talk so much garbage that you even have yourself believing it now, and even when others come in and point out that what you are spouting is complete tripe, the lightbulb doesn't even go off, but instead you seem beleive that there is some conspiracy theory going on with everyone colluding against you. hat must be the case of course.. because god forbid that you may actually be wrong. It's like arguing against a brick wall. Okay okay, credit where credit is due.. A brick wall with a dictionary.

[NeoKubrick]

I much prefer the work of the Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle are my favourites.

I don’t have a favourite philosopher. Those who have favourites have more in common with religious fanatics who believe a particularly doctrine vehemently. And by your sounding off of two of the most revered and followed philosophers, you’re either a great listener of your lecturer or a great reader of the web. Why don’t you try read Wittgenstein before you comment on his “findings”? ;)


I have never in my whole entire life, known, or even spoken to someone who is so full of themselves.
Well, at least you’re not talking to yourself or talking back.

Depleted of any grasp of or claim to logic, one panders to the mob. So now that all your spurious reasoning, Leigh, has been ridiculed for being utterly stupid, you’re now banking on the support of nitwits like Dark, Roadpog, and Corthag (the last two, by the way, confessed to not reading all of my post; so how could they know the content without reading said content?) to roundly tell you how great you are and how you’re not wrong. Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t rule in the domain of logic. That’s the great thing: logic doesn’t consider colour of skin, or age, nationality, ethnicity, or popularity; it’s cold and sometimes cruel. Such brash and brazen talk at first and then at the end: crying that I went for the jugular. ;)


Oh, I know that you desperately want to believe that six hundred words took me a week instead of forty-five minutes, because it‘s much more palatable to think that it took me a week to expose your nonsense rather than three quarters of an hour. Not everyone has 24-hour access to the internet, and so, in that limited time on the internet, one doesn’t want to waste internet-time responding to nonsense when he or she could easily press CTRL+S and save to a USB and respond at another time in a Word document, when they forget to save the ‘new reply’ page.


(Egads, a reply written in Microsoft Word. Who would use the program for such devious misdeeds...)

[IcemanLeigh]

Once more the subject of your posts change beyond recognition. Maybe I have completely missed it all Neo, and so I am giving you this chance.. Could you please point out where my 'spurious reasoning has been ridiculed for being utterly stupid' because I simply cannot see it.

Your whole arguement has been based around the fact that you believe 'to compete' and 'to win' to mean the same thing, which is completely and utterly ridiculous. I can't remember the last time that you mentioned Tottenham or Arsenal, hense the reason for your own dictionary definition thread. I hate to inform you that, that thread was no 'attempt to misinform' or even to 'erase posts' from this thread. If that had been the case then I wouldn't have posted it in here would I..? To quote your Year 8 school teacher; Try Harder.

I couldn't care any less for people backing me up or even agreeing with me, so I fail to see how I have pandered towards any mob. I was simply stating that it defies logic to me that when others disagree with you, you still fail to even recognise it, but instead turn to theories of how we have all grouped up together to form some kind of alliance against you.


Oh, I know that you desperately want to believe that six hundred words took me a week instead of forty-five minutes, because it‘s much more palatable to think that it took me a week to expose your nonsense rather than three quarters of an hour. Not everyone has 24-hour access to the internet, and so, in that limited time on the internet, one doesn’t want to waste internet-time responding to nonsense when he or she could easily press CTRL+S and save to a USB and respond at another time in a Word document, when they forget to save the ‘new reply’ page.

So which is it? You contradict yourself. Did it take you 45 minutes, or did you save it and come back to it at other times. Whilst this system may have allowed you to create it with a total writing time of 45 minutes, the need for extra time to consider what you wanted to say, and look up dictionary definitions was still there, hense the saving.

Bored.

[NeoKubrick]

Once more the subject of your posts change beyond recognition. Maybe I have completely missed it all Neo, and so I am giving you this chance.. Could you please point out where my 'spurious reasoning has been ridiculed for being utterly stupid' because I simply cannot see it.

