Jump to content

Jack Grealish


kevangrealish
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)

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

7 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

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. 

Aren't they worth a shit load of money second hand? I've a feeling they are really collectible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
6 hours ago, Thug said:

 

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. 🙄
 

 

 

 

I disagree with that in general.....I do agree its rather pointless, but its a forum for debate.

Blame, wasn't my objective.....I am more inclined to think that he was "unsure" of what she meant, as opposed to "didn't know".....He was trying to work out her point.

The first responsiblity in communication is to take ownership of what is communicated, The recipient reserves the right, to not understand.

I think the interviewer had a responsibilty to re word it.....where she used my words or yours, is irrelevant, she should have made herself clearer.

Footballers are like any other sect, there are varying levels of intelligence.

However, I don't think "Encyclopedia" would necessarily be classed as a big word in that sense, in this case, it was an ambiguous word, I would say.....but hey ho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thug said:

You’re right.

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

He gets a lot worse online already 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter

re the interview, the question was that Dean Smith had said Jack has an encyclopaedic knowledge of football. Jack didn't know what that phrase meant. I have no doubt he knows what an encyclopaedia is, he just hadn't heard of it in that context before.

Playing tonight, if he starts it's at the expense of Foden who wasn't great last match despite hitting the post early on. Otherwise he probably comes on at 60 mins and then starts the next game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you rather be a high profile footballer, and not know what an encyclopedia is?

Or would you rather know what an encyclopedia is, and not be a high profile footballer?

I think it's one of those deep questions that we all need to ask ourselves from time to time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, darrenm said:

re the interview, the question was that Dean Smith had said Jack has an encyclopaedic knowledge of football. Jack didn't know what that phrase meant. I have no doubt he knows what an encyclopaedia is, he just hadn't heard of it in that context before.

Playing tonight, if he starts it's at the expense of Foden who wasn't great last match despite hitting the post early on. Otherwise he probably comes on at 60 mins and then starts the next game.

I would personally play him instead of Mount tonight. Don’t think we need  2 holding midfielders and Mount against the Jocks. Foden needs more game time, he wasn’t great the other day but hardly got the ball. Mount seems to be see as a guaranteed starter but isn’t for me yet. He’s been ok for England but not really stood out enough to be guaranteed starts.

Edited by WHY
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Somebody sent me a leaked England team this morning.

Pickford, James, Stones, Maguire, Shaw, Rice, Phillips, Mount, Sterling, Grealish, Kane.

Not sure where they got it from but got the last one spot on. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

If the leaks are true why isn't Sancho or Rashford starting??

Surely Southgate must have an agenda against them 😏

So do we have to wait and see like you said in the Mings thread, or can we wildly speculate like you have here?

Edited by a m ole
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â