El Segundo

2 hours ago, tomav84 said:

quite an assumption that people that fear the worst about a player having one of the most serious injuries that's possible for a sportsperson to have will automatically have a glass half empty approach to all outlooks on life

It's not so much about having that fear, which is natural. It's about how you get from a simple photo with a promise of an update to somehow concluding that your fearing the worst must have come true.  That's quite the assumption.     

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

people are allowed to have a reaction to a sombre looking photo posted by their (for many of us) favourite player. it doesn't make them bed wetters, wet lettuces, or any of the other entitiled insults thrown around

you didn't have the same reaction. good for you. well done.

Indeed and others are allowed to say they think it's an overreaction to one photo and the news of an upcoming update - not an announcement, an update.  You're right though, it is very good for me I didn't have the same reaction, I'd be very worried about my outlook on life if I had.     

6 hours ago, KevinRichardsonsMoustache said:

I'm happy to embrace the fact that such is my admiration for Ty (and what I think he symbolises) that my mind ran immediately to the worst option and I shat myself.

There's a special brand of arrogance for people not involved in a panic. Especially after it's over. Not to say that everyone should assume the worst at everything, that people shouldn't be more critical or that jumping to conclusions isn't stupid, but have a think why people are panicking before passing judgement  

 

So why were people panicking?  I mean, even if the totally groundless conclusions some leaped to were true, it's hardly a life or death situation is it?  

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

It’s okay, I get your apology and frankly we’re all a bit on our toes here because we’ve fairly consistently got a bunch of hoodlums outside both our place of worship and schools saying horrible things because of our race. I probably knee jerk too quickly when I see things that might look like what I hear from said hoodlums.

I’m often equated with Israel only because I was born by a Jewish mother, which I find weird considering that it’s often the kind of people that would describe themselves as anti-racist who say such things.

I’m sick and tired of having to shield parents of a dead kid at a festival in Israel from people waving Hamas or Jihad flags just because they want to go to a service in their synagogue. It’s probably making me see shadows where they aren’t.

For my part, I’m also sorry for misunderstanding and being a clearing in the woods about it.

It seems I may have picked you up on a response to a post that was edited before I read it.  If so, I also apologise for what I said - and for being a bit of a clearing in the woods about it.  

41 minutes ago, meregreen said:

He’s a moderator. He certainly can tell you what not to do……..on this site

Only if I've broken the rules.  I haven't as far as I know.

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Did I make stuff up?

Are all major publications in the UK linked to Israel? That was the statement you’re now defending.

A poster wrote "links to Israel".  You  turned it into "controlling all major publications in one of the largest countries in Europe"   

I'm defending his statement against accusations of AS simply because I think it isn't.  I'm not saying I agree with it, just don't think it's AS, nor is it saying Israel controls all major publications, as you have asserted.    

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You could do with taking your own initial advice with regards to that last sentence not only that I suggest you read the good number of posts in this topic that he’s made where he does actually criticise Israel and it’s government quite extensively.

Practice what you preach. Oh and stop putting words in his mouth.

You could do with not trying to tell me what to do.  What words have I put in his mouth?  Examples? And what am I preaching that I need to practice?  Please explain.

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

So you agree that all major UK publications have links to Israel then?

You get how that looks? All major publications are somehow linked and doing the bidding of Israel, a state of below the number of people living in an average European capital supposedly controlling all major publications in one of the largest countries in Europe.

Let’s call a spade a spade. When a reporter works for Hezbollah, Al-Quds or Hamas, it isn’t anti-Arab to point that out. Just like it isn’t antisemitic to point out that someone working for The Jewish Chronicle is biased. 

Saying that the only Jewish state in the world controls all media in a democratic nation however, falls squarely into a trope.

I didn't say I agreed so stop trying to put words in my mouth to bolster your bluster.

I get how anyone trying to deflect criticism of Israel by playing the AS card want it t look.  To people who know the difference between criticism of Israel and AS, I'm sure it looks just fine.  

Who said "controlling all major publications"? I believe the OP mentioned "links to Israel".  Just a bit different don't you think? Your hyperbole getting the better of you again/making stuff up again.

Apart from the fact you have dismissed official news sources like Al Jazeera as well, you are missing the point.  I don't think dismissing those sources is anti-Arab.  Anymore than I think suspecting certain sources are pro-Iraesli is anti-semitic.  I was just pointing out the contradiction in attitude.     