Your whole arguement has been based around the fact that you believe 'to compete' and 'to win' to mean the same thing, which is completely and utterly ridiculous. I can't remember the last time that you mentioned Tottenham or Arsenal, hense the reason for your own dictionary definition thread. I hate to inform you that, that thread was no 'attempt to misinform' or even to 'erase posts' from this thread. If that had been the case then I wouldn't have posted it in here would I..? To quote your Year 8 school teacher; Try Harder.

I couldn't care any less for people backing me up or even agreeing with me, so I fail to see how I have pandered towards any mob. I was simply stating that it defies logic to me that when others disagree with you, you still fail to even recognise it, but instead turn to theories of how we have all grouped up together to form some kind of alliance against you.




So which is it? You contradict yourself. Did it take you 45 minutes, or did you save it and come back to it at other times. Whilst this system may have allowed you to create it with a total writing time of 45 minutes, the need for extra time to consider what you wanted to say, and look up dictionary definitions was still there, hense the saving.

Bored.

Leigh let's go back to the sentence: "There is the difference. Spurs were there to win, Arsenal were there to 'compete'". Now, look up the definition of 'compete' and tell everyone if that differentiates from the sentence 'there to win' from 'there to compete'.

And don't sheepishly walk back into this thread, and claim that your thread in the 'Prove Yourself' wasn't a cheap attempt to erase this complete thread. You posted a link to a thread, but why did you make the thread in the first place? Er, right, dipshit.

Where did I mention theories about grouping together? Another example of your making up statements to have something to respond to?


Leigh, you're a hack. You don't know how to handle an argument. And the evidence is here and elsewhere. You've come full circle. Now, can you figure out how you went from point A to B and come full circle?

[IcemanLeigh]

lol. You make me laugh neo you really do. I am comletely done with this thread for a while. It really is going nowhere. Closing and leaving points, the thread wasnt an attempt to erase anything. It was an addition. Your reference to the fact that it is the prove yourself section is irrelevant considering I actually created the thread in the 'time wasters' section, proving my point correct that it wasnt a start of anythnig new, but instead was an addition to the ridiculous nature that is your arguement. That is why I created the thread, plus the fact that you clearly need your own space in which you can spout your nonsense to your hearts content. Dipshit.

Ive been trying to go back to that sentence since your hijacked this thread and turned it into a debate about whether or not you can argue with people using dictionary references alone.

Arsenal, on said day, were only there to compete, by using the bare minimum team that they could get away with. Im sorry for your irrational love for Wenger that means you are apparently blindsighted to that, but it is clearly true. Im sorry Neo, go around it with as many dictionary definitions as you want, it is still a fact.

Throughout this thread you have strayed so far away from the point that it becomes unrecogniseable. Lets look from point A to B shall we.

I post about Tottenham winning, you post about how Arsenal can beat anyone.

You post about how Arsenal's era is about to start and Tottenhams clearly isnt. The evidance that you provide for this is that Arsenals 'Youngsters' have got them to the semi-final of the carling cup. To which I respond, clearly stating that actually, this is only because of the two managers different philosophies toward the cup.

You responded to this suggesting that you beleived the teams that the two played could tell us that Tottenham obviously dont have confidence in their youngsters.

Just a pause on the proceedings right there.. That is still the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Teams dont always play the bare minimum that they think will win the game.. Surely even you can see this so clearly that just going back to that post must hurt. It strikes me as ridiculous to even fathom someone believing this.

I then responded to this complete garbage, saying that Tottenham were there playing their team to win. And this is a very simple concept, but apparently you still have trouble getting it. Arsenal were not there to go all out for the win, if they were they would have played all of their best players. (although in fairness most of them were on the pitch come the end of the game, assumedly to try and save the embarassment). The picking of the youngesters is something that I actually admire. But in all honesty, this doesn't mean that Arsenal are more confident with their youngsters than Tottenham are, it just means wengers philosophy is to play these youngesters and see how well they can do. I hate to break it to you, but this is simply competing with the bare minimum, and not going out for the win, which is what Tottenhams selection was doing.

