http://www.bolton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=151869

 

May as well read the National Enquirer. An albino midget ate my Winnebago.

http://www.bolton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=151869

 

Yawn

 

Can't be interesting; it's written on internet forms 24/7

 

Is it your work?

What a load of shit.

Couldn't have put it any better myself

 

I mean the article not Tylswhites comment

Edited April 22, 200917 yr by mannyroad58

I'm sure this has been cut and pasted from here:

Megson`s contribution shouldn`t be discounted. Sam Allardyce left behind a small, ageing, demoralised squad that had been in relegation form for months. His departure left the structure of the club in tatters. Sammy Lee`s well intentioned efforts didn`t improve matters. To end last season still in the top flight was no mean feat.

I'm sure this has been cut and pasted from here:

 

Zozzy prob wrote it

Ive not opened the link but I presuming ive done the right thing?

"Very Interesting"?!? Have you been sniffing glue?

I'm sure this has been cut and pasted from here:

 

It wouldnt be the 1st time that site has done that would it? Pathetic freaks

Edited April 22, 200917 yr by tylswhite

the article asses megsons points per game ratio but the only way to asses anyone's performance is at the end of the season when you've played each team twice, before then teams could still have the 'big 4' to play all away from home which kinda screws up the tally.

"Very Interesting"?!? Have you been sniffing glue?

 

For me, the article and responses on here illustrate the divide that has grown amongst Bolton fans. I dont think either side will ever agree, the most important thing is to get right behind the team on Saturday and get those 3 points.

 

If it doesnt work out and at the end of the game fans want to show their displeasure, so what? I would hate Football to become sanitised and fans lose the passion and emotion. I dont agree with a lot of what is said on here, I know many disagree with me. I couldnt care less about that as the way I see it people are bothered enough about the club to give a viewpoint. That is so much better than letting apathy reign.

The author of the article states that Smolarek and Riga haven't had enough opportunity, but Mark Davies has been a failure.

 

That alone renders his opinion null & void.

The author of the article states that Smolarek and Riga haven't had enough opportunity, but Mark Davies has been a failure.

 

That alone renders his opinion null & void.

 

 

It didnt quite say that about Mark Davies, it said he hadnt succeeded yet which is a little different to calling him a failure.

 

I saw as most of you did a terrific debut against Spurs followed by 4 or 5 less than effective games. It's unfair to judge him on so few games and at his age I would be amazed if he could dominate a centre midfield area in this league. He needs help from others around him, help that only Matty and Ricardo in patches have given.

It didnt quite say that about Mark Davies, it said he hadnt succeeded yet which is a little different to calling him a failure.

 

If you want to be pedantic: there was no word yet in the statement.

"Johan Elmander, Fabrice Muamba, Riga, Ebi Smolarek, Sebasten Puygrenier, Ariza Makukula and Mark Davies haven`t succeeded."

 

He said Mark Davies hadn't succeeded.

 

Not succeeding = failing.

The paragraphs in question.

 

At least his transfer dealings have been ok, right? Er, no. Gary Cahill and Matt Taylor have proved to be astute purchases. The same can`t be said for this season`s newcomers. Johan Elmander, Fabrice Muamba, Riga, Ebi Smolarek, Sebasten Puygrenier, Ariza Makukula and Mark Davies haven`t succeeded.

 

It could be argued that Smolarek and Riga haven`t had sufficient opportunity, but the counter point of view, that they`re not physically equipped to deal with football in the Premiership, is also valid. Maybe Elmander, Muamba and Davies will come good in future, but if the bookies are banking on anyone placing bets on that, they`ll be in for as lean a time as the rest of credit-crunch Britain.

 

Seems a reasonable view to me.

 

Davies might come good, he might not, but he's injured, as he's been for most of the past two years.

the article asses megsons points per game ratio but the only way to asses anyone's performance is at the end of the season when you've played each team twice, before then teams could still have the 'big 4' to play all away from home which kinda screws up the tally.

 

Well said Frank. When i put forward the proposition to judge Allardyce on the whole of his final season, i'm rubbished by people on here and told you can only take into account the post Christmas period when it was 'relegation form'. (Casino take note)

 

So how do we judge managers, 10 games?, a carefully selected period ?or a whole season? . Make your minds up.

Edited April 22, 200917 yr by DeanoH

My point is that Davies shouldn't have been included in those that haven't succeeded.

He's had little more chance to shine than Riga and Smolarek and should therefore have been classed as hasn`t had sufficient opportunity.

Well said Frank. When i put forward the proposition to judge Allardyce on the whole of his final season, i'm rubbished by people on here and told you can only take into account the post Christmas period when it was 'relegation form'.

 

So how do we judge managers, 10 games?, a carefully selected period ?or a whole season? . Make your minds up.

 

HORSESHIT.

My point is that Davies shouldn't have been included in those that haven't succeeded.

He's had little more chance to shine than Riga and Smolarek and should therefore have been classed as hasn`t had sufficient opportunity.

If the second qualifying paragraph, conceding that he might come good eventually hadn't been included, you'd have a point.

 

As it is, I don't see what your beef it. He's had one good game since January. That may not be all his fault, but his contribution has been limited, and we knew his injury record when we bought him.

The article seems spot on to me.

 

What is amusing is the very constructive criticism of the piece by the pro-Megson lobby!!!

The article seems spot on to me.

 

What is amusing is the very constructive criticism of the piece by the pro-Megson lobby!!!

 

i find amusing the acceptance of tripe like the article in question by the anti-megson lobby.

If the second qualifying paragraph, conceding that he might come good eventually hadn't been included, you'd have a point.

 

As it is, I don't see what your beef it. He's had one good game since January. That may not be all his fault, but his contribution has been limited, and we knew his injury record when we bought him.

 

He's a young lad who's had injury problems: granted.

 

Still working out as a better investment than Bullard. Interestingly many Bolton fans caned Megson over his failure to sign Bullard.

PS i have a beef with pretty much everything on that site, not just this article. it's arguably shitter than even Rivals.

PS i have a beef with pretty much everything on that site, not just this article. it's arguably shitter than even Rivals.

how could that possibly be?