Should McLeish Be Sacked IF We Lose?

[vanderark14]

10 hours ago, Chripper said:

Okay. I've "seen above", since you keep telling me to.

Am I supposed to know what this means? There's enough material of what for which kind of conference?

Alright, either you send me a PM (like a grownup) and tell me why you have beef with me or you stop following me around. You're coming across as a right weirdo, mate... and not the good kind.

“If you want people to act like a grown up towards you, you should act like one yourself” - vanderark14

[Chripper]

7 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

“If you want people to act like a grown up towards you, you should act like one yourself” - vanderark14

Huh?

I'm acting grow up. It's this macaroon guy that keeps pestering me for some reason.

You think going around chipping away at someone on an online posting forum is grown up?

"A grown man squashes his beef mano a mano" ~ Chripper

[ParisInAKilt]

On 11/24/2018 at 5:14 AM, Chripper said:

It's "Eire macaroon" or whatever the hell his name is. Seriously. Check out my posts, he interjects with a quip or a slight to the vast majority of them. Weird.

Well, I am a self-proclaimed narcissist, so... yes. 

Unlikely? Not we'll never know. Consider it Schrodinger's formation.

I don't know. If we played three at the back we could still theoretically play with two inside forwards (see my team in the "first 11" thread) but it would empty the midfield. I don't envy McLeish on his choice of team AND formation. I won't deviate on the three at the back, but it does pose problems in midfield and attack. In retrospect we'd have to play Fraser and Forrest, but I think I would start Forrest up front with Fletcher and give him the license to drift. And have Fraser in midfield, with a license to roam.

That's the thing, when we did play with three under Brown, no club played with a three. Maybe Leicester under Martin O'Neill, but that's it. The way that people talk sometimes it's like every club team in the UK played with a three. I can only think of one.

I wouldn't play Robertson as a winback, I'd actually play him in midfield. He'd be a cracking anchorman.

Robertson in midfield? Haha you must be at it. 

[Chripper]

25 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Robertson in midfield? Haha you must be at it. 

A person states his opinion and he's "at it"? A person expresses his personal beliefs and he's "at it"? A person dares to think outside the box and he's "at it"?

No. I'm not "at it", as you so eloquently call it. I'm not "at it", never have I been "at it", nor will I ever be "at it". I literally have no idea where/what"it" is, but I can quite safely say, without fear of contradiction, I've never here there.

Andrew Robertson has the best engine in the Scotland squad. He's got a fair bit of fire in his belly and he's extremely careful with the ball, meaning his ball retention is far greater than the vast majority of the players in the squad. I couldn't trust John McGinn to play in a deep midfield position as his concentration levels aren't high. Andrew Robertson is emerging into a world class player. He could certainly play in midfield. I bet when Pep Guardiola toyed with the notion of moving (the best right back at the world at the time) Lahm to the anchorman position, he was thought of as being "at it", or close to being "at it", but in actuality the "it" where he was wasn't the "it" where they thought he was. No, he was in an entirely different "it" to everyone else.

Same goes with David Alaba. He's a dynamic full-back, and yet he's veracious in the anchor-man role. But I suppose you also think Alaba playing as an anchor-man is also an attempt as being "at it".

Got "it"?

Edited November 25, 2018 by Chripper

[ParisInAKilt]

45 minutes ago, Chripper said:

A person states his opinion and he's "at it"? A person expresses his personal beliefs and he's "at it"? A person dares to think outside the box and he's "at it"?

No. I'm not "at it", as you so eloquently call it. I'm not "at it", never have I been "at it", nor will I ever be "at it". I literally have no idea where/what"it" is, but I can quite safely say, without fear of contradiction, I've never here there.