At this point the debate was a normal one. Your points were utterly ridiculous, but it was still normal.

At which point you, assumedly to get away from the fact that you dont know how to handle an arguement, strayed off on a tangent about the definition of compete, never to mention either Arsenal or Spurs again.

Full circle ey? Ive only come full circle Neo because thats where you have brought me. I was already going to make this my last post in this thread, but after reading the whole thing again, you make it so evident that you take such utter bullshit that it is not even worth pointing out anymore. I think I have said this before, but I can only assume that you do it on purpose. If not, then I genuinely feel a bit of sympathy for you.

Done.

[Liam]

You look like you're writing a letter...

[Corthag]

I don’t have a favourite philosopher. Those who have favourites have more in common with religious fanatics who believe a particularly doctrine vehemently. And by your sounding off of two of the most revered and followed philosophers, you’re either a great listener of your lecturer or a great reader of the web. Why don’t you try read Wittgenstein before you comment on his “findings”? ;)



Well, at least you’re not talking to yourself or talking back.

Depleted of any grasp of or claim to logic, one panders to the mob. So now that all your spurious reasoning, Leigh, has been ridiculed for being utterly stupid, you’re now banking on the support of nitwits like Dark, Roadpog, and Corthag (the last two, by the way, confessed to not reading all of my post; so how could they know the content without reading said content?) to roundly tell you how great you are and how you’re not wrong. Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t rule in the domain of logic. That’s the great thing: logic doesn’t consider colour of skin, or age, nationality, ethnicity, or popularity; it’s cold and sometimes cruel. Such brash and brazen talk at first and then at the end: crying that I went for the jugular. ;)


Oh, I know that you desperately want to believe that six hundred words took me a week instead of forty-five minutes, because it‘s much more palatable to think that it took me a week to expose your nonsense rather than three quarters of an hour. Not everyone has 24-hour access to the internet, and so, in that limited time on the internet, one doesn’t want to waste internet-time responding to nonsense when he or she could easily press CTRL+S and save to a USB and respond at another time in a Word document, when they forget to save the ‘new reply’ page.


(Egads, a reply written in Microsoft Word. Who would use the program for such devious misdeeds...)

Actually i did read all of your post.

And i like those philosophers because i think they make sense to me, i enjoy reading the work they did and about them. Perhaps that is one reason why they are so followed. And for your information i do politics not philosophy, i did a philosophy AS which was an independent learning unit and only met with the teacher to discuss what we thought of the work and not lectured about philosophy. I think you should see my bookshelf it is covered in history and philosophy books although i must admit that i have not read Wittgenstein orignal work only through other writers. Perhaps i should go out and read it, is it any good?

[NeoKubrick]

and anyone who can be bothered to waste a year or two reading one of your posts can do so. (Seriously, do they come in podcast form? Im off on holiday this year and the drive may take a few hours, on the way there and back i might just have time to listen to it)
And, then, the dolt posts the same amount of content as the one he’s referring to in the above quote (fortunately, it doesn’t take me a year or two as it does for him to read a meagre six hundred words plus). By his deluded reasoning and conjecture-laden assumptions that just because someone didn‘t respond right away, that equates to thinking about the reply during University, pub, watching Sicko, playing PES etc all week, and not forgetting that you have to assume said person actually read what he’s supposed to respond to, it probably took him ninety-nine minutes to write that post or maybe he had thought about the subject all week. He probably “booked time off work” to write it:

lol.
Your reference to the fact that it is the prove yourself section is irrelevant considering I actually created the thread in the 'time wasters' section, proving my point correct that it wasnt a start of anythnig new, but instead was an addition to the ridiculous nature that is your argument.

