John Terry

[zab6359]

On 09/12/2019 at 19:21, sne said:

Do we need to bring in another more experienced coach to help with the defensive parts in training?

Tbh I'm not even sure that is what Terry does so it's not a critique against him, but we are struggling with this aspect.

Not sure the issue lies solely with the defense though, it's more the way the team defends as a unit when we lose possession. Playing expansive pressing football is great and lovely to watch but requires a well drilled defense strategy as soon as we either lose possession during the press or the press finishes with an attempt on goal the team as a whole needs to react quickly and decisively and everyone should know there role and what is required, I think we are bit headless (as a team) for those first 10-20 seconds when losing possession and in this league that is all it takes!

[mikeyp102]

On 09/12/2019 at 11:21, sne said:

Do we need to bring in another more experienced coach to help with the defensive parts in training?

Tbh I'm not even sure that is what Terry does so it's not a critique against him, but we are struggling with this aspect.

I heard a rumour from people within the coaching industry, that Terry really struggled when doing his badges. I dismissed it out of hand at the time, but you never know.

Perhaps someone to help him and the team out may be useful. 

[zab6359]

13 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

I heard a rumour from people within the coaching industry, that Terry really struggled when doing his badges. I dismissed it out of hand at the time, but you never know.

Perhaps someone to help him and the team out may be useful. 

Top players don't always make top coaches, in fact not many top players have made top top coaches.

[MotoMkali]

On 04/12/2019 at 02:10, Enda said:

1. Irish people are not British by any definition.

2. The “British Isles” is a contested term. You’re welcome to consider them whatever you please. Include Iceland for all you like. But the government of Ireland disputes that Ireland is part of the “British Isles”.

3. The “Great” in GB does not relate to the British Isles, it relates to Brittany.

OK many things wrong here. Great Britain (Just the largest island-which is what the great refers to) is the island with England Wales and Scotland. The British Isles is very well defined and includes Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, hebrides, Guernsey, Jersey (and the other channel islands) and another 6000 smaller island. It is a geographic fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles.

Secondly Brittany isn't part of the British Isles because it is a province in France which used to be an independent nation. It is the sticky outy bit that is the closest part of France to lands end. Many of the D-day landings were also in that part of France.

I couldn't imagine being that ignorant about a topic then proceeding to bullshit my way through it. 

Edit: Also Ireland only disputes the name British Isles not their membership on the basis that the Irish aren't british. That would be like Jamaica insisting they aren't a caribbean island. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by MotoMkali

[Enda]

11 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

OK many things wrong here. Great Britain (Just the largest island-which is what the great refers to) is the island with England Wales and Scotland. The British Isles is very well defined and includes Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, hebrides, Guernsey, Jersey (and the other channel islands) and another 6000 smaller island. It is a geographic fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles.

Secondly Brittany isn't part of the British Isles because it is a province in France which used to be an independent nation. It is the sticky outy bit that is the closest part of France to lands end. Many of the D-day landings were also in that part of France.

I couldn't imagine being that ignorant about a topic then proceeding to bullshit my way through it. 

Edit: Also Ireland only disputes the name British Isles not their membership on the basis that the Irish aren't british. That would be like Jamaica insisting they aren't a caribbean island. 

Speaking of ignorance, nobody claimed Brittany is part of the British Isles. Read it again. Your condescending post is belied by poor reading comprehension.

Names are not a geographic fact. They're etymological constructs. Look it up. There's an archipelago to the north west of continental Europe. No question there. Its name is in dispute. Why isn't this archipelago popularly referred to as the "Irish Isles"? The only reason why you might refer to GB & Ireland as the "British Isles" is the regrettable historical fact of invasion and conquer. That's nothing to do with the science of geography, but a lot to do with etymology. An historical aberration, and one that is no basis for naming a geological outpost. When there's even a Wikipedia entry on "British Isles naming dispute", I wouldn't go around asserting that this is all very well defined and simply a matter of fact. Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? They're not part of the same archipelago...