Your last sentence - the phrase "links to Israel" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there isn't it?  Bit of a leap from that to "the only Jewish state in the world controlling all media in a democratic nation".  The reference was to the state of Israel acting as a state, not as a Jewish entity.  Sure Israel is a Jewish state, sure it's the only one, but that's not all it is. It's a state that's acting in breach of the Geneva convention, International Law, multiple UN resolutions and various Human Rights.  Should it be exempt from negative comments for that because it's a Jewish state?  One that doesn't even represent all Jews?  Your accusation is just reductionism so you can again try to play the AS card to deflect valid criticism of a country behaving appallingly.  

7 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Really? Finally a good old AS trope.

Your video shows someone being targeted by a drone in an area where Hezbollah have been launching ordinance at Israel\Syria in the last 5 weeks. What is it you are trying to say here?

 

Really? And finally a good old AS accusation trope.

So let me get it straight, it's ok to dismiss sources as pro-Hamas or Pro-Iran, and that's not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic or anti-anything?.

On the other hand casting doubt on sources for alleged Israeli connections is anti-Semitic? Even though the poster specifies Israel, not the Jewish people as a whole?

Just checking like, cos it seems somewhat hypocritical to me, not to mention unfounded.     

20 hours ago, MWARLEY2 said:

Thought i would put this up as i just saw some stats.. top 5 current teams in the Premier League this season with offsides won

Arsenal...16

Liverpool...21

Man City ..22

Spurs....38

Villa ..58 !!!!!

They must have our back 4 working on it 24/7. 

Pros:  We should feature in Full Monty II instead of the Arsenal offside trap; It works 95% of the time.

Cons:  Requires massive concentration and cohesion - which we seem to manage most of the time ;  Players running from slightly deeper positions.  By the time they reach the defensive line they are running full pelt and difficult to catch.  Some coaches have cottoned on to this and beaten the trap a few times; It gives fans palpitations waiting for the flag to go up.

I also think it's strange we didn't see any detailed lines for the Alkmaar goal or the Fulham goal.  It would be nice to see the evidence.  And why can't the PL use the same system used in the World Cup and in Europe where they kind of overlay a screen across the pitch to see whose body parts are poking through.  Looks a much better system to me.  

Tielemans had a great game and reminded me a lot of Buendia in his industry, his willingness to try things, to take players on, and the fact a few of his attempts didn't quite work out. Like a different player to his previous outings, and he was way more effective than Zaniolo has been down our left.  Not sure is he'll keep a fully fit Ramsey - he'd need to do that kind of thing consistently - but it's a nice problem to have and allows for rotation and injury cover.    

5 hours ago, briny_ear said:

Just checking, have you missed his three goals, three assists and two occasions when he has pressed a defender into scoring an own goal?

I suppose his stats are reasonable, but not outstanding, although those goals and assists were mostly August and September where he was showing a bit of promise.  I think he's been pretty mediocre since then, and not contributed much in October and November.  I just expected better for the money we paid.  As for today's "own goal pressure" didn't he just miss the ball?  

McGinn was bang on it today, barely put a foot wrong.  The Irn Bru works for him.  Nice grundies too. 

Tielemans, Cash and Digne were all also very good.  Thought Doug and Kamara were a little quiet today by their standards.  

I'm probably in a minority but just not impressed with Diaby.  Poor final balls, especially crosses, and seem peripheral for a lot of the games.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Lenglet looks good on the ball but as others have said he seemed to be outpaced by Vangelis for the AZ goal, and may not be quick enough for our high line approach.

Unlucky with the goal, but it was offside.  The header off the line is considered as a save because the ball was going in.  The fact it was a deliberate header is also covered by the law, because it specifies "deliberately saved by any opponent".  As the Law stands, it was offside and the officials got it right.   

9 minutes ago, NeilS said:

Haha, yeah you could argue both sides of this and be correct. We will be going round in circles on this one depending on your interpretation/viewpoint.

Not really, the law is pretty clear and I don't really see any room for interpretation.  You could argue the law doesn't make sense, but that's a different argument.  The only way Bailey would not have been offside, according to the law, would have been had he been behind the ball when Ollie headed it towards goal (not when the defender saves it).  From what I saw, he wasn't, he was right on the goal line.  

14 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

I can't work out how the AZ goal wasn't offside.

That picture indicates he was off and I haven't seen a more detailed one to show otherwise.   

1 hour ago, FLVillan said:

Just saw the highlights on YouTube (I was flying home from Alaska during match).