Okay, listen, it doesn’t matter where you posted the thread, and my referencing to the thread’s whereabouts is entirely irrelevant (do you point out the redundant obvious on other subjects too?) and there was no special referencing to its whereabouts. Of course, it was to detract from this topic/thread; otherwise, you would have posted what you wanted to say in this thread. Now, your attempt to bring this argument down to the level of ‘who do people like more’ was palpable, and the only reason someone would bring it down to that level is obvious enough; I’ll beat you to the punch of stating the redundant obvious: they’re failing to compete or win based on a level of pure logic and reasoning. Your thread was an epic failure (“I couldn't care any less for people backing me up or even agreeing with me, so I fail to see how I have pandered towards any mob.”), and that’s why you had to come back in this thread with your tail between your legs. Now, you have to compete on the level of logic and reasoning, but your arguments and statements aren’t going to change because you abandoned them for while: they’re set in stone (unless you retroactively edit your posts, and in the irrational state that you’re in, I wouldn’t put it past you). You can’t change the past, but, as it’s very clear in your next statements, you sure can try:

Ive been trying to go back to that sentence since your hijacked this thread and turned it into a debate about whether or not you can argue with people using dictionary references alone.
At which point you, assumedly to get away from the fact that you dont know how to handle an arguement, strayed off on a tangent about the definition of compete, never to mention either Arsenal or Spurs again.

That’s a testament to the self-serving and selective memory of humans. I mean, it’s all here just a page back, but you attempt to contradict the plain truth. I first mentioned the definition of ’compete’ in little more than the equivalent of a footnote bracketed between discussing Arsenal, Tottenham, football et cetera. Your response dedicated more space and words to replying to this ‘footnote’ than the ’footnote’ itself. So, immediately, your squealing “strayed off on a tangent about the definition of compete, never to mention either Arsenal or Spurs again.” is incorrect and just plain stupid, as I mentioned Arsenal etc. right after linking the definition of ’compete’.

My response after to your misapplication of ’context’ was thus:
“Firstly, I don't know […] I digress.”

Now, immediately after responding to your points, I digressed to football. In fact, I spent more words and space discussing football than I did addressing your points about definitions and meanings. So, further, your point of “strayed off…” is debunked, and roundly ridiculed by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. The supposed hijacking of the thread took place in the next post by none other than you:
In what world are you living in!?

Are you genuinly saying that you seriously think I dont know what the term 'compete' means? That is the most ridiculous statement you have made yet. I thought it was all in the spirit of the condescending arguement style, but apparently not?

There are several things that shock me. Are you suggesting that you believe a word only has one single definition and the context that it is said in has no bearing upon that definition what so ever? That I am afraid, little boy, (You are right, it is fun to put in nonsensicle ridicule in the middle of a point) is crazy. It is simple fact that a word has more than one definition, especially when placed in a different, or even taken out of, context. This is not 'weaseling' my dear boy, it is common sense.

Also, does it not seem strange that you are the one quoting the original dictionary definition, then you go on to throw around ridiculous claims about people not understanding the meaning of words? Maybe the need to look up the definition, then remove only one of the said definitions to use to your effect would lead to other conclusions. You can't twist words to your own definitions you know..

Under the same page of definitions you will also find that it states compete to mean "To measure oneself against others" Why is it that your quoted definition is more relevant than that one.. Perhaps because it suits your current stance in an arguement?

There has been no retreating onto safe ground either. I would have quite happily said all of this to you before the game. The fact is that Tottenham won, and therefore if Wengers idea of putting out the squad he did was in an attempt to win then he got it wrong did he not? Of course that is based on hindsight. It would not exist as a question if it was not..

It is okay, posting your nonsense with no idea of a simple concept such as context doesn't suprise me. I could say it strikes me as childish.. but it doesn't. Just niave.

I look forward to reading the response about how I have tried to 'weasel' my out of something. It is an interesting theory that you bring up though, projecting.

I stick by it. (which in some twisted way will some how manage to mean that I am attempting to double negatively in a backwards world twice over in a post that I made last week, when I didnt mention a parallel universe, 'weasel' my way out of saying it.

Spurs played their team to win. Ramos and Tottenham's philosophy was to win the win the competition. Spurs havn't enjoyed success in 9 years and so this philosophy cannot really be questioned. Arsenal's philosophy can however be questioned, but who am I to pass judgement upon it. Wenger clearly feels that the carling cup is a lesser priority to him and so he doesn't play the strongest team available but instead plays the team that he feels he can get away with at a bare minimum to 'compete'. So yes, I would still stick by it being the difference..