Andrew Robertson has the best engine in the Scotland squad. He's got a fair bit of fire in his belly and he's extremely careful with the ball, meaning his ball retention is far greater than the vast majority of the players in the squad. I couldn't trust John McGinn to play in a deep midfield position as his concentration levels aren't high. Andrew Robertson is emerging into a world class player. He could certainly play in midfield. I bet when Pep Guardiola toyed with the notion of moving (the best right back at the world at the time) Lahm to the anchorman position, he was thought of as being "at it", or close to being "at it", but in actuality the "it" where he was wasn't the "it" where they thought he was. No, he was in an entirely different "it" to everyone else.

Same goes with David Alaba. He's a dynamic full-back, and yet he's veracious in the anchor-man role. But I suppose you also think Alaba playing as an anchor-man is also an attempt as being "at it".

Got "it"?

Tremendous. 

Maybe you’re onto something. 

[Chripper]

13 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Tremendous. 

Maybe you’re onto something. 

I am. He's growing into a bit of a growler, just a few weeks he was bawling and shouting at the REF for not blowing the whistle when he was obviously fouled.

I definitely think he could play as an anchor-man as he has the defensive instincts and he's terrific at managing possession. 

[Chripper]

15 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Robertson in midfield? Haha you must be at it. 

Plus, inadvertently you've revealed yourself to me and to the entire board that you're a fibber.

Human beings have a habit of judging others by their own morals and reflecting their own issues onto other people, e.g a thief will grip onto their wallet with extra weight as they expect everyone else to also be light-fingered, etc..

I assume that being "at it" means that I'm being disingenuous with the intent of prompting a negative reaction? I assume that's what it means. That being said, you accusing me being "at it" is you confessing that you're a liar and you sometimes say things for the effect just to receive negative reactions.

[Barney Rubble]

11 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Plus, inadvertently you've revealed yourself to me and to the entire board that you're a fibber.

Human beings have a habit of judging others by their own morals and reflecting their own issues onto other people, e.g a thief will grip onto their wallet with extra weight as they expect everyone else to also be light-fingered, etc..

I assume that being "at it" means that I'm being disingenuous with the intent of prompting a negative reaction? I assume that's what it means. That being said, you accusing me being "at it" is you confessing that you're a liar and you sometimes say things for the effect just to receive negative reactions.

Back off mate.

By now you are losing all credibility to people who are goading you successfully.

Say less and you'll gain more.

And to the goaders - you lot shut the fuck up and let this thread get back on topic.

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, Barney Rubble said:

Back off mate.

By now you are losing all credibility to people who are goading you successfully.

Say less and you'll gain more.

And to the goaders - you lot shut the fuck up and let this thread get back on topic.

I agree with you.

However, In this case I wasn't actually taking shots. I was giving a valid psychological analysis.

It's true that people do reflect their own personality/flaws onto other people.

Anyway. Back on topic.

McLeish has taken to the playoffs so I say that he's earned more time to turn the corner.

[vanderark14]

10 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Back off mate.

By now you are losing all credibility to people who are goading you successfully.

Say less and you'll gain more.

And to the goaders - you lot shut the fuck up and let this thread get back on topic.

Who dies and made you a fucking mod 😂😂

[Barney Rubble]

Just now, vanderark14 said:

Who dies and made you a fucking mod 😂😂

Nobody did - but come on folks.

[vanderark14]

1 minute ago, Barney Rubble said:

Nobody did - but come on folks.

I may have missed it but PAIK isn’t usually one for goading and I wasn’t goading chripper, he seems to have gotten into an argument with a few people in a very short space of time, I could be wrong but I suspect he’s a previously banned member 

[Barney Rubble]

Just now, vanderark14 said:

I may have missed it but PAIK isn’t usually one for goading and I wasn’t goading chripper, he seems to have gotten into an argument with a few people in a very short space of time, I could be wrong but I suspect he’s a previously banned member 

No idea whether he's a previously banned member or not.

But let's face it, we should be encouraging traffic on this board, not viewing every new poster with suspicion.

For the avoidance of confusion, that comment was not aimed at you specifically VDA. It was a general observation.

