I think there’s a difference between someone claiming Richarlison is a dud (he’s not) and someone claiming that he was an expendable element to our squad in the face of £45m and the fact he was not currently likely to be in our strongest starting XI. Expendable doesn’t translate as people believing a player to be rubbish. It translates as people believing we could afford to lose him from the squad. If Everton have bought him to play as a CF, then he’s an even bigger gamble than previously discussed. The utterly bizarre thing in all this, that has only been briefly discussed, is that Lookman is a better player who has shown far more promise. And they seem intent on not giving him a chance. Given how desperate they were to get a Richarlison, I’m pretty disappointed we didn’t insist on Lookman coming the other way.
Yeah. I can't help fantasizing about him though. Sometimes I even wonder if I was HB1 but then I remember that he's Spanish.
Or an end? 'What we call the beginning is often the end.And to make an end is to make a beginning.The end is where we start from.'
He's not Hornetboy1, that is until he makes a post talking about how we are 50/50 to go down in March despite being 50/1 with most major bookies!
I accept that fewer is proper, but there is the very valid view that if a new phrase, however it came about (such as less for fewer, and "of" mutating out of the abbreviation for 'have'), is understood for the meaning that is intended, then it is just as proper as any other usage. We are just seeing the evolution of language, and protesting against the same types of changes that modern English grew out of in the first place. You do have my sympathies, however, vive la change. I just bet you wish there could of been less changes.
Just read his profile page. "Used to work as a youth team fitness instructor for Watford under Glenn Roeder and Kenny Jackett. Trained players such as Gifton and Tommy Smith in their early years. Still in touch with various players and coaching staff. I now run a business in the film industry, which allows for a lot of travel, but I still ensure I get to see my beloved Watford regularly." Don't remember him mentioning that before ? Is that enough info to work out who he is just for fun ???!!
Yes. But sloppy use of French and Gemanic words is likely to have been responsible for many great English phrases and meanings now. IMHO.
I think it's just an excuse for people who can't be arsed to learn grammatical rules. 'Of' for 'have' doesn't even begin to make grammatical sense.
My example above/below is a poor one. It's great to see language evolve when the change helps by making communication more clear or more pleasant. Not when it is a denigration of the language by the ill informed. A linguistic analogy to selling a player only an improvement is available.
Leaving a blank line below each line of text should be mandatory (double spacing ?). Well so I believe anyway. It just looks better. Clearer.
I know, it’s crazy that we can field those 5 in midfield, still got cleverly, Capoue and Sema, AND we’ve just banked £40m on another one who wasn’t even a guaranteed starter at the end of last season! But Mr Pozzo, if you’re reading this, that amazing midfield doesn’t mean we can cope without Doucoure. Please let me see this guy in a Watford shirt again this season!
Chalobah played five games for us last season (putting aside the late cameo on the final day). One of those five games was the 0-6 defeat to Man City. He had started the season well but for people to use four decent performances to put him on a par with the way Doucouré has performed over the last 18 months is ludicrous.
He wants to go to Leipzig, we are desperately trying to stop him leaving The legacy of Koeman and Allardyce
Would you want to come here if you had listened to the Snake endlessly telling you what a tinpot club we are.
I’ve been trying for years to forget my lost love and you go and mention his name again. The tears will flow.... (No, not Zeegelaar.)