How much of that post was relating to football and how much, was relating to definitions etc? I mean, when this information is the backdrop of statements like these, you can’t even laugh; they’re just too retarded:

“At which point you, assumedly to get away from the fact that you dont know how to handle an arguement, strayed off on a tangent about the definition of compete, never to mention either Arsenal or Spurs again.” or:
“Ive been trying to go back to that sentence since your hijacked this thread”

If you wanted to hijack the discussion and make it mostly about semantics, I didn’t mind. I thought that you were crazy and stupid to jump from a subject you have at least some knowledge of (football), to a subject you have little to no knowledge of (semantics). I could only respond to what you had given me, and even then, I dedicated more time to discussing football than you did. Hell, I even made it explicit: “To football”. In reply to that post, you ignored every single point, even the points about football: you went from hijacking the discussion to hijacking the entire thread. So, Leigh, in two statements, you’ve managed to make a complete and utter fool of yourself; it’s almost poetic.


Now, to football, or more specifically back to what you said and I reputed a week ago:

Surely even you can see this so clearly that just going back to that post must hurt.

Not at all, Leigh. Remember: you were the one who ignored my points on the subject of football and everything else. You attempted to try erase all these posts by moving to another thread (though, what possessed you to think that the posts in here would suddenly disappear is anyone’s guess). So, trying to spin that I’m anyway hurt by any of this argument appears like the guilty quick to accuse the innocent, and utterly smacks of desperation on your part.

Okay, another time for that noggin’ of yours. Let’s go back to where you said that the two managers’ philosophies are different. Remember I mentioned ‘cause and effect’ logic? Yes, you see, the ’cause’ doesn’t come after the ‘effect’, but you were and are now claiming that the ‘cause‘ comes straight after the ‘effect‘. The cause for Wenger’s philosophy is the quality of his ‘youngsters’; the effect is the philosophy itself. Tottenham don’t have that philosophy because the ’cause’ is that they don’t have the quality of ’youngsters’ Arsenal have to compete in the Carling Cup. Is that simple enough for you, or should I start drawing pictures for you instead?

You state that it’s a bare-minimum policy by Wenger but contradict that notion by stating it’s a philosophy. Listen, the Carling Cup is a knockout competition; therefore, dipshit, it’s not much experience to the ‘youngsters’ if they play one game and go out. Wenger’s philosophy isn’t a bare-minimum policy; it’s a way to approach a competition and win it. His ‘youngsters’ have reached the final and semi-final last year and this year, respectively. They have beaten the likes of Blackburn, Newcastle, Liverpool and, you guessed it, Tottenham in those two years of the competition; therefore, his philosophy isn’t based on what he can get away with, but what his ‘youngsters’ can achieve. There’s no difference between Wenger’s desire to win with his second team than it is for Tottenham’s to win with their first.

By your logic of ‘strongest’ teams, if AC Milan fielded a ‘young’ side of professionals (inferior to their strongest team) against a pub team full of amateurs and drunks in a friendly cup, AC Milan wouldn’t be competing to win the cup. They would be competing to win: Arsenal were competing to win, but they lost. Even you agree with this:
“Arsenal were there to 'compete'. Which quite clearly they didnt.”

So, they didn’t compete, but put out the bare-minimum to compete?

By the way, you went full-circle from arguing for ‘context’ in response to my ‘footnote’ to arguing against ‘context’ by citing that definitions of ‘win’ and ‘compete’ differed: a good example of how confused you really are to contradict your own point (less work for me, cheers).


If all of that doesn’t convince you, Leigh, that you’ve lost your grasp of sense, this statement surely does:

“But in all honesty, this doesn't mean that Arsenal are more confident with their youngsters than Tottenham are, it just means wengers philosophy is to play these youngesters and see how well they can do.”

