Jump to content

Joe B

Members
  • Posts

    3,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    101

Everything posted by Joe B

  1. Ok, I'll stop. We won't agree. I will say though, mate, that your complete and total hatred of 'The Left' as a homogenous, evil entity, and some of the theories you come out with recently are a bit concerning. I'm not saying you're wrong with everything, and I enjoy debate, but there has been an increasing tendency in your posts to display absolute vitriol to the left and make a few references/terms/theories that I know are from certain online figures and forums (I had a friend go down the same rabbit hole). This thread alone is full of them. Would recommend you take a step back from the content you consume and see if your views soften. Your political views are up to you but I don't think your current worldview is a massively healthy one.
  2. He says that women who wear makeup to work are hypocritical if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. I'm not sure what context you're referring to is supposed to make this sound better? I can't think of any context which makes this a viable viewpoint. Women should be able to wear makeup and also not be deemed hypocrites if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. He disagrees. Either way, this isn't a hill to die on mate.
  3. Interesting you directly link to his backpedalling and not this very clear, yes or no question, in which he says wearing makeup "(sure it) contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace." Or this abhorrent take: He explicitly says that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace is hypocritical if she chooses to wear makeup to work as 'makeup is a sexual display'. and 'how can you not think that (its hypocritical). It's absolutely disgusting. You can cover it up by pointing to his psychological perspective but its an awful view and he clearly recognises it in the backpedalling you link to. He has horrible views at times.
  4. I think his views expressed above are on the far side of the conservative spectrum. I wouldn't want to tarnish mates I have, who lean conservative, with such abhorrent views. Soon as I get free and can listen to the video to isolate the exchange, I will, but it's his interview with Vice in about being 'Canada's most infamous intellectual'. I assure you, and I'll send the exchange later, what he says doesn't get any better in context.
  5. Jordan Peterson argues that it is still unclear whether women and men can share a workplace, and that women who wear makeup in the workplace are sexualising themselves. He also said this: When asked if he believes wearing makeup or high heels “contributes to sexual harassment in the work place” and renders sexual harassment “more likely,” Peterson responds: “Sure it contributes” (though, when later asked once again if these things “contribute to sexual harassment in the work place,” Peterson replied “I don’t know”). The interviewer then asks Peterson if he felt that “a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the work place…[but] “who wears makeup …is being somewhat hypocritical?” Peterson’s response is blunt. “Yeah, I do think that. I don’t see how you could not think that. It’s like, makeup is sexual display. That’s what it’s for!” The man talks absolute nonsense and uses massive words/over-elaborate concepts to cover up both basic advice (make your bed! take your medicine!) alongside highly conservative views. When you argue that wearing makeup and not wanting to be sexually harassed are hypocritical standpoints, you deserve lambasting. The interview itself is his one with Vice, and watching it in full doesn't make his points any better in context. He says exactly what I've put above.
  6. Genuinely happy to be corrected by Phil, but I remember Gary Roberts saying Crewe wouldn't sell him (I believe to Cardiff) as the fee wasn't high enough to ensure Dario got a good piece of the pie. It may be absolutely rubbish, but eventually the business model of 'invest heavy in academy, produce great players, sell them to invest heavy in academy, repeat' has to get a bit tedious? I understand the sustainability and the 'morally good' side of doing it, but as a Crewe fan I'd get worn down by the futility of it all.
  7. Accepts his goalkeeper had a good game in which they conceded 3 and then engages in "well, if they didn't do good things, and we did do good things, then we'd won". Deep, deep denial. They got all excited in the summer when they set up the Ipswich Retirement Home, and now it's hitting home that that was a very stupid idea and it's another season of mediocrity at best. I think you could take any game of football ever, and say "magic away the good stuff the opposition did, invent some good stuff that we never did, and hey presto, we win". They had a couple of good chances, as every team is going to have in League 2 as no one is good enough to establish total control. However, we never looked ruffled and it was boringly easy in the second half, as their players had long given up.
