Jump to content

The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread


kevangrealish

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, useless said:

I've just watched the video and he didn't say he didn't know what an encyclopedia is, he said he didn't what was meant by him being called an encyclopedia of football.

Well I’m guessing he knows what football means…

 

edit: I get what you mean, but still.

Edited by Thug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Could be a North American thing. We always had to reference them for like geography and classes like that. 

Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published 1768. Remained the go-to reference work for kids until the Internet came and melted their brains. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mark Albrighton said:

He didn’t say “I don’t know what an encyclopaedia is”. But it’s quite clear he didn’t know what one is.

Someone in their mid twenties should know what an encyclopaedia is or what an encyclopaedic mind is. I’m not massively surprised Grealish doesn’t and I’d suspect the proportion of those under 30 who don’t know is higher than I’d care to consider.

However, to his credit, at the very least he has the intellectual confidence to say when he doesn’t know what something means rather than trying to bluff his way through an answer. I often think the world would be a better place if more people were honest and said “I don’t know” instead of bullshitting their way through a question (but that sentiment really belongs in off topic in threads concerning those running the world).

While this little off field transgression is much better than discussing his drinking sessions with Ross McCormack, hopefully he features and has a blinder against Scotland and we can go back to discussing how great he is and laugh at the number of clubs who believe they actually have a chance to sign him.

You’re right.

and to be honest it’s not going to affect his life in any way whatsoever apart from Twitter banter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HAL said:

Only way jack is leaving is if a stupid offer comes in for him

Christ. I hope to god no one offers 4 fried kippers and the rear end of a pantomime horse then. 

Ill Be Back Jim Carrey GIF

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, useless said:

It isn't quite clear that he didn't know what an encyclodedia is at all, quite the opposite in fact, he was obviously just thrown by being called an 'encyclodpedia of football', it's obvious he was relating the statement 'encyclopedia of footall' to his ability on the pitch, so in that context didn't no what was meant by it.

 

 Because that's what a footballer being interviewed would expect the interviewer to be talking about, especially when quoting something his manager has called him in praise, when the phrase 'your manager has called you'... the footballer is primed to expect it to be something related to his footballing ability, and in that context 'encyclopedia of footall' threw him off.

Of course he knows what an encyclopdedia is, people are more stupid if they genuinely believe that he wouldn't know what one is.

Edited by useless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

He's two years younger than me, and if it wasn't for the fact that for some reason loads of American TV shows I've watched reference encyclopedias, I don't think I'd know what was one either, never actually seen one or knew anyone that had one.

That shows a real lack of knowledge there. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, useless said:

I've just watched the video and he didn't say he didn't know what an encyclopedia is, he said he didn't what was meant by him being called an encyclopedia of football.

Obvious really. 

image.png.87771d632596cf81f1a8e3c14be940c7.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published 1768. Remained the go-to reference work for kids until the Internet came and melted their brains. 

My Mum and Dad had the 1989 version and it was glorious. Mum used it to get answers in crosswords and whenever I told her just to Google it she thought that was cheating compared to looking it up in Britannica.  Sadly my Dad just ended up chucking it when downsizing after Mum passed away. It would have taken up half my flat if I had taken it but I wish I had. 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also got the bit where it was suggested by Dean that he struggled without fans in the stadium and replied along the lines of him having his best season, which in truth all was meant is that presumably him being a villa fan and not having villa fans in the stadium witnessing Villa’s best season in a decade tough to take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, useless said:

 Because that's what a footballer being interviewed would expect the interviewer to be talking about, especially when quoting something his manager has called him in praise, when the phrase 'your manager has called you'... the footballer is primed to expect it to be something related to his footballing ability, and in that context 'encyclopedia of footall' threw him off.

Of course he knows what an encyclopdedia is, people are more stupid if they genuinely believe that he wouldn't know what one is.

I guess I’ll consider myself “more stupid” then. Even though I didn’t refer to him as such and yet you appear to have lumped people who believe he didn’t know what an encyclopaedia was in with those actively calling him stupid or otherwise.

I guess by your rationale he’s intelligent enough to know what an encyclopaedia is but not quick witted enough to form a idea of what an “encyclopaedia of football” could possibly mean. If that’s the case, then that’s not exactly brain of Britain form either.