How on God's Green Earth was that Lenglet goal disallowed?  Bailey has the ball headed directly to him by the AZ player on the line.  Not only was it "deliberately" played by the defender (he prevented a goal being scored), but said defender was on the flipping goal line.  So not offside for two very clear and easy to see reasons.  The mind boggles.  An early goal for us would have completely changed the game. 

Of course, all the mainstream media idiots focus on is that our corner for the second goal shouldn't have been awarded.  I hate the media.  If that had been Citeh or the Dippers the match report would have been headlined "Justice Served on Night of VAR Drama." 

From Law 11

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

Looks to me that the offside call was correct, the only error was if the officials told the players they'd made a mistake.  

Still marked the ref as poor though - gave some non-fouls, let clear ones go, and seemed to have left his cards at home.

4 hours ago, duke313 said:

Was thinking that. The kind of player Fulham or Brentford would sign and do well.

I was just watching a recording of the game and my thoughts were he'd be a great signing for Fulham or Brentford to replace Mitrovic or Toney (if he goes).  Also thought Everton and maybe Wolves as well.  

There are home only and away only tables on Footystats and SoccerStats. 

This season we are top of the Home table on goal difference with same points as City, Liverpool and Newcastle.  Newcastle have played 6, the rest 5.

We're 13th in the away table, level on points with Brentford in 8th, as well as Everton, West Ham, Wolves and Brighton.   We've played 6, one more than Brentford, Brighton and Everton.

If you're away form is not as good as Everton's I'm not sure it's anywhere near good enough for top 5.

Last season we finished 6th in the home table and 9th in the away table.  In the latter we had the same points as Fulham, Liverpool and Spurs in 6-8th.  We have to allow for Gerrard's best attempts to have us near the bottom of both, but our last four away games following the win at Leicester yielded only 2 points and 2 goals.

I think our away form is a concern if we are aiming for CL places. 

As others have said a big problem is not being switched on and fully focussed at the start of each half and this is especially true away from home.  

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Where have I said that the Palestinians shouldn’t have the same rights? In the replies to you I’ve argued for a two state solution. My reaction to you is purely based on you saying Israel doesn’t have a right to be there, but Palestinians somehow have more rights.

Both have a right, one people has a much longer history while the other a more modern one. Neither are wrong. Neither deserves to be told they have no right, like you did.

I've also said a two state solution is the only viable option.  You obviously put more store by ancient history as to land rights than I do and I guess we'll never agree on that point.

52 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The whole point was that you seem to want to use historical points to argue why Israel shouldn’t exist in Israel, just that you want a cut off point for history to be 1920, that way you can ignore the historical reasons why Israel should be where Israel originally was.

It is what it is, you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t think the argument works, it’s up there with putting people in reserves in the US and wondering why they’re mad.

’it was so long ago, get over it, go somewhere else. Have this random bit of land instead, someone took your land over’

Yes we are both entitled to our opinions and to disagree with each others. 

I think there's a difference though in that I've attempted to provide a rationale for my opinion, and why it is relevant to the current situation.  

I believe there is a direct and unbroken line of cause and effect from circa 1919 onwards that has created and is still influencing the situation today. I don't believe you can say the same for events of 2000, 2500 or 2700 years ago.  Evidently you do, but I don't see it, especially when you consider the 800-1200 year period where the Jews were a tiny minority in the region. 

You still don't seem to realise that your analogy of the native Americans could apply equally to the Palestinians as to the Israelis - perhaps more so.    

But Collymore is agreeing with Emery isn't he?  And I think he's right.  People commented on our high line at Liverpool being an issue but none of their goals came directly from us playing it, even though our pressing that day, which is meant to be an important part of making it work,  was pretty bad, and they did get in behind a fair bit. 

Our issue yesterday was if they did beat the highline then every defender and midfielder seemed to bomb back into the box, even though there were only three, maybe four Forest players to watch in that area.  The forwards didn't track back and there was therefore that big gap at the edge of the box for their players to line up shots.  If Zaniolo tracks back with the full back he would not have been able to get his shot away.  If one of the midfielders had not dropped back so deep for the second, maybe the second shot doesn't materialise.  Then it was a case of one being very well placed and one being totally messed up by our keeper.   Not the fault of the high line.

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Are you just ignoring what was written?

Nope.  Not sure why you would think that.

33 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

There's been several mass exoduses of Jews in what is now Israel, starting with the Roman one, then you've got the Babylonian, Assyrian, Ottoman and in the British times several Arab pogroms against the ones that were left. It's convenient to think that the Arabs came to the area and that it was totally cleansed of Jews and their heritage. Would you argue this in the areas that were totally depopulated by the Germans too? Ah, how convenient - this land seems all free of people so I'll just take it and claim that time starts now so that no one can come and take it back.