  8. We absolutely hammered the Hamil Road end with water for 20 minutes prior to KO.
  9. Their defence looked rubbish because they had a flat back 4 and all 4 of them are old. With what ended up as a 343 from us, when we established possession you ended up with: Chambers Eastman Smith Daniels (all over 30) vs Gibbons Politic Wilson Rodney Worrall They never had a prayer. Our left was rampant first half as they couldn't decide whether to mark Gibbons or Politic. A few times, Hannant was having to track back to cover Gibbons when the fullback was taken up by Politic. We had a very quick and mobile front 5 in possession up against 4 decrepit old men. The fact Mullins did so little to change it is concerning from a ColU perspective. DC, again, got it absolutely bang on yesterday.
  10. Think there was a point in the second half where Wilson was playing central midfield and Smith was up front. Even Cruyff would have deemed that a too literal interpretation of TotaalVoetbal. Dazzler is a world class manager.
  11. You can develop players for years in top academies, and they still won't learn the innate attributes that Gibbo has. He's an excellent player in a load of ways, but his seething aggression, work-rate, and borderline viciousness in everything he does isn't coachable. He looks perpetually fuming at everything and everyone and it reflects brilliantly in the way he plays. Him clattering their lad in the 2nd half, after the ball was out and the player was two yards off the pitch, was top drawer. Vintage Gibbo. Future captain.
  12. I thought he was a close 2nd for MOTM. Controlled us in possession and won a lot of balls back. Thought he was outstanding.
  13. Honestly felt like we were in second gear. We made a poor ColU side look non-league. Really like the formation. Every player looked suited to their role.
  14. 😇 Superb stuff from back to front. Every man class. Conlon looked better and more influential dictating from deep. Gibbons is an absolute diamond. Covolan safe as houses once again. His obsessive willingness to receive passes to feet is so, so useful. Their decision to stick with a 4 man defence (with a puddled CB at RB) 1st half was disastrous; he either tucked in to mark Politic and gave Gibbons freedom of Vale Park, or sat wide and allowed Politic to cut through with ease. Gibbons goal, then a Politic assist. It was comically easy and fantastic stuff from Clarke. Mullins got tactically spun and serious questions will be being asked of him. Total control in the second half with possession, and Amoo and Cass could have made it 5. We had our top-scorer out, subbed Worrall, and were bringing on players who stroll into 90% of League 2 teams. The squad depth is excellent and testament to a summer of well-planned and executed recruitment. It excites me to think what Flitters can do with this time, without the need for a systematic rebuild. You simply have to Trust the Pruhcess and You Matrix here. Stoke and Crewe in the mud. The Rampant Whites.
  15. Covolan Cass Smith Jones Worrall Pett Conlon Gibbons Rodney Wilson Politic Liked the idea of a 343 suggested by another poster. Without Proctor, 352 doesn't seem to work as well as don't have a focal point. Conlon will have to be more restrained but him and Pett sitting and allowing Worrall and Gibbons to get wide of a quick front three might be nice to watch.
  16. Problem with Rodney is I think he needs a regular run of games to get to his best. To enable that, we'll have to deal with his sub-par performances. Worryingly, he has 3 in 24 since DC came in. Patience needed, though.
  17. Agree that words need to be considered more carefully in an increasingly polarised and inflammatory political space. I just felt a few on here were very quick/keen to attribute cause, which opens up the same debate regarding language in the EU referendum. If they're going to directly link Rayner's language to Amess' murder, then they have to accept scrutiny of language of figures/media backing Brexit before the murder of Cox, which I imagine they didn't do at the time and won't be keen on doing so now. Again; I don't believe that this scrutiny is needed or useful, just pointing out what some people are advocating.
  18. Find it risky that people are very, very keen to pin blame on Rayner's use of language. You're putting yourself in a position where you have to analyse language used in the run up to Thomas Mair's murder of Jo Cox. Mair specifically targeted Cox due to her support for the EU, in the run-up to a referendum on that exact issue. It's a very slippery slope and I don't personally believe that Rayner's words or any of the language used towards Remain voters in 2016 had any impact on the respective murders. I'm just saying that if you're making that assertion, as some are, you have to perform the same analysis of Jo Cox's murder. It's probably wisest to avoid it as it opens up a separate debate. I don't think Rayner should have used the language she did, but I'm also not going to try and draw a link between her language and the murder of an MP in a terrorism attack.