He could have asked “In what sense did Dean Smith mean that? That I know all the top players and strengths and weaknesses? Or that I know the histories of many of prominent European clubs? That I watch a lot of footage of matches across the globe?” 

But he didn’t. He didn’t answer until his was given a brief description of what an encyclopaedia is and what one dedicated to football might entail. And even then, he could have said “Oh right! I wasn’t sure what was meant by ‘encyclopaedia of football!” and laughed it off. But, again, he didn’t.

But whatever, if it makes you feel happier to believe he knew what the big word meant, fine. It’s no skin off my nose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't give two sh*ts about whether he knows what an encyclopedia is or not. He spent his youth playing football, at a time when encyclopedia's were basically redundant.

Does it make him thick? No.  Does it mean he didn't do his homework on time or to standard? Maybe..who the f cares.

If he doesn't start for England against Scotland I might dig out the encyclopedia britannica from my folks house and post it to him.... so he can hit Southgate round his big fat nose with it

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, useless said:

I've just watched the video and he didn't say he didn't know what an encyclopedia is, he said he didn't what was meant by him being called an encyclopedia of football.

correct....you have it in context.

why didn't she say, you are supposed to be knowledgeable on football...not an Encyclopedia.

The question threw Jack, not surprised, it was a typical question from a programme like "Blue Peter"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's frightening how good Jack would have to get for Southgate to deem him a guaranteed starter like Sterling and Kane, I think we're talking about Messi and Ronaldo levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TRO said:

correct....you have it in context.

why didn't she say, you are supposed to be knowledgeable on football...not an Encyclopedia.

The question threw Jack, not surprised, it was a typical question from a programme like "Blue Peter"

 

 

Ok, let’s start off by agreeing that in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter if Jack knew what it meant or not.  Quite frankly it matters more how good he is at what he does.

Now with that out the way, with all due respect, you’re both wrong in my opinion.

Why didn’t she say ‘knowledgeable’? Then why use knowledgeable? Why not say ‘you’re supposed to know a lot about football’

Why should the interviewer restrict what words she used to basic English? 

And I disagree when you say ‘you have it in context’

The context is simple. He didn’t know what she meant by being an encyclopaedia about football. There’s no debate on that at all.  Whether he doesn’t know what encyclopaedia means, or what is meant by encyclopaedia on football means is a moot point.

I'm in my mid 40s, so maybe I’m out of touch about what would be common knowledge, but I’m sorry, to blame the interviewer here about using that phrase is beyond clutching at straws.

By all means, ‘who gives an actual **** that he didn’t know?’ Is a perfectly reasonable response, and yeah I’d agree with that 100%. No one cares that he didn’t know.  And I’m sure that he doesn’t care either.
 

But to say that interviewers need to not use ‘big words’ or ‘complicated phrases’ around footballers is quite frankly derogatory towards footballers. You want interviewers to limit the words they use to no more than 5 letters? 6? 7?

At the end of the day if I could choose if my son plays football like Jack but doesn’t know what it means to be the encyclopaedia of something, or the opposite… I know what I’d choose.  But for the love of god, let’s not blame the interviewer here. 🙄
 

 

 

 

Edited by Thug
Fixed tone of my response
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Had a listen on talksport on YouTube and they claimed to have sources that Shaw and James would come in but no more changes to the starting lineup other than that. 

Very sad news for Jack if true 

I wouldn't expect him to come in. Southgate went with Sterling who played well and scored. I would expect him to feature. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's quite simple... If we don't want to sell him, he has 4 years left on his contract, so he stays. I believe Purslow has said that we don't do release clauses, but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, if we want to keep him and we keep adding real quality to the squad, I can't see Jack being too unhappy with at least another season.

From our POV, he's probably the most marketable commodity we've ever had.

NSWE won't want to lose that.

Edited by StanBalaban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Had a listen on talksport on YouTube and they claimed to have sources that Shaw and James would come in but no more changes to the starting lineup other than that. 

Very sad news for Jack if true 

Jack might get on as a sub. If we win he will probably play in the last group game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â