Cole Palmer | Chelsea Player

Kwabs said:
Most of the Brazilians whose technique is lauded (e.g. Ronaldinho) are not short or diminutive. This is not about England v Spain, it was pushed that way by someone in this thread who has got a bee in his bonnet about Barca.

For example, do you think Palmer's technical ability is comparable to Neymar's?
Click to expand...
Yes. By asking that question you've literally just proved that (eg indirectly compared them).
 
TenonTen said:
Short diminutive players are way too overrated for their "technique" by Football fans.


Technique isn't just close control and body feints in tight spaces.


Technique includes touch, shooting, passing, crossing too. English players like Beckham and Trent excel in many of these technical attributes, way more than the Spanish technicians.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think for some it comes down to what skillset they prioritize - that them becomes what they narrowly define as 'technique' while other skills, all of which involve technique too, get ignored because it doesn't fit their definition.

Players that demonstrate amazing dribbling ability as well as the ability to manipulate the ball in tight spaces are usually great to watch but that doesn't make them the first and last word in footballing technique.
 
I am curious how Txiki and Pep’s seemingly planned jumping off ship changes perspective on Palmer being allowed to leave City.

The “he wanted playing time and we don’t make people stay” thing made sense. But after realizing they were getting to see him every day in training, and then let him leave for Dewesbury-Hall money … and they probably knew they were leaving….did they just not care?
 
Pickle85 said:
Yes. By asking that question you've literally just proved that (eg indirectly compared them).
Click to expand...

That’s not how you interpret a sentence.

“Is Godzillas ability to feck up your day comparable to standing in sh1t on your way to work?”

You don’t interpret the literal meaning of the words. You answer on the context.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
That’s not how you interpret a sentence.

“Is Godzillas ability to feck up your day comparable to standing in sh1t on your way to work?”

You don’t interpret the literal meaning of the words. You answer on the context.
Click to expand...
Man said they weren't comparable and in doing so inadvertently compared them. Sorry, but that's the truth.
 
noelyman said:
By that logic my footballing skills were comparable to George Best.
Click to expand...
They literally are. Just very, very unfavourably so.

It's also quite obvious that @UnrelatedPsuedo didn't mean to be taken literally. Language only really work when two (or more) people are trying to understand one another, and it's clear that nobody is actually trying to understand them.
 
noelyman said:
By that logic my footballing skills were comparable to George Best.
Click to expand...

didz said:
They literally are. Just very, very unfavourably so.

It's also quite obvious that @UnrelatedPsuedo didn't mean to be taken literally. Language only really work when two (or more) people are trying to understand one another, and it's clear that nobody is actually trying to understand them.
Click to expand...
Both correct!
 
"On a moral level, do you think Hitler and granite are comparable?"

"Yes. By asking that question you've literally just proved that."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.