I'm not entirely sure how you think citing at least two exoduses even older than the Roman one strengthens your case for relevance of what happened 2000 years ago.  Also note that, far from being depopulated after these events,  records indicate that the Jewish population  were still a majority in the area until the 4th Century AD.  After which they became and remained a minority population until the 20th Century.   Palestine wasn't depopulated in 1947 or 1948 either.  It had a majority Muslim/Arab population.  As had been the case since the 12th Century.

42 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You seem to preach the fact that the British only catered to the Jews, when they themselves walked back their Balfour declaration point by point, starting with only allowing a certain number of Jews to migrate to Israel every year (75.000 I believe), and giving in to violent riots and ethnic violence by Arabs in what you call the 'modern times'. British servicemen even commanded several of the Jordanian battalions that attacked the then 8 hour old Israel in 1948.

I'm not preaching anything. I've stated facts about what happened re Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s under British mandatory control. My research indicates that the Jewish population of Palestine increased by 750% between 1922 and 1947.  The Muslim population grew by 200% over the same period.  Maybe my sources aren't entirely reliable, feel free to provide your own.   The British started to try and control the immigration from 1939 only, restricting it to 75,000 per year for five years, after which it was to be decided by the majority local population.   The paper also called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the region within 10 years.  Zionists clearly did not agree with the majority having any power.  They viewed the new approach as reneging on the Balfour Declaration (which the Arabs saw as Britain renegeing on the  Hussein-McMahon Correspondence which had promised the Arabs self rule from the Mediterranean to the Persian gulf).  Neither side were happy.  Zionists militias also took arms against the British and committed acts of violence against British and Arab targets. Like the Administrative HQ at the King David Hotel, bombed by Menachim Begin's mob.  It wasn't a one sided thing.

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Should we also apply your logic to the Indians in the US? Who needs reservations, it's been several 100 years since the distant relatives of the people now claiming rights to land in the US were killed, let's put a random date as when we think it counts, so that the original people can't ever be repatriated.

 I don't think it is considered appropriate any longer to refer to Native Americans as "Indians".  I'm a bit confused about what point you are trying to make here.  Are you aligning the Jewish people in this analogy with the Native Americans or the Colonials who ethnically cleansed them onto reservations? 

If the former, then are you saying they have a right to take their original land back? And are you therefore denying the right of the USA to exist in the USA?

If the latter then are you attempting to justify the Colonisation and subsequent ethnic cleansing?  Sorry but it's not clear.

As explained, the date I refer to is not random, there are valid reasons for referring to it.  No-one has to agree with it, but it's not random.  

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I think it's blinkered and naive to deny Israel a right to exist in Israel, the people that have by far the longest history and most ties to the country are the Jews, just like it is the Indians in the U.S. No amount of Ottoman repopulation will ever make the Arab claim to the area trump that of the historical ties from 1050bce, and all the way up to now, you make it sound like there has been no Jews in Judea or Israel since the Romans committed wide scale genocide and it's absolutely not true.

Ah I see now you would align situation of the Israelis with the plight of the Native Americans.  I refer you to my earlier response about the somewhat unfortunate conclusions that could lead to.  I also refer you to my earlier response about the demographics of the region.  No denial that there were Jews there at all.  

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

It's extremely naive to put a cut off point to history to not deal with the whole picture, but even if you do you won't find a Palestinian state after 1920 either. 

The naivety of my position is a matter of opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine.  Far more naive in my view to think that the native Americans would have an icicle in hell's chance of reclaiming their land.  Indeed you won't find a Palestinian state after 1920 because it was prevented first by the British and then by the UN and Israelis.  Isn't that at the crux of the whole matter?

• I'm not sure our players were complacent in the sense they thought it would be a stroll.  It did look to me though as if they put too much faith in the Emery method of patient, controlled build up at too slow a tempo. As if they thought it would all come good if they just kept at it.   I think we failed to adapt to Forest's aggressive pressing and high tempo, coupled with a disciplined mid to low block.  We were being outrun, out challenged and out muscled all over the park and our slow build ups were not particularly effective.  Even when they were, our finishing was awful today.  I think we needed to inject a higher tempo and sense of urgency into what we were doing, especially after goal two. It just never seemed to happen until maybe towards the end and we rant out of time.