The fact that you referenced the Normandy landings in a condescending lecture that oozes with inbred British imperialism is just golden.

Anyway, back to John Terry. Why are we so crap at defending set pieces?

[MotoMkali]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Speaking of ignorance, nobody claimed Brittany is part of the British Isles. Read it again. Your condescending post is belied by poor reading comprehension.

Names are not a geographic fact. They're etymological constructs. Look it up. There's an archipelago to the north west of continental Europe. No question there. Its name is in dispute. Why isn't this archipelago popularly referred to as the "Irish Isles"? The only reason why you might refer to GB & Ireland as the "British Isles" is the regrettable historical fact of invasion and conquer. That's nothing to do with the science of geography, but a lot to do with etymology. An historical aberration, and one that is no basis for naming a geological outpost. When there's even a Wikipedia entry on "British Isles naming dispute", I wouldn't go around asserting that this is all very well defined and simply a matter of fact. Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? They're not part of the same archipelago...

The fact that you referenced the Normandy landings in a condescending lecture that oozes with inbred British imperialism is just golden.

Anyway, back to John Terry. Why are we so crap at defending set pieces?

The reason it is called the British Isles is because the largest island is named great Britain. Like how oceania used to be called Australasia after Australia the largest part of that continent. Also you didn't say the Irish government were disputing the name they were disputing the inclusion of Ireland within the British Isles which as you have happily pointed out in your reply is in fact wrong. 

Actually I was wrong about the D-day landings which whilst was my mistake and I am happy to admit it. However if I was right how would arguably the most important event in the last 100 years be a sign of British imperialism. This is us talking about the stopping of a genocidal maniac not about hur De hur britannia rules the waves. But since we were both wrong about Brittany you to a greater extent suggesting the main island in the British Isles is called brittany*. As to the reason why the channel islands are considered part of the British Isles I'm not certain but I do know that they are also part of the British Islands (which is different - to the 'Atlantic archipelago' if that is what you want to call it).

GB means great Britain. Great in GB refers to brittany a French province hmmmmm. Maybe what you meant to say is that Great Britain only refers to the largest island of the British Isles.

And whilst invasion and conquering may be regrettable it was a necessary evil and without it the world would be divided into thousands of states and would be 1/5 as developed as there would be no large institutions of education. Look at sub-saharan Africa they had neither the terrain nor the incentive to form large kingdoms for extended periods of times except for the horn of Africa and the Mali Empire. Due to this during the Age of Discovery the colonial empires easily exploited these nations as they were less developed as they weren't unified. (this isn't political to be clear just pointing out though the consequences of war may be regrettable but war was completely necessary)

So how about when you try and reply to my post read what you said originally and make sure that when you try and contradict me you don't actually contradict yourself. 

[Enda]

23 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

The reason it is called the British Isles is because the largest island is named great Britain.

Christ almighty go back and read the thread. Nobody claimed Brittany was part of the British Isles. Not even you. The islands were named Éire and Albion. Long ago. Before the Romans came along. It was only when the Greeks and the Romans, total outsiders, came along did anyone decide to lump the two major islands together into one grouping. As the Greeks were total outsiders the term "British Isles", or "Britain Major" and "Britain Minor" didn't catch on, and it went practically unused for the better part of a thousand years. Natives on these islands called them "na hOilean Aigéan" - Islands of the Ocean in modern day English. That's much like the "Atlantic Islands" term suggested by a lot of Yanks as more neutral and more accurate. The "British Isles" term rose to prominence only after British kings invaded Ireland starting with Henry II and in particular after the Elizabethan plundering. After Elizabeth's intervention, Ireland was effectively a British colony. I absolutely accept that it made sense to call them the British Isles when they're in a political union. Asserting they're called the British Isles is thus a relatively modern notion, couched in the political norms of the time, and in particular relating a political norm that was abhorrent and destructive. That political union doesn't exist anymore, and now we're all friends again. So why the enchantment with the politics of the late 1500s and not of the geography of the region? Why not call them Islands of the Ocean/Atlantic? That's what they were called before the "British Isles". Why the singular focus on the largest rock rather than the collective?

