Team Talk For Sunday

[craig 5,199]

2 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Perhaps your level of comprehension requires some sharpening. You're in here rambling away on a topic thread started for the very reason I went on to acknowledge was realistic. You think this topic was as witless as you're being?

??

 

Where was this violent play you spoke of ?  You know, the one where you KNEW it was what Holt meant ?

 

if anyone is rambling it’s you.  You’re babbling incoherent nonsense in an attempt to deflect from being unequivocally wrong about Holt sending his team out to inflict violent play.

 

Nice deflection though ?

 

Sometimes it’s better, easier and saves embarrassment to simply admit you were wrong ?

[Gonzo79 15,292]

10 minutes ago, craig said:

Where was this violent play you spoke of ?

Craig, did you miss the broken legs and decapitations?  ?

[craig 5,199]

48 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Craig, did you miss the broken legs and decapitations?  ?

Mate, I even missed the meaty 50:50 tackles ?

[JFK-1 1,693]

1 hour ago, craig said:

??

 

Where was this violent play you spoke of ?  You know, the one where you KNEW it was what Holt meant ?

 

if anyone is rambling it’s you.  You’re babbling incoherent nonsense in an attempt to deflect from being unequivocally wrong about Holt sending his team out to inflict violent play.

 

Nice deflection though ?

 

Sometimes it’s better, easier and saves embarrassment to simply admit you were wrong ?

No this is where you're wrong, and may save yourself some embarrassment. This match simply didn't play out in a typical Livi fashion in that sense. Which by no means is suggestive that it couldn't have.

Why do you think this thread was created in the first place, and not by me? You think it was sheer over reaction that it was hoped the referee would be "paying attention to this"? Which wan't my comment either. Everybody but you and the last word have embarrassingly unrealistic concerns?

Is it brand new to you that hopes for the referee to protect Rangers players have been commonplace for years? You always thought that was just hysteria? Nothing to be bothered about?

The thread was created because everyone knows and has known for a long time that this is indeed what they do and they're not the only ones. Sheep, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi probably the worst offenders. All typically top of the fouling and yellow/red card charts at the end of a season and that's not by chance.

And if you want to pretend otherwise I would suggest you're making a bit of a goat of yourself.

[stewarty 2,025]

On the H&H post match pod they talked about the Livi Assistant Manager David Martindale shouting at his players to “do him” on a few occasions.  I didn’t personally hear the comments as I had the crowd noise in the background but I can completely believe it.  
 

I think we all know that teams set out to try and level the game by being physical with us. And let’s face it, it’s worked on too many occasions in recent years so I can well see why folk read comments like Holt’s and fear the worst.  
 

We are also poorly served in this country by referees who allow overly-physical teams to play this way, whilst punishing the likes of Morelos for dissent, even though a Livi player on at least one occasion was guilty of the exact same offence, but with no yellow card given.   We simply are refereed to a different standard at times, and that feeds into the mindset of “here we go again”. 

 

In terms of today’s game...Physical play within the rules is fine, and I think Livi did that today for the most part. There were no standout bad challenges from memory. 
 

All we can do is keep highlighting things and keep campaigning for change in the refereeing community.   Regardless though, we have better players and should have been able to make that count.  We only had ourselves to blame. 

 

 

 

[JFK-1 1,693]

20 minutes ago, stewarty said:

On the H&H post match pod they talked about the Livi Assistant Manager David Martindale shouting at his players to “do him” on a few occasions.  I didn’t personally hear the comments as I had the crowd noise in the background but I can completely believe it.  
 

I think we all know that teams set out to try and level the game by being physical with us. And let’s face it, it’s worked on too many occasions in recent years so I can well see why folk read comments like Holt’s and fear the worst.  
 

We are also poorly served in this country by referees who allow overly-physical teams to play this way, whilst punishing the likes of Morelos for dissent, even though a Livi player on at least one occasion was guilty of the exact same offence, but with no yellow card given.   We simply are refereed to a different standard at times, and that feeds into the mindset of “here we go again”. 

 

In terms of today’s game...Physical play within the rules is fine, and I think Livi did that today for the most part. There were no standout bad challenges from memory. 
 

All we can do is keep highlighting things and keep campaigning for change in the refereeing community.   Regardless though, we have better players and should have been able to make that count.  We only had ourselves to blame. 

 

 

 

I think it played out in an atypical manner due to the fact they seemed determined to not just stay in their own half but in their own box. That doesn't leave much scope for their kicking game. Too dangerous to be kicking in and around that box. They were simply literally forming a human wall.

Presumably the "do him" calls came during the rare occasions they were forced out of their box into uncharted territory. And i'm guessing that's what Holt was booked for.

[stewarty 2,025]

Regardless, I don’t have any complaints about the result but I have several about our players and questions about the manager’s decisions.  
 

If this is our preverbial kick up the arse then so be it.  The scar tissue from previous seasons is real though 

[JFK-1 1,693]

Just now, stewarty said:

Regardless, I don’t have any complaints about the result but I have several about our players and questions about the manager’s decisions.  
 

If this is our preverbial kick up the arse then so be it.  The scar tissue from previous seasons is real though 

I'm hoping it was a blip. Keeping in mind pretty much the same thing happened to the yahoos at Killie on another plastic pitch. Might be said it's bound to happen to us from time to time too. Hopefully not as often as it happens to them.

[craig 5,199]

2 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

No this is where you're wrong, and may save yourself some embarrassment. This match simply didn't play out in a typical Livi fashion in that sense. Which by no means is suggestive that it couldn't have.

