The Assasination of Claffy

[Rockman]

Why is awkward in quotation marks?
But let us give you the benefit of the doubt,awkward denotes ineptness ,and given your invariable adverse reactions,you have grave concerns about Sakho being fielded.

[Paul Marin]

So if you give him credit after 3 games for improving, by extension the team,who do you blame for his lack of it for those 3 seasons ? the bigger question is would you say the team was improving while Lucas suffered ?

Tek yuh time wid yuhself.

I gave him credit after 3 games???????????????? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bwoy...you if the Nazis ever regain power, you should go re-write the history books for them. Wooooooooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. When the team was tearing up the prem under Rodgers, Lucas was perceived as not being a regular starter but he started 21 games and came on as a sub in 8. So clearly he was valued. I have been supportive of Lucas somewhere in his second season at Anfield when his play improved dramatically. You need to stick to facts and not flatulence.

[Sir X]

So you supported Lucas who was on his was to Turkey this summer,the better question is did you support him to start over Allen,because they way how you toss terms ,support to you might imply -the bench-reserves-loan- or out.

[Peter R]

Why is awkward in quotation marks?
But let us give you the benefit of the doubt,awkward denotes ineptness ,and given your invariable adverse reactions,you have grave concerns about Sakho being fielded.

First let me help you interpret why it is in quotes... it can be used to highlight the use of the word in a a special way. And since Paul and I went to good school and also because I have read his comments on both Lucas (over the years) and Sakho (more recently) I fully understand what his comment is referring to. I myself when I saw Sakho play, was not enamored with his STYLE of play,.i.e. how he controlled and played the ball; he always looked like (and still does) that he might trip over his own feet. However, in spite of that appearance of awkwardness, or clumsiness, he is very effective! and Paul has said no less. X is really stretching the truth here and creating a non-existent opinion for his own mileage.

Also, of all the synonyms of "awkward", you chose "inept"... I refer you to definition 3 and its synonyms. I assure you, INEPT is not the synonym meant by Paul (again I have read his comments on Sakho and UNDERSTAND them, unlike your sidekick X). Your made a deliberate choice of the word "inept" (demonstrates that you have some X-ness in you ...) when there are a host of other synonyms to choose from... "clumsy", yes, "ungainly" yes, "uncoordinated", no, though he looks it and so on... And hence the use of the "quotation" to highlight the anomaly of what is perceived and what he achieves.

https://www.google.tt/search?q=awkwa...sm=91&ie=UTF-8

Like we have to keep educating you fellows:

[Rockman]

Look,highligting the word awkward was never in dispute,the reason why it was highlighted(really introduced) is debatable .
Could it be Paul Marin retrofitting?

[Peter R]

You asked "Why is awkward in quotation marks..." and I answered, and that's your response?! saying it was "never in dispute"...??huh???

You say the reason why it was "highlighted (really introduced) is debatable"... so how is "is debatable" different that "in dispute" except maybe for degree? I know they're not exactly the same but I sense some playing with semantics here.

In either case you I gave you the answer, there is no retrofitting ( and I take it you mean flip flopping), if anyone is retrofitting it's X and you!

X seeks to ascribe reason and motive that don't exist...it's a fabrication of his fertile imagination!! and you're lapping it up like milk and honey when it is really a poisonous concoction! Lap carefully!

[Sir X]

Chuss mi alot of reason and motives , Xists' on Pauls part.All I seek is clarification from a point of truth from him.This seems to be a gigantic hurdle on his part.

[Paul Marin]

Chuss mi alot of reason and motives , Xists' on Pauls part.All I seek is clarification from a point of truth from him.This seems to be a gigantic hurdle on his part.

What clarification do you seek "O dim one?" "What truth do you wish, that I have denied you, my academically 'gifted' fren'?" The only gigantic hurdle that xists is the hurdle of overcoming your intellectual shortfalls. Chuss me, it is GIGANTIC NO RAHT!! Your response shows that you are clutching at straws. Clutch, les' you drown (again).

[Sir X]

1st thing you have to do ,to be able to make an honest assessment of Klopp is admit that his predecessor left him an unbalanced team , then you and I, can see eye to eye.It makes no sense you critique Klopp as having same problems as B.R when he obviously didnt start at the same starting point.

I have always said Pool has a good team under B.R but lack a manager that can get the most out of it, you see this in the players used, how they are used ,formation set up and tactical adjustments.

Its not coincidence we looked like a team under B.R content on passing the ball 90 minutes for a draw and one in the space of 3 games beating the wall down for a win ( with all those injuries).

If you can be honest in your examination about this, you will admit a change in tactics- formation ,subs,philospohy and of course mental adjustment of players, staff played a role in this .This is the qualatative effect that B.R did not have.Simply the nuance to implement this.

To you its all excused by B.R not having a 20 goal a season striker, as if he has the qualatative effect of purchasing (eyeing) one and molding one.Given what we know now ,as a friend told me who was an ardent Rodgers supporter and now a Klopp believer, B.R needed more time at a smaller club.

Confession good for the soul.

[Paul Marin]

One at a time...

1st thing you have to do ,to be able to make an honest assessment of Klopp is admit that his predecessor left him an unbalanced team.

So if Rodgers left Klopp an unbalanced team was the team balanced or unbalanced under Rodgers?

[Sir X]

Wow.

Diss bredda narmal ? Its probably not about truth but mental faculties, sorry breds.

[Paul Marin]

Wow.

Diss bredda narmal ? Its probably not about truth but mental faculties, sorry breds.

Why aren't you answering the question? You said that for this to be meaningful, I have to admit that Klopp inherited an unbalanced team from Rodgers. So was the team unbalanced or balanced under Rodgers? I just need to know what your thoughts are. It will make the dialogue meaningful. Maybe you can help further by defining what you mean by balanced/unbalanced.

[Rockman]

No,I meant retrofitting,there is a possibility he intended modify prior statements that he is now uncomfortable with,and the word awkward conveniently gives new meaning to what he said.We will never know,but he knows,and that is why the question was directed to him.

Why can't I have a conversation with you on this particular issue without X name being mentioned?Has the boundary been drawn?

[Peter R]

OK Sir, I won't call ? name

If you have followed Paul's comments on Sakho, there is no retrofitting. He has written about how he looks when he plays while at the same time giving him props for doing a good job back there.

You have to produce some evidence of "retrofitting" if any exists because as I pointed out, the use of quotes is equally (and correctly) explained by what I told you.

This does not prevent anyone from changing their mind about a player, or coach, as time goes by. Paul said as much with respect to Lucas.

[Rockman]

If you agree that Klopp inherited an unbalance team then obviously the task at hand for the new manager is to rectify that,and surely you hope he he does it in a timely manner,how loooong was BR the manager?