The answer, of course, is because the term "British Isles" is what you've been fed and have come to accept. It can be a different way. You can use a different term, just like people can now refer to any women as Ms. Smith rather than insisting on Miss or Mrs. You can do it.

23 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

GB means great Britain. Great in GB refers to brittany a French province hmmmmm. Maybe what you meant to say is that Great Britain only refers to the largest island of the British Isles.

No. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Long links between Britain and France. Eleanor of Aquitaine and all that, innit. "Great Britain" is named precisely to be situated in contrast to "Little Britain", i.e. Brittany. It's a modern invention, only ever used by quare Greeks, to somehow link Ireland to the B-word. Juno Beach or otherwise.

23 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

And whilst invasion and conquering may be regrettable it was a necessary evil and without it the world would be divided into thousands of states and would be 1/5 as developed as there would be no large institutions of education.

Okay so while invasion and conquering of Ireland was regrettable it was a necessary evil, and therefore we should refer to the archipelago as the British Isles. Got it. Maybe you can't do it.

[cheltenham_villa]

John Terry,  captain, leader, legend....Normandy landings?

[dounavilla]

[villalad21]

Can anyone see JT getting a crack at it if everything goes South with Smith?

No managerial experience, but i'm sure he's learned a lot by now. Big Dunc no past managerial experience either.

I like the idea of JT.

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by villalad21

[useless]

If Smith was to leave then Terry would leave with him as he'd be seen as part of the problem, plus in the event of Smith leaving it would mean us being in big trouble and needing a miracle almost to stay up, in that scenario we wouldn't give the manager's job to someone who has no experience of being a manager.

[villalad21]

7 minutes ago, useless said:

If Smith was to leave then Terry would leave with him as he'd be seen as part of the problem, plus in the event of Smith leaving it would mean us being in big trouble and needing a miracle almost to stay up, in that scenario we wouldn't give the manager's job to someone who has no experience of being a manager.

I respect that opinion but at the same time i don't see any clear candidates.

Big Sam always get teams clear of relegation but he's said he's done with management.

And Moyes has been terrible since he got sacked in Man Ure.

Edited December 15, 2019 by villalad21

[PieFacE]

No. Smith is not getting sacked. The guy has just signed a 4 year deal.

 

[Laughable Chimp]

8 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

No. Smith is not getting sacked. The guy has just signed a 4 year deal.

 

I mean, Lambert signed a contract extension in September 2014 and was out by February 2015.

[hippo]

48 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Can anyone see JT getting a crack at it if everything goes South with Smith?

No managerial experience, but i'm sure he's learned a lot by now. Big Dunc no past managerial experience either.

I like the idea of JT.

 

Considering our owners were going to appoint Theiry Henry - I would say that Terry would be a serious contender if Smith were to depart.

[Zatman]

58 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Can anyone see JT getting a crack at it if everything goes South with Smith?

No managerial experience, but i'm sure he's learned a lot by now. Big Dunc no past managerial experience either.

I like the idea of JT.

 

Its like deja vu from last season. You are even suggesting Big Sam again

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, hippo said:

Considering our owners were going to appoint Theiry Henry

According to who? 

[Zatman]

9 minutes ago, hippo said:

Considering our owners were going to appoint Theiry Henry - I would say that Terry would be a serious contender if Smith were to depart.

I really dont think we were going to appoint him

[villalad21]

4 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Its like deja vu from last season. You are even suggesting Big Sam again

If our aim is to survive and Smith is failing we need a quick fix. Not another long term solution.

[Zatman]

4 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

If our aim is to survive and Smith is failing we need a quick fix. Not another long term solution.

No we dont. Look at the damage the quick fix has done to Everton