Chindie Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 This week, Glaston will mostly be fudging his argument to his own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlastonSpur Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 And some people wonder why your not liked around here. This whole thread is an attempt to "dish it out" to Spurs. If you didn't like my justified - and entirely accurate - response, then what does that dislike say except that you like dishing it out, but object to taking it back. At least I don't continuously attempt to personalise the issue - I try to keep the focus on football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 I like Glaston. I think he has the patience of a saint though the term 'like a dog with a bone' doesn't do him justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 If you didn't like my justifed - and entirely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 How is a title in 1961 more relevant than a title won in 1889? They are still first division titles, all players from each season no longer play. You can only beat what is put in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 How is a title in 1961 more relevant than a title won in 1889? They are still first division titles, all players from each season no longer play. You can only beat what is put in front of you. Simple answer, it glorifies Spurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 This whole site is a site for Villa fans to discuss Villa and , in the main, attempt to "dish it out" to all other clubs who are our rivals. If you didn't like our justified - and entirely accurate - football fan response to other clubs fans on here , then what does that dislike say except that you do not have a sense of realism or understanding about the website that you are posting it on and the users of that website (I would add we have other clubs fans who post quite happily on here and do not dish it out or receive it back the way you do - Artetasgirl being a case in point. Why do you think that is?) and that you like dishing it out, but object to taking it back. For the rest NR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 How is a title in 1961 more relevant than a title won in 1889? They are still first division titles, all players from each season no longer play. You can only beat what is put in front of you. Either way it doesn't make sense because EVEN IF a '61 title was more relevant, that would mean a title in, say '81, was more relevant again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 Since when did World War 1 become the cut off for trophies that count? Glaston, the only way you can make your trophy count look more impressive is by adding all these criteria like "Post war" or "19th century doesn't count" or "Trophies won between 1981 and 1985 don't count" All we have to do is list them out European Cups - check League Titles - check FA cups - well done League Cups - Check you get the idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I can see the 'NR' thing becoming a cult phenomenom before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 What is NR? I'm assuming it is No Response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlastonSpur Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Who cares when it happened it still happened. That carries as much weight as me saying, you can't count Spurs double victory in 1961 because Manchester United and Liverpool hadn't truly established themselves or gained the monopolies that they one day would and if they had then Spurs wouldn't of won the title. No, because in 1961 the full league structure had already been established for many decades with more or less the same number of clubs as exist today. And Manchester United and Liverpool had been in that structure for many decades prior to 1961. In the 19th century the number of competing clubs was tiny in comparison and the league structure existed only in it's infant form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Yeah, but FC United of Manchester werent there, so it doesnt count does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 What is NR? I'm assuming it is No Response? Not Relevant. Glaston got a bit high and mighty when he refused to admit to getting Villa fans banned from the super secret Spurs society and said he'd refuse to answer questions of the like by putting NR. Couldn't get more full of himself if he tried, he'd burst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I can see the 'NR' thing becoming a word removed phenomenom before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Who cares when it happened it still happened. That carries as much weight as me saying, you can't count Spurs double victory in 1961 because Manchester United and Liverpool hadn't truly established themselves or gained the monopolies that they one day would and if they had then Spurs wouldn't of won the title. No, because in 1961 the full league structure had already been established for many decades with more or less the same number of clubs as exist today. And Manchester United and Liverpool had been in that structure for many decades prior to 1961. In the 19th century the number of competing clubs was tiny in comparison and the league structure existed only in it's infant form. So what if the league expands and another 50 teams are introduced, or the European super league comes into fruition? Will the days of the premier league become irrelevant and Manchester United's dominance of the last two decades be discounted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 damn you word filter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 Glaston you are using subjective criteria to manipulate the argument in your favour. You can not dismiss achievements based on when they happened. It is equally valid for us to say that Villa managed to achieve at a time when all clubs including Villa were considerably less developed and that in that age of relative-amateur football we stood head and shoulders above the rest. There was no good reason or divine right for us to do so other than that we were the powerhouse at the time because we succeeded in doing it on the pitch. Just as you did in 61 and as we did in 81 & 82. It is quite telling that teams with little or no history will dismiss history quite easily when it suits them. It doesn't reflect well on you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 He basically rapes the arse out of historical evidence and manipulates them to favour his beloved Spurs. However it cannot hide the fact Spurs are nothing but a Cup team, and suddenly when they finish in the Top 6 the become the biggest bestest team in the world in the view of their own fans. But the facts show otherwise. But alas, I do not like facts for they can be manipulated by anyone for any purpose. Therefore you judge what you see and when i look at Spurs i see a cup team that occasionally does well, but ultimately fail to reach the heights their fans seem to think they've already hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 Milner was never going to be able to get involved in the game against Spurs, they more or less by passed the middle or kept going down their right side through Bentley, it was very effective and I don't blame Harry for doing it. Milner in the middle is very much a work in progress, he will have great games and bad. To compare him to Huddlestone now is a no no, he has far more experience in the middle. Milner however has got far more to come than Huddlestone has, his work rate is probably twice what Huddlestones is, he can spot a pass (like Huddlestone) and has a reasonable amount of pace. Its of no surprise he has been linked to some of the Sky top 4 and this summer,IMO, we will have a battle to keep him. On the who's got the biggest 'C**K argument, Spurs or Villa, who cares? We have both underachieved and to boast about successes in our past is a bit embarrassing, to us both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts