I said the PM me. No games. If you can't do it, that's fine. Proves that you're just trolling and you know you're wrong.
Absolutely nothing personal at all. Though I know you're trying to stir the pot. Jr. made an accusation without offering any evidence. About 5-6 posters went to great detail to explain how his accusation was factually and historically inaccurate. Jr. still insists that he's right and we're all wrong. All I'm doing is providing him an opportunity to show some sort of evidence that backs up his accusation. He can't do it. He knows he can't do it. So he tries to accuse me of being a big old meanie pants.
it is easy to demand proof or you are all wet and if you can't then you are a charlatan. How about this have your cohorts and yourself get all your evidence to the contrary together post the facts as you see them or you all are also that of which you accuse them of being. When you start calling someone names it simply becomes personal. I do not understand how belligerence proves any point at all. How does yelling louder ever prove a point, especially when we are all voicing opinions as to how we see it. In my opinion it is OK to see things differently but no one should say if you don't see it my way you are flapping your mouth ad infinitum. That IS personal. It is always the same. Always. That is sad..
i would like to present the bolded below here is how things panned out from the eyes of a neutral (i've had my fun arguing these points and realized it's a carousel of never ending circles. No one will agree in the end.): Jr made a post, 5-6 posters posted evidence in detail saying the opposite, Jr. sticks to his guns and GVPATS asked for his list. There is no need to do the research as it's already been presented, GVPATS is asking Jr to present counter evidence.
I agree that an opposing view was presented, however I saw no references listed. Without references the opposing views are just as suspect. Just because 5-6 posters posted in opposition does not make it an absolute, merely a consensus of a similarly thinking group. However my concern is and will remain that resorting to terms like if you do not present proof then you are just flapping your mouth. I do not agree with either poster but the tactic of impeaching a messenger is simply hitting below the belt. That I find objectionable but this has always been the tactic with this particular poster. Yes this is a personal reference but I do not mean this in the negative. It is A-OK to disagree and we all know that we can read the same passage/article and will form different opinions and understanding of it. Why is one opinion more valid than an other?? Good natured jibing is fun and stimulates conversation whereas this send people into hiding. It just isn't right. That is MY opinion but OK have at it boys..Over and out... PS did not see a bolded passage? PSS. The stirring was not started by myself....I wish to make it a civil not one that is again degenerating into name calling!
The Klinsmann Coaching thread, v1 This is the title of this thread, what exactly has all this got to do with the intent of the tread. We are going back and back and back and continually saying Klinsmann is worse than Bradley and that bradley was better at this and that and responsible for everything that klinsmann has accomplished. If that is what we are trying to say just say so instead of continually veering away from today?? It is self defeating.....Go Bradley, may Egypt become Champion of the World.....
We did that. Repeatedly. For the past 4 pages. You must not have read the thread and just decided to latch on to me and attack me based on a personal vendetta. I didn't call anyone a name. Quit stirring the pot. And I haven't been yelling either. Simply offering Jr. an opportunity to back up his claims like those with the counter argument did. You have a personal problem with me Vaquero. I feel sorry for you. Let it go and move on.
You can go to USsoccer.com and see the schedule and results of every US soccer game in the past 5 years or so, including who played, if they started or if they were subbed. As far as Holden's time with Houston, again this is easily verified that he was playing behind DeRosario and Clark, and got most of his minutes (as a substitute mind you) on the right flank up until the 2009 season, when DeRo was traded and Clark made the move to Eintract. As far as injuries, it is a documented fact in multiple sources that Holden had his leg broken against the Netherlands and then had his leg severely injured again against Manchester United a year later. This requires no "sources" and it isn't "suspect". The evidence presented by myself, Duets, Adiaga 2, Mr. Martin, etc, etc, etc, etc isn't based on opinion. It is absolute, historical, easily verifiable fact. Again...you're just stirring the pot because you have a personal problem with me. Get over it and move on. Quit defending people who are blatantly wrong just because you don't like the people that proved them wrong.
However, in this situation, the 5-6 posters have presented their "evidence" between them and have not seen a counter argument set against it. I mean if i were to say the earth was flat, a couple of posters present evidence stating otherwise and i didnt waver wouldn't the next course of action be to present my evidence on the matter?
Did the people saying he didn't answer even read this? Notice that what you want him to disprove, he actually agrees with: "You want to say that Bob Bradley started deploying Holden as soon as he had earned a spot through his form. Fine, no problem with that statement, and that seems to be the point that GVPATS unwittingly keeps proving over and over. But that wasn't the issue." The issue seems to be that Bradley didn't groom Holden, which juniorla also said he thought was the correct decision. Know the position of the poster you're trying to prove wrong.
OK, in your particular example we are dealing with an absolute an actual fact. Here we are seeing an interpretation of something and an example of arguing against something that is not that which another said. We can continue to argue this but we aren't saying anything. Nor are we getting anywhere. Maybe GVPAT is correct I must be stirring the pot, not my intent and if so interpreted, my apologies.
Idk there is a group out there that actually still belIeve it a fact it's flat and Antarctica forms a wall around the entire earth
No, the particular fact that you are trying to make this be about don't determine the issue. This is your constant method, to try to distract the course of argument to a particular set of facts and discussion that suits you and your opinion. And beyond that, your accounting of the course of the discussion is, predictably, inaccurate. Like I said, I'm not playing your games. I've been down those roads with you before. It's always the same. Moreover, I don't think that you actually even read things before you react against it. The items that you keep presenting as the facts that you think prove something that I've written "wrong" go to a different point. And all of the foregoing is how I have become more and more assured that you were actually, as you claim, at one time, a member of the soccer media.
So 5 people, including myself, all interpreted your post the exact same way and presented the same arguments against. You move the goalposts and claim that what we said doesn't apply to your position, and then accuse us of moving the goalposts? This is the exact chronology of this debate. Posters like myself gave Klinsmann a low rating for not bringing along some young players to audition in a position of need during the past year. You counter that saying that it wasn't fair of us to hold JK accountable for that because Bradley was guilty of the same thing...and you used Holden as your example. Your accusation gets proven wrong 10 ways from Sunday, and you continue to rail on about how blatantly obvious it was that Holden was clearly international quality long before Bradley ever called him up. Which is a point that you apparently have conceded to be wrong. So I guess I'm lost. What is your point?
I'm not moving any goalposts. You love claiming that. The thing that I've been discussing is what I've been discussing since my first post on the subject. And ONCE AGAIN, you are constantly posting the same "facts" that have little to nothing to do with the subject (example, all of the PT from and after the Gold Cup) and then claiming victory. Yes, you are lost, or your reading comprehension is not terribly high. Yes, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time on this. I'm not going to convince you (to read and understand what is being discussed), you're not going to convince me (that Bob Bradley was better than JK). I'm moving on.
So your point is that Holden was clearly an international quality central midfielder, and it was plain for the world to see, all while he was riding the bench at Houston and getting limited minutes as a right sided midfielder? You keep dancing around the issue, making not so veiled attacks to my intelligence, and the intelligence of everyone else who has made the same arguments as I have. Yet when asked a simple question...what is your point...you choose to insult rather than actually post a clear and concise answer. What point are you trying to make? Shouldn't take much more than one or two sentences, and doesn't require a diatribe about what a mean person I am for asking you to make a clear and concise point.
Junior, this is what you posted that people disagreed with. . . .It was pointed out that it would be hard to imagine an injured, rehabbing Stuart Holden receiving starts during the period you suggest over a healthy Michael Bradley.
The fact is it's impossible to give a young guy national team minutes if he hasn't yet secured a starting spot with his first club team. That's just an impossible situation. Not only can you NOT see him play on a regular basis, but you would be roasted in the press and in your own lockerroom for playing a kid who hasn't even made his mark at a pro club team. That's why Holden never got minutes when he was on the bench for Houston. And of course it's impossible to give minutes to a guy when he's injured. I just don't see what specific games Holden should have played in that he was snubbed for.
Yes, or more specifically, you can trace the string leading up to JuniorLA's post as follows: JuniorLA was specifically complaining about Holden during the time he was a starter for Bolton -- September 2010 through March19, 2011. THAT is what his quote shows. GVPATS77 then argued that Holden was NOT being ignored by BB during that specific time period, and asked JuniorLA to name specific games when Holden was being ignored during the time JuniorLA targeted.
From the start of the 2010-11 season, Stuart Holden was the stand-out CM in our player pool, through his injury in March. During that period of time people discussed that as our best CM in that period when there were games to be played he should get opportunities at CM. Earlier in the thread you mentioned that there was a dearth of USMNT games during that period, which there was, with more coming after the time of Holden's injury. I pointed out that during the period of time when there were not games but people were still discussing the squad (as happens here) and discussing Holden's outstanding season, there was no reason to anticipate Holden's injury before it actually happened, and so the subject of theoretically playing Holden at CM was discussed. So if one were to get involved in one of the many, many "who should play where" discussions that occur on this board, that aren't necessarily with reference to a particular game but who is the best option at a position ("is Altidore our best striker?" "who is our best CM pairing?"...), whether Holden was our best CM was discussed from the start of the 2010-2011 season (in fact, it was discussed earlier). As I mentioned, if people could see into the future and know that Holden would be injured and then would be thereafter ineligible to play most meaningful games thereafter, the subject of Holden at CM would not have been discussed much. You will notice that this is the case since that injury. Before that injury, however, it was, understandably, a viable topic of discussion.