seriously ,you're talking bollocks.
You DON'T think he was a quality player? Or do you think he was a dime a dozen those days?
seriously ,you're talking bollocks.
You DON'T think he was a quality player? Or do you think he was a dime a dozen those days?
I was using an example. You are being PAINFULLY pedantic. Let it go.
It doesn't matter what example you're using - ANY example of it is shite.
no he was a "qualla" player,not dime a dozen, but there were lots of flair players then , not the 5 or 6 in every team that some people would have you believe, but one of the things you dont see nearly as much these days is players taking on and beating the opposition .You DON'T think he was a quality player? Or do you think he was a dime a dozen those days?
OK let's go with penny.
Glen Johnson scored a goal as good as that one last year, as sweet a volley as you will see, from MILES out. GLEN JOHNSON. You getting my point?
*ahem ahem cough cough*
I would love to know how this little gem has slipped through the net.
no he was a "qualla" player,not dime a dozen, but there were lots of flair players then , not the 5 or 6 in every team that some people would have you believe, but one of the things you dont see nearly as much these days is players taking on and beating the opposition .
grown men in replica shirts, grown men in replica shirts with a f***ing players name on the back !
You DON'T think he was a quality player? Or do you think he was a dime a dozen those days?
perhaps , who knows? we'll agree to disagree , i'll carry on arriving from 1-5 minutes late after kick off through squeezing in that one last pint, to have to get up for a piss 30 seconds after sitting down and you can carry on marvelling at the technical expertise on display at the likes of roots hall.Perhaps defenders are better now? Perhaps tactics and positional awareness are far more developed? Old school full backs were absolutely hilarious compared to the top full backs nowadays.
What suffix should we use then? As it's painful in conversation to have to explain the whole situation to people who probably already know about it. And simply stupid, and a waste of time.
just leave it for fucks sake.And therein lies the problem, and the mere fact you're not understanding it is the central point.
It doesn't need a suffix. The suffix '-gate' has no value and no meaning, aside from short-cutting people into believing that 'something scandalous' has happened.
People who don't know about it would need an explanation anyway, and those that do know about it don't need to be insulted by the use (or over-use) of a misused and meaningless phrase. The sooner you can describe something without resorting to this irrelevance, the sooner you will appreciate that any pain you may suffer by learning to describe something coherently and concisely will all soon diminish and was unnecessary in the first place.
If you really want a label, how about 'TLO's flounce' or 'TLO's comments on REMF'. How's that for being coherent and concise? 'BollockstoREMFgate' has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
perhaps , who knows? we'll agree to disagree , i'll carry on arriving from 1-5 minutes late after kick off through squeezing in that one last pint, to have to get up for a piss 30 seconds after sitting down and you can carry on marvelling at the technical expertise on display at the likes of roots hall.
The use of the phrase 'there was contact' when debating a penalty claim.
but one of the things you dont see nearly as much these days is players taking on and beating the opposition .