You really think that doesn’t mean Arsenal are more confident with their youngsters than Tottenham, or can one not tell by a philosophy or a choice of philosophy? So, Flamini is keeping Gilberto Silva out of the side because? Wenger let Vieira go and Fabregas take his place because? Lauren was let go join Portsmouth because? So, Henry was let go to Barcelona, because Arsenal are less confident with their youngsters? I mean, in one week, you’ve transformed from an intelligent and logical thinker to an irrational idiotic poster. As I said before, you need to let go of your e-rep, and quit thinking that you’re a master debater; you’re not even close. You’re a mere hack, and the only thing to separate you from other hacks is that you have a functioning intellect and can use it.

Full circle ey? Ive only come full circle Neo because thats where you have brought me.

True enough. ;)


Actually i did read all of your post.

And i like those philosophers because i think they make sense to me, i enjoy reading the work they did and about them. Perhaps that is one reason why they are so followed. And for your information i do politics not philosophy, i did a philosophy AS which was an independent learning unit and only met with the teacher to discuss what we thought of the work and not lectured about philosophy. I think you should see my bookshelf it is covered in history and philosophy books although i must admit that i have not read Wittgenstein orignal work only through other writers. Perhaps i should go out and read it, is it any good?

Wittgenstein's a tough read. I'd start with Chomsky before reading Wittgenstein.

[Renegade]

Bugger. Me.

Can you guys PM eachother?

[Gaskin]

I'll give it a B+.

[Corthag]

I think the fact that Ramos has only been at the club a few months makes it difficult for him to judge which youth/ youngsters could make it as hes barely had enough time to judge which 1st team players he wants to keep and which areas he would want to strengthen especially with the january transfer window coming 2 months after he joined the club. He also criticised the team quite alot for being unfit and overweight and had to improve the league position so had little time to spend looking at the reserve/youth team. Even so Jamie O'Hara has been used quite alot by Ramos so maybe this is a different philosophy towards the younger players coming through.

I think to judge Arsenal and Spurs in regards to youth policy is difficult as the clubs are clearly at different stages with Wenger being at the club for 10+ years (?) and Ramos just over 3 months. This with regard to the positions of the club in the league and cups makes them view the use and development of youth players. Saying that the clubs have different a different philosophy just because of the confidence they have in the youngsters is clearly stupid.

You really think that doesn’t mean Arsenal are more confident with their youngsters than Tottenham, or can one not tell by a philosophy or a choice of philosophy?

I am pretty sure that you realise that and it was just an oversight on your part.

However as i said before Tottenham have some very highly rated youth players of which much is expected and generally have a young first team when everyone is fit. With Defoe going some of the young forwards like Pekhart may get more of a chance to prove they have what it takes to play premier league football. I've always been critical of Spurs not giving youngsters a chance in the first team. I remember Ifil, now been sold, playing 4 premier league games 3ish seasons ago and he got a lot of positive press about how well he was playing but after the 1st team player recovered from injury he went back to the reserves and never got a chance again. Does anyone remember Darren Caskey? He was the captain of the England U17 team, that won the European tournament many years ago, and had players like Beckham, Neville, Scholes, but he was never given a proper chance for Spurs and was then sold.


Finally i have read some Chomsky as he is quite political, socialist and anti-american; not really my kind of writer.

[NeoKubrick]

Saying that the clubs have different a different philosophy just because of the confidence they have in the youngsters is clearly stupid.

I am pretty sure that you realise that and it was just an oversight on your part.

Corthag, you really haven't grasped the finer points of this (or indeed, simple sentences) argument (and how banal an argument is when it tries to prove something irrefutable). I mean, I don't know what you're babbling on about in the quoted section, at least. All what I said is in my posts, and if you can't grasp by now how a club with a different attitude towards youth, can equate to a different philosophy, then...


Finally i have read some Chomsky as he is quite political, socialist and anti-american; not really my kind of writer.
For you to even spout off that rubbish demonstrates than you haven't read him, at all, or at least, with any understanding of what he was talking about.

"anti-american"

Ahaha

[Renegade]

This will literally NEVER end!

