RAWK Goes Into Meltdown (2012/2013)
- Thread starter Plan M
- Start date
- Status
at that post - I love it when someone tries to do some hilariously over complicated post showing off their academic ability when, in fact, the grammar is terrible and it doesn't say anything of use. Reminds me of a great course description I once had at uni for a particularly difficult sounding subject.'We will examine the rhetorics common to both fictional and non-fictional travel writing, aiming in particular to comprehend the interactions between geographical knowledge and fiction in the Renaissance: To what extent is Renaissance fiction influenced by travellers’s accounts and the new image of the world they offer? And how does fiction, in return(and what is fiction, pray?), shape the traveller’s perception of the worlds he encounters? This course will also offer the opportunity to explore key notions of early modern literature and thought: humanism, utopia, primitivism, cultural relativism, wonder, experience, curiosity and a host of other foreign concepts.'
Yep, might go for something else.
Even prayers can't save ^that^ bit, Al.
I don't understand it.
I don't even understand how the bloke ever thought that was an appropriate thing to bracket. What's great is how he edited it out of the final version of the description after someone clearly told him it was bollocks.
Anyway, that's an aside. I love RAWK - it produces incredible posts in every corner of the forum.
Anyway, that's an aside. I love RAWK - it produces incredible posts in every corner of the forum.
As suspected, it has began:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=298692.0
A much bigger thread about the appointment of Gill as FA vice chairman, than the thread in the Caf. Anyway some good posts there from some posters, though they are overrnumbered by the usual idiotic posts.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=298692.0
A much bigger thread about the appointment of Gill as FA vice chairman, than the thread in the Caf. Anyway some good posts there from some posters, though they are overrnumbered by the usual idiotic posts.
Give some of the poster's credit, there is a few good posts, trouble is they are lost among the utter dross and sheer lunacy of the other posts.
I posted that a few pages back.Gems like this.
Because it wouldn't be the fact that your team stinks like a skip that hasn't been emptied in months at the back of a restaurant..
What is a fair assessment of Paul Scholes' career?
Is that comment for real? Are they really saying Scholes doesn't compare to Alonso or Gerrard??
Scholes was better than Alonso and gerrard, though probably in a time period (2005-2008) Gerrard was better than Scholes at his best. But if we compare their careers Scholes was superior to any of these playes mentioned.
If Scholes woul have played in Spain, I think that h woul have been remembered probably in the sime heights as Xavi. Anyway, we cannot expect that Scousers would ever admit it.
If Scholes woul have played in Spain, I think that h woul have been remembered probably in the sime heights as Xavi. Anyway, we cannot expect that Scousers would ever admit it.
Who gives a flying feck what a few deluded bitter scousers think of the guy who represents the club they hate? We could just post what some of the greatest players of the game (Zidane for example) have said about him, but we already know. Every Spanish player agrees that had he been Spanish, he would have done brilliantly on the international scene (rather than being pushed wide in a side unable to retain any semblance of possession so Lampard and Gerrard could run around like headless chickens).
Your talking bollocks!
Double bollocks they don't even come close to The Prince during any time period
Nah there was certainly a period where Gerrard was better than Scholes. He might have been the best player in the Prem not named Ronaldo actually.
But in terms of career Scholes is clearly superior, and Scholes at his best > Gerrard at his best.
But in terms of career Scholes is clearly superior, and Scholes at his best > Gerrard at his best.
Gerard better than scholes!? Are you on drugs!.
I suspect you're about 14 revan and never saw scholes at his peak
I suspect you're about 14 revan and never saw scholes at his peak
Yeah, I am actually 5 gb.
Let's forget that Gerrard in that time was the second best player (in 2005-2006 the best) in the Premier League and won the Champions with a shit team. Also, in 2005 he was the third most voted player in France Football Golden Ball. And although it counts for nothing he was 7 times in Premier League best eleven (Scholes was 2 times). So, is not that straight.
My opinion is that if we compare careers in overall then Scholes was the better player, but Gerrard at his best was better than Scholes at his best. And as I said yesterday in an another thread, Scholes was never even our best player in midfield department (midfield + winger), while Gerrard was one year the best player in England.
Gerrard is a talented, but brainless midfielder.
all absolutely irrelevant and some just your opinion. there is literally no comparison between the too. they are worlds apart in terms of ability. while better than xavi and iniesta i would at least entertain a discussion about who was better. gerrard at his best better than scholes at his best? dear oh dear
there was a period where james beattie was better than alan shearer. its such a non point.