  19. Will happily admit that the positives that Lucas brings to us have to be balanced with at least competency in terms of shot-stopping. If he continues to underperform in this regard, and his mistakes begin to cost us points, then of course you look at changes. I think that the goalkeeping role has developed significantly, where they are now part of the team a lot more than they used to be; there are fewer and fewer pure shot stoppers, with managers seemingly preferring keepers who contribute to the shots not coming in in the first place (claiming crosses, rushing out, passing the ball under pressure), as opposed to someone who can save shots when they come by the bucketload (see Scott Brown's Port Vale career). In an ideal world Lucas would do the 'contribute to the team not giving up shots' stuff AND be somewhat decent at stopping shots when they come in. Up to now, he's underdelivered on the latter. I just think the metrics in which Clarke/Flitters/You Matrix measures a goalkeeper go beyond 'does he save the shots that come his way?'. That's obviously a crucial part, but Lucas offers more.
  20. Of course it should. It implies, whilst mistakes are made, they aren't game-altering. We're a good side and his mistakes aren't impacting that to any significant extent. Keepers will make mistakes at some point, but the key thing is that they're not huge and altering games. Surely it can be considered that Covolan is part and parcel of how we set up and how well we've done? He is aggressive with crosses, allows defenders a passing option when they are pressed, and starts nice and high when we are in possession, allowing us to press up the pitch, maintain a high line, and not be too fearful of balls over the top. These are all key cogs in how we set up as a team. We simply couldn't do any of that last year. Crosses weren't claimed, pressure resulted in hoofs/losing the ball, and we couldn't sit high and squeeze because Brown steadfastly refused to come off his line (and when he did, he was beaten). Think it's unfair to deprive him of any agency/role in us not conceding many chances, but then completely lump on his mistakes. A defence is always dependent on their relationship with their goalkeeper. To remove him from the equation entirely is harsh. It's entirely reasonable to feel nervy with him (I do), but I think unreasonable to claim all the success is in spite of him. He's played every minute in a team 4th in the table and have only lost three games, all by one goal.
  21. I'm a massive fan of Lucas but think the penalty save covered up another shaky first-half. As it was given, I commented that this was the chance to redeem himself. He was caught with bad passing one or twice. He clearly has a talent for penalty saves as he did well in the playoff final too. All the classic 'stand over the ball, take ages to walk to line, bang the crossbar' stuff. The penalty save seemed to boost his confidence, as before that he seemed to be overthinking everything. Second half his cross-claiming was pretty good and didn't have many shots to deal with, bar the goal, which came at him quickly from 8 yards away and he couldn't do a great deal about. The Vale fans gave him an excellent reception so he's getting backed. There's a really good keeper in there and hopefully his better second half marks a steadier run. We don't need shot-stopping abilities at the level of Alnwick; his high positioning, passing, and cross-catching help to ensure he doesn't face many shots. I think the main thing is that Lucas, for all of his nerve-inducing habits, hasn't directly cost us many points this year. You could argue Sutton's 4th, Northampton red, but bar that you're struggling to point at dropped points and directly link to to a mistake he's made. It's weird.
  22. The poll was done by the Mail on Sunday; London Economic is just reporting the poll which appear in the MoS paper. No relevance.
  23. He did. 51 games. Comments from a Lincoln mate when we signed him. I think he's got the most tackles in League 2. He was excellent in the first half last night, consistently turning and spreading the play, completely dictating it. He knocked a great ball into Lloyd, who was fouled and Conlon banged in the resulting free-kick. He went quiet second half and got a bit loose, but entire team was dodgy. Pett's a really good, unflashy player.
  24. I think Martin is less disastrous than you suggest, but he's no better than OK. Johnson has struggled and Benning disappointing. I think Cass has largely been very good. Two great signings, one 'OK' signing, and two poor ones isn't a failure in my view. Undoubted room for improvement but Jones and Cass are definite upgrades on last year's equivalent.
  25. I thoroughly enjoyed Vale fans giving Smith a standing ovation for dragging a man down when he was clean through on goal.
×
×
  • Create New...