Although what this does prove is that even such a simple, 90 minute game can produce a fantastic debate that seemingly can't be proved either way. It's probably best for both of you to agree to disagree, and wait for the final!

[Corthag]

Ok Neo i rereadiwhat you wrote i think that i misread what you wrote so apoligise to you as what i was saying would clearly make no sense.

To Chomsky i don't know what the ahaha is for you are on about Noam Chomsky who is critical of the American government, speaking out at state based terrorism such as the invasion of Afghanistan. He is critical of alot of American foreign policy in the Cold War period but anyone who claims to be a libertarian socialist is bound to be. Am i incorrect in that?

[NeoKubrick]

Ok Neo i rereadiwhat you wrote i think that i misread what you wrote so apoligise to you as what i was saying would clearly make no sense.

To Chomsky i don't know what the ahaha is for you are on about Noam Chomsky who is critical of the American government, speaking out at state based terrorism such as the invasion of Afghanistan. He is critical of alot of American foreign policy in the Cold War period but anyone who claims to be a libertarian socialist is bound to be. Am i incorrect in that?

Well, you demonstrated that you haven't really read his thoughts on indoctrination and propaganda. He actually talked about the absurd term 'anti-American' (something along the lines of "If you went to Italy and used the term anti-Italian, they'd laugh at you") and many others, and how it has been used to deflect correct criticisms of American's global terrorism. So, here how it works out: I state that America was found guilty in a court of state-sponsored terrorism (absolutely true, by the way) and you call me 'anti-American' in defence of that statement. Or, indeed, is it 'anti-American' to claim that while America were impeaching Nazi Germany for genocide of the Jews (didn't Hitler take the model of America's pogrom), America has conveniently glossed (I think one academic said: "[they] took to the task of fallen trees and Indians") over their genocide of the Indians. I think you're smart enough to figure out the irony of that one, and the paradox.

But, hey, maybe not: after all, you shouldn't listen to any person who's "anti-American". We're evil, right?

Oh, yeah, here's a few choice quotes from the thread:

i think it's downhill for Arsenal from now on this season.
After not being able to maintain their lead over Man Utd, Losing players to the African Nations, Some of their more important players either not performing or being injured and now being knocked out by their rivals in the semi's,
i think this has shattered them.
but sadly this is where the Gunners train comes to a halt.

And, even, without Toure and Eboue...

[Corthag]

Neo i never said i had read all of Chomsky i said i had read some. Thats a big difference. Although perhaps some is too vague a term for your liking? I am right wing (although not extreme) and don't really like reading left wing work although i will give it a go, and i had not read this anti american writing by Chomsky. From what i had read i know he criticises the American government and its foreign policy, considering its was an ip subject we were not required to read much more.

Who are those quotes from? i don't remember saying any of them.

[NeoKubrick]

Neo i never said i had read all of Chomsky i said i had read some. Thats a big difference. Although perhaps some is too vague a term for your liking? I am right wing (although not extreme) and don't really like reading left wing work although i will give it a go, and i had not read this anti american writing by Chomsky. From what i had read i know he criticises the American government and its foreign policy, considering its was an ip subject we were not required to read much more.

Who are those quotes from? i don't remember saying any of them.

Well, you read some of Chomsky, and that 'some' was enough for you to state your opinion of him. I refuted that opinion. It's not my fault that you only read 'some' when giving your opinion of him, now is it?

What's the definition of a neo-conservative? A liberal who just got mugged. ;)

[Corthag]

So he is not critical of the American government then? Whether correct or not in his criticism obviously depends on your perspective. He is still a left wing thinker and critical of the US govt to many that would make him anti-american even if you want to use your little quotes from above. I think it would be hard to argue that he is not critical of the American govt.

As for the term anti-american i am sure there is some irony in the way it is used as you have highlighted above and it is clear the US government has undertaken what many call state sponsored terrorism but in all this you are a coming into a war of definitions. After all one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

I think to argue over the definitions of these would get us no where and just add another few pages to this thread which has now massively deviated from football. Thanks for enlightening me on Chomsky and your views.