Why they are irrelevant? Because you and gb says so?
Of course that these decisions are all subjective, but Golden Ball (at-least till it changed it's name) was very accurate. Also, Gerrard was the best player in England during the 2005-2006 season, he was chosen and I think that most of the people will agree about this.
I suggest you get the DVDs out, a pair of specs and go watch again. Then come back with a straight face and tell me Gerrard was a better footballer again
Seriously
Seriously
what does that even mean? also several chelsea players were better than gerrard that season. finally while a talented player, between himself and john terry, they are probably the two most over rated players ever,driven by being english and idiots on skysports. gerrard would have been seen as a workhorse and solid team player and not much more in foreign leagues. hes very limited and being the best player consistently in a consistently bad team doesnt change that.
I never said that Gerrard was the better player overall, just at his best was better than Scholes at his best. Scholes form though lasted 3 times longer than Gerrard's.
That it was a fair judgement from proffesionals.
Regularly, only in last 10 years.
06/07 ?
What is rarely mentioned on the Caf, understandably, is that Gerrard was indeed absolutely magnificent at his peak. The Scholes comparisons are neither here nor there, but Gerrard himself was sensational at times.
I think he means Gerrard at his best was better than Scholes when he was getting past it. Just his opinion still. The fact was that Gerrard was a stand out for them but we had a lot of good players. Credit to Gerrard for dragging that lot to the CL in 2005 really. To busy kissing cameras to win a Premier League title though...
They're totally different as players ffs.
Different players, so hard to compare for me. As a pure CM and in terms of adapting in his latter years/longevity Scholes wins but I'm inclined to say Gerrard's ceiling was higher, from what I saw anyway. The way he carried Liverpool from 02-09 was incredible and I wouldn't say our teams then were much too different to now in terms of quality - Gerrard was the main factor in us actually being decent.
Can't say I've watched Scholes anywhere near as frequently though, especially in his earlier days. What would people class as his best season?
Can't say I've watched Scholes anywhere near as frequently though, especially in his earlier days. What would people class as his best season?
What would be relevant, and not just your opinion fwiw?
Gerrard was just run and shoot, Scholes, like Xavi, Zidane, Davids said, was so much more. Gerrard no PL medals, Scholes has a bag full. This makes me happy.
Both top players but Scholes has more about his game for me. Gerrard deserves credit for what he's done at Liverpool, at times he really has dragged them through, the CL win springs to mind but I think the FA cup final may have been more impressive individually.
But at the same time he's played in a team largely designed to get the most out of him, Scholes has rarely had that at united, he's managed to be a player that, if not praised enough in the media until relatively lately, has always had the admiration of his team mates and peers.
They are very different players though but I think the main difference for me is that Scholes is a player who will be a massive part of the team over a whole season, he controls the way we play, Gerrard in a similar way to Giggs is the guy who might not always perform great over a whole season or even matches but can pop up at the right moment with something vital to change the game. Both great qualities but end of the day if I wanted to build a great team I would definitely put Scholes in there in the midfield, I wouldn't put Gerrard in centre mid and I would think of a lot of other players in attacking mid before I went to Gerrard.
But at the same time he's played in a team largely designed to get the most out of him, Scholes has rarely had that at united, he's managed to be a player that, if not praised enough in the media until relatively lately, has always had the admiration of his team mates and peers.
They are very different players though but I think the main difference for me is that Scholes is a player who will be a massive part of the team over a whole season, he controls the way we play, Gerrard in a similar way to Giggs is the guy who might not always perform great over a whole season or even matches but can pop up at the right moment with something vital to change the game. Both great qualities but end of the day if I wanted to build a great team I would definitely put Scholes in there in the midfield, I wouldn't put Gerrard in centre mid and I would think of a lot of other players in attacking mid before I went to Gerrard.
Jesus, bollocks indeed. Can't believe any football fan would even compare Scholes to gerrard let alone say he was ever superior.
He is the best midfielder that ever played in the Premiership, that is the least one can say of him.
I think we can all respect Gerrard for what he did at Liverpool, he was/is a suburb player but to compare his talent to scholes' is laughable. Scholes is a different class to most footballers worldwide let alone in England.
The very least.
- Status