Why do you think this thread was created in the first place, and not by me? You think it was sheer over reaction that it was hoped the referee would be "paying attention to this"? Which wan't my comment either. Everybody but you and the last word have embarrassingly unrealistic concerns?

Is it brand new to you that hopes for the referee to protect Rangers players have been commonplace for years? You always thought that was just hysteria? Nothing to be bothered about?

The thread was created because everyone knows and has known for a long time that this is indeed what they do and they're not the only ones. Sheep, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi probably the worst offenders. All typically top of the fouling and yellow/red card charts at the end of a season and that's not by chance.

And if you want to pretend otherwise I would suggest you're making a bit of a goat of yourself.

Give it up man.  You’re talking nonsense.  The game played out with no violent play. You can guess and suppose all you like but there was zero violent play.  None.  Which makes a mockery of what you’ve been rambling on about in this thread.

 

The main thrust of your argument now is no better than “if my aunt had balls”.

 

There was no violent play and you’re merely guessing that the game never played out as Holt apparently intended.

 

The thread was started because the OP was highlighting that Livvy would be physical and “in our faces”.  You turned that into “Holt wants his team to intentionally deploy violent play” - something which never actually happened.  But rather than admit you aren’t actually a mind repeater you’re doubling down.  In the worst possible way by inventing a narrative to fit your agenda, but which isn’t borne out by the actual events.

 

Its also highly amusing that you castigate Gonzo for “last wordism” when you simply don’t know when to give up, even when you’re completely wrong.

 

i ad no unrealistic concerns.  Football is a contact sport and the quotes in the OP don’t talk to “intentional violent play” but rather the ugly side of the game but, again, you’re so stubborn as to refuse to see It.  Instead you play amateur mind-reader only to be found to be wrong, again.

 

But be my guest and have the last word.  But no amount of last words will change the fact that Livingston didn’t deploy violent play tactics today and that the words used by Holt are commonplace verbiage for having to do the tough stuff such as tough running, closing space, applying pressure and spending long periods without the ball.

 

I’m no longer replying because you literally would argue in an empty room, even if wrong.  You have zero capacity to accept you could be wrong and that makes this futile.

 

Enjoy your evening

[JFK-1 1,693]

3 hours ago, craig said:

Give it up man.  You’re talking nonsense.  The game played out with no violent play. You can guess and suppose all you like but there was zero violent play.  None.  Which makes a mockery of what you’ve been rambling on about in this thread.

 

The main thrust of your argument now is no better than “if my aunt had balls”.

 

There was no violent play and you’re merely guessing that the game never played out as Holt apparently intended.

 

The thread was started because the OP was highlighting that Livvy would be physical and “in our faces”.  You turned that into “Holt wants his team to intentionally deploy violent play” - something which never actually happened.  But rather than admit you aren’t actually a mind repeater you’re doubling down.  In the worst possible way by inventing a narrative to fit your agenda, but which isn’t borne out by the actual events.

 

Its also highly amusing that you castigate Gonzo for “last wordism” when you simply don’t know when to give up, even when you’re completely wrong.

 

i ad no unrealistic concerns.  Football is a contact sport and the quotes in the OP don’t talk to “intentional violent play” but rather the ugly side of the game but, again, you’re so stubborn as to refuse to see It.  Instead you play amateur mind-reader only to be found to be wrong, again.

 

But be my guest and have the last word.  But no amount of last words will change the fact that Livingston didn’t deploy violent play tactics today and that the words used by Holt are commonplace verbiage for having to do the tough stuff such as tough running, closing space, applying pressure and spending long periods without the ball.

 

I’m no longer replying because you literally would argue in an empty room, even if wrong.  You have zero capacity to accept you could be wrong and that makes this futile.

 

Enjoy your evening

The fact the game played out in the fashion it did in no way means there was never any intention to "do" anybody, another euphemism for the same thing. And it's not just this game, there will be others where it will feature.  Which if that weren't the case then there would have been no need for anybody to be concerned that the referee be doing his job. Would there?

There is no need for a referee to mediate "tough running, closing space, applying pressure".

You're being absurd talking to me about last wordism, When I refer to that i'm talking about almost literal last wordism, As little as a word or two with absolutely nothing explanatory attached long after a discussion has reached a natural end point. If I make a response it wont be a word or two, it will be an explanation such as this is.

I have ample capacity to accept i'm wrong about absolutely anything, you simply haven't proven to me that there is nothing but euphemism in such language. You presenting an opinion of it is no more objective than me presenting an opinion of it.

I don't know about you but I grew up mingling in an environment where people meant exactly what they said even when not saying it in the most outright manner. That extended to football and even when just playing football if someone were told to "do him" that's exactly what it meant.

This is a feature of the dark side of particularly so West Central Scotland that has always existed, it's one of the most violent countries in Europe and that permeates the entire society.  Personally I have actually lost count of the number of people I knew who were murdered or who actually carried out murder.

Know one guy who has killed 3 times and another twice. I know a family of 4 boys and 3 girls and 3 of those 4 boys have killed one of them twice. I take what people say seriously even when they're presenting it euphemistically.

You continue having no concerns about it, I will continue believing it's an issue in the Scottish game and one of the reasons TV is largely uninterested in it. They can buy bum fights much cheaper.

Also I don't mind your interjections, you at least try to present an argument and I have no issue with that. It's not what I mean when I say last wordism. You too have an enjoyable evening.