[Chripper]

6 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I may have missed it but PAIK isn’t usually one for goading and I wasn’t goading chripper, he seems to have gotten into an argument with a few people in a very short space of time, I could be wrong but I suspect he’s a previously banned member 

Go through my posting history and make your judgement.

From day one Eire Macaroon (sp?) has been making cheap quips and remarks on pretty much every one of my posts. He's admitted it himself. I asked him to PM me if he has any beef with me. He has not.

Now PAIK has accused me of being "at it". When I post something here it's my honest opinion and I resent being accused of trolling.

I know that I'm new here so I'm no sure if it's an "initiation" to goad the newbie. I'm not really one to tolerate being goaded.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Chripper

[Orraloon]

21 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

 

 let this thread get back on topic.

I would argue that the "topic" is finished because we didn't lose.

Can you use your new mod powers to close the thread?

 

[Chripper]

Just now, Orraloon said:

I would argue that the "topic" is finished because we didn't lose.

Can you use your new mod powers to close the thread?

 

Oh, and this person was pretty much trolling me because I dared to forget 100% of the first Scotland match I attended.

I don't have beef with anyone on this board, but if someone starts with me, I won't back down.

I think that's a pretty reasonable stance. 

[Barney Rubble]

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I would argue that the "topic" is finished because we didn't lose.

Can you use your new mod powers to close the thread?

 

No.

It's occasionally entertaining to see grown men make total arses of themselves over.................nothing of any consequence.

😎

[Orraloon]

3 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

No.

It's occasionally entertaining to see grown men make total arses of themselves over.................nothing of any consequence.

😎

Chripper is awright. There is nae need for you to start having ago at him as well.

[vanderark14]

11 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Go through my posting history and make your judgement.

From day one Eire Macaroon (sp?) has been making cheap quips and remarks on pretty much every one of my posts. He's admitted it himself. I asked him to PM me if he has any beef with me. He has not.

Now PAIK has accused me of being "at it". When I post something here it's my honest opinion and I resent being accused of trolling.

I know that I'm new here so I'm no sure if it's an "initiation" to goad the newbie. I'm not really one to tolerate being goaded.

Stop being a drama queen would be my advice. If you think being accused of being at it is bad, you’re in for a long ride on this board. 

[Barney Rubble]

Just now, Orraloon said:

Chripper is awright. There is nae need for you to start having ago at him as well.

🤣

[vanderark14]

13 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

No idea whether he's a previously banned member or not.

But let's face it, we should be encouraging traffic on this board, not viewing every new poster with suspicion.

For the avoidance of confusion, that comment was not aimed at you specifically VDA. It was a general observation.

I tend not to treat every new member with suspicion, Scotland ever more was the only other one I suspected and that turned out to be right.

chripper must have thin skin if he genuinely thinks people are goading him

[Orraloon]

8 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Oh, and this person was pretty much trolling me because I dared to forget 100% of the first Scotland match I attended.

I don't have beef with anyone on this board, but if someone starts with me, I won't back down.

I think that's a pretty reasonable stance. 

I wasn't trying to troll you. Honest guv. I just tried to correct a minor mistake and then you started arguing with yourself.

No offense meant. I just thought it was quite funny.

 

[todd]

On 11/24/2018 at 5:33 PM, Chripper said:

Huh?

I'm acting grow up. It's this macaroon guy that keeps pestering me for some reason.

You think going around chipping away at someone on an online posting forum is grown up?

"A grown man squashes his beef mano a mano" ~ Chripper

Do you do the voice overs at the start and end of Criminal minds? 😂

[Barney Rubble]

2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I tend not to treat every new member with suspicion, Scotland ever more was the only other one I suspected and that turned out to be right.

chripper must have thin skin if he genuinely thinks people are goading him

Well he's made the board interesting for the last half hour that's for sure!

 

[vanderark14]

Just now, todd said:

Do you do the voice overs at the start and end of Criminal minds? 😂

😂😂😂😂😂😂