lexicon

I'm not ignoring anything and I'm not disputing what the original poster said, other than the fact that it's not a well-crafted sentence. The relevance lies in the debate that there is more than way to interpret what somebody says, that's the point.

No, I'm not. I looked at what he said as a clause ('capable of being called up by England') rather than just a word. I know exactly what he meant but I chose to interpret it in a different way, which is easy to do when you write a sentence like that. That clause literally means 'he has the ability or skill to be called up by England' So your original statement is still wrong. It's not wrong because there are different ways what he said can be interpreted. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise, so you may as well just give up. The ways it can be interpreted are defined by the context surely? Without context Stefan could have been saying "he could play for the England national tiddlywinks team if he so wished", which would also be true. Yes, exactly - context means a hell of a lot in language. It's obvious what the correct interpretation is but to say that there are no other ways of interpreting it is just plain wrong. The fact is, it wasn't a well crafted sentence in the first place.

No, I'm not. I looked at what he said as a clause ('capable of being called up by England') rather than just a word. I know exactly what he meant but I chose to interpret it in a different way, which is easy to do when you write a sentence like that. That clause literally means 'he has the ability or skill to be called up by England' So your original statement is still wrong. It's not wrong because there are different ways what he said can be interpreted. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise, so you may as well just give up.

It'll defo happen now! Every time you slag him off he proves you to be completely wrong! Keep up with the slagging! Just for the record, this is not to slag him off - I think it's an unreasonable expectation because it's not something that's ever been a part of his game, so it shouldn't be expected. I don't think Richards has proven me wrong about anything yet but I hope he does.

No, I'm not. I looked at what he said as a clause ('capable of being called up by England') rather than just a word. I know exactly what he meant but I chose to interpret it in a different way, which is easy to do when you write a sentence like that.

Yeah, I'm sure 1-in-29.5-over-the-course-of-his-career Micah Richards will be banging them in for us from corners and free kicks.

None of that really bothers me, to be honest. I'm just bothered about how we play and the results we get.

There's nothing inaccurate about what I said, though. You were debating the semantics.

It's a results driven business at the end of the day - we were very patient with Lambert and it just never came together. Tim could well succeed here but he could well fail too - he's very much unproven still and that's why I've been keeping on the fence. I think we'll know a lot about him by Christmas, anyway. I'm hoping it's positive.

So is anyone who is of a certain age, sex and nationality - technically. capable ˈkeɪpəb(ə)l/ adjective 1. having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing. Nice try though. Calm down sweetie, just yanking your chain a little.

I don't think he's that much of a maverick renegade, to be fair. He's not as straight-laced as a Mclaren or a Hodgson but I don't think he's too far removed to be out of the picture due to personality.

So is anyone who is of a certain age, sex and nationality - technically.

At the risk of being pointed and screamed at like this: Perhaps talk of him being the next England manager is massively premature. He's got a lot to prove still.

Gabby, Ayew and Sinclair all create chances in exactly the same way though - that's the problem, you need an attack that can create lots of different types of chances so that you keep your opponents guessing. If you've got those three in front of you as a defender, you know that you need to go deep and that you don't really have to worry about anything else they can bring to the table. We lacked the dimension of an incisive passer or someone who can comfortably beat a man with skill for a long time, which is one of the reasons we scored so few goals under Lambert.

Almost as though young players improve with experience...

I think he's got a long way to go before he'll get an England call up.

I'd say that he can realistically cover 2 positions in the way we set up these days - LB and CM. Neither of which are desperately short of cover, plus he isn't particularly good or anything anyway. I'd be fine with just getting him off the wage bill.

Reus is a lot more athletic and faster than Grealish - I don't really see the comparison myself.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that our creative attackers were all unavailable but that won't be the case for the majority of the season, I hope. I think the Palace game will be our biggest challenge so far, actually. Also, I was a bit harsh yesterday - so sorry about that.

Shit, didn't realise that. Hopefully they won't qualify - less chance than Ghana, Senegal and Mali, I'd say.

Balls. With him, Gana and Ayew - the ACON could really screw us over.

It's a fair excuse when both teams are playing at their best but that doesn't happen all the time. For example, Man U were definitely there for the taking the other day but we weren't up to speed either, which isn't a surprise given the new guys/injuries situation. Had we been on song, we definitely could have won that game.

Really want to see him in a team with Traore and Gestede - the past two games we've cried out for a bit of flair/creativity.

You can't see it because you clearly don't understand how important positional sense is in football. Hence why you don't rate Kozak, hence why you can't see anything wrong with Richards at CB.

Creativity is a bit more complicated than 'a through ball' - sort of cheapens your argument.