Didn't watch the game, but it's pretty clear to me that if we add a quality striker we'll piss the league
A mixed review does not equal "bad" or "the same sh*t we displayed" - by definition a "mixed review" is one balanced between some positive and some negative. Yet your summary and assumptions about the game you didn't watch only jumped to seeing negatives, which in my view is inaccurate. My summary of the game before you'd posted stated that "Despite much of the over-reactions when the lineup was announced, even with all the quality missing we're still a solid team at this level. Obviously the key thing missing is those in the final third who can turn such tight games in to wins. [...] Again, that's still an alright point away given the start Preston have made" From reading my summary one would not be able to reasonably jump to concluding that the performance was "bad". If someone else had actually watched the game but perceived it differently then that's a separate issue. The point is you jumped to a one-sided opinion on a game you didn't even watch, based purely on only listening to the assessments of posters who will moan about anything, and ignoring the views of the posters who had more balanced or upbeat assessments; seemingly in order to justify you being able to have an excuse to moan about a performance you did not even witness. I'd rather not because the point is clear and there needn't have to be a laborious debate. But if you truly don't want to have the debate then you're going a strange way about it - because you keep squirming, back-tracking , and making nonsensical counter arguments all over the place, rather than doing what you could and should have done right at the beginning which is simply accepting that your mini-meltdown post match was based on incorrect assumptions and you only choosing to read and accept the assessments of posters whose opinions on the game fed in to your own pre-existing overly negative bias. We did. And we certainly weren't as "bad" as we were against West Brom. Well done for finally acknowledging that some of those who actually watched the game had different viewpoints to the one you jumped to.
No one knows what he's trying to prove, but at least you got him to bite and write a large block of text that no one will actually read.
Mate, could you please stop. As I said I quite enjoy a lot of your posts, but this is another pointless reply. And it's not "only 45 words" as that's about one fifth of my post. You continued saying I said things I didn't say just to try and prove your point and it seems like the only thing you care about is being right. If my arguements are all over the place because,which I don't think they are, it could also be because this isn't my native language. I really didn't want to continue the debate but you just keep on claiming I said things I didn't say, and you act like you know what I wanted to say better then me which is ludicrous.
It was 45 words fewer across the entirety of our discussion. You're now at 54 words more than me. I've quoted you clearly, while you attempt to back-track.
Just hope we don't go on a run like this (matches 15 to 32)... 2004–05 Stoke City F.C. season - Wikipedia
LOL. You're a really "interesting" character. P. S. Now I have 145 more words, so you don't have to count.
I don't think lowerrous is a Watford fan, regardless of their username. There are a couple of members on here that l would question their fan status. I guess it is OK as this is only a site so fans can air their views. A few members on here constantly deny their posts and tow the club line. Oh well, it doesn't matter in the long run.
Yet again you are bullying a poster. Which is sad in itself. Your sense of self awareness has not changed one iota. Nor has your sense of self importance as the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong.
Bet a team managed by Mourinho has some sort or pattern like this (admittedly usually winning probably!!) Don’t forget in our record unbeaten run we had endless low scoring draws and wins under Kenny Jackett.
Pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in a poster's argument is not bullying. Excuse me, but who is the one acting a bully here?! Lol. Yet again, someone on here is making things personal, rather than keeping the discussion about the views on football, and that person yet again isn't me.
Really? I don't think you are a Watford fan. A fan of football maybe, but not specifically Watford. I would not accuse you of bullying, you're just keen to agitate those who disagree with you or you disagree with their views. You and your mate do make me laugh though. It's just like sitting next to Mr Angry at a game. It's free to post, so please carry on.
That could well be the record and by some distance, at least in English football. This was during Pulis’s first spell at Stoke and he actually admitted engineering those results to express his dissatisfaction with the Icelandic owners. Stoke fans call that season the “binary season”. The weird thing is, the run ended with two 1-0 wins after five consecutive 1-0 defeats! How did he decide which result to go for I wonder, whichever one was most plausible depending on the opposition and/or how the game was panning out?
I had a Watford season ticket for about 20 years and still watch all of Watford's games online, but yeah sure. Pointing out when someone has assumed something about a game they didn't watch isn't really "disagreeing with their views", it's rather showing them that they hadn't considered the views of all those who had actually watched the game - because you're not really capable of forming a complete "view" of a game you didn't watch. Who's that?
I didn't assume anything. You assumed I assumed something and no matter what I say you still think you're right. I'm once again going to ask you, since I didn't get a reply last time, do you honestly believe you know what I wanted to say better than me? If so that's mental imo.
