posted Feb 11, 2009

LD:

Didn’t notice the hidden olive branch, huh?

“To be honest, it baffles me that you genuinely believe what you're writing.”

You don’t have to tell me, it’s clear you are baffled by your misunderstanding of what you are insinuating when you say something is illogical when it isn’t. The conclusion I have drawn is rational given the information which I have based my opinion.


Following a period of poor form, and not a particularly notable season prior which, including Real’s lack of commitment to the player during extended contract negotiations, for me, suggests his time there was underwhelming. I think you are taking the term ‘underwhelming’ too strongly.

You make excuses for and play down his problems in his final season. I don’t buy into the idea that

a) He missed games solely on the back of his expressed desire to join another team

b) Real were that fussed about keeping him throughout his final season

c) The spell of 4-5 decent performances at the end of the season eliminate the disappointment before it

d) Honours won by the team, and contestable stats don’t prove anything

The fact Real tried to renew after his game improved just strengthens my position that throughout his final season, Real were not fussed about keeping him.

The goal posts I suggested you are moving are:

Initial position:
- You can’t say Beckham was benched prior to his declaration of wanting to leave

Became:
- You can’t say Beckham was benched at the time of his declaration

Initial position:
- You can’t say Beckham was having contract impedance prior to his declaration

Became:
- You can’t say contract impedance indicates Real were not interested in Beckham’s new contract

Initial position:
- Six games (it’s actually more than that, it was six at the time of the article) on the bench is not enough to suggest a player is having a bad season

Became:
- 4 games at the end is enough to suggest a player is having a good season

The list goes on. A lot of what you write is quite contradictory, and all over the place in terms of where you stand.

‘Winning’ and ‘keeping up appearances’ seems to be your singular intent, rather than to enlighten someone of a different perspective, and I can’t understand that.

It pretty much renders anything I say, right or wrong, pointless – you won’t admit you are wrong (the hilarious ‘logic’ argument a clear demonstration of belligerent obdurateness), can’t appreciate how opinion can differ, and seem to think everything you have written is indisputable fact, when it is pretty erroneous.

A person who has made his mind up before he examines an issue has valueless opinions in my book, and I’m going to have to withdraw from the discussion as it’s far from edifying I’m sorry to say.

Hope you enjoy the football tonight, and let’s hope Beckham continues to surprise us doubters.

EP

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

I think the funniest thing about your posts is the irony - you're too busy telling me that I can't see how I'm wrong because I refuse to believe how opinion can differ to notice that you're doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction.

Or let me guess, it differs because you're right?

Cutting the rubbish that you wrote (I really cannot be bothered to keep listing where you’re wrong, only for you to ignore it), it boils down to this statement from you:

""Other than a light spell at the start of his time with Madrid, and an improvement towards the end, I would call his time at Madrid a disappointing one – especially as it lead to him being dropped, and sold; couldn’t have been performing that well if this was the outcome, re-call or not (which incidentally tied in with the injury of Reyes)."

It is you that has tried moving your initial position. Quite clearly this paragraph suggests Beckham was playing poorly and being left out of the team which led to his sale.

How can that be a valid comment when it has been proven that he was a first choice player for Capello in the two months up to the point that his transfer was confirmed? Simple - it cannot.

It also quite blatently suggests that Real chose to ship on Beckham - by using the word 'sale'. Again, it’s been proven that contract negotiations were ongoing - there is nothing to suggest that Real were not intent on keeping Beckham before he decided to move on.

Forget the debate about his performances there for a minute, just concentrate on that one paragraph that you wrote. It's wrong, and you trying to twist things isn't going to change that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

I know I said I was done with this, but I haven’t read your above post: Just wanted to give you the opportunity to admit you are wrong –


“'it led to him being dropped' - wrong - he was a first choice player up until the annoucement except for a six game spell 4 months before.”

August/Sept – 2 Starts, 2 Bench
October – 1 Start, 3 Bench
November – 0 Starts, 4 bench
December – 2 Starts, 2 Bench
January – 0 Start, 1 Bench

(Announcement)

January Contd. – 0 starts, 3 Bench
February - 2 Starts, 2 Bench
March – 1 Start, 2 Bench
April – 1 Start, 4 Bench
May – 3 Starts, 1 Bench
June – 2 Starts


Conclusions

Beckham was barely playing from the start of the season, making only 5 starts from 17 games of which Real only won once.

Following his announcement up until May, Beckham started just 4 games, which one was a win at the end of April, during a period of form of 5 wins in 6 games.

Following this period of form, the era which defines Beckham’s ‘return’ (2 months!) consists of 5 games, one of which he was subbed off while Real were losing.

---

So my dear, two months before his announcement Beckham started just TWO games.

You are hilarious!

His season defining era which ‘helped’ Real win the title, occurred in the middle of a spell of excellent club form, and only consisted of 5 starts, one of which he was subbed off while Real were behind!

Have fun with that one too.

“How can that be a valid comment when it has been proven that he was a first choice player for Capello in the two months up to the point that his transfer was confirmed? Simple - it cannot.”
- Little Devil

Oh dear. Here’s your chance to admit you are wrong. Good luck with that!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

The research I did had Beckham down as starting every game in December except the game where he was suspended.

So, I don't make it wrong - have you got the details to back those figures up? I presume you're including CL games?

If so, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

A couple things I found amusing...

You're neglecting to write how many games the team played. Check again and you'll notice that the Christmas break means most players don't play many games in that period.



Secondly, I don't see you defending the 'sale' line anymore, I wonder why that is.



Bit quick to gloat there sunshine, but nice try all the same...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

Desperate, now huh? (little typos creeping in, frustrated pedantry).

I find it amusing that you can’t add up to get the number of team games!

Champs League – I was hoping you would ask me that!

Lyon; subbed 55 (1-0) (L)
Dynamo; Bench 46 (3-0) (W)
Bucharest; Bench 71 (3-0) (W)
Bucharest; Bench 59 (0-0) (W)
Lyon; Bench, N/A (D)
Dynamo; 90 (D)

So 1 start in 6! What a regular!

Here are the stats for the season in full, enjoy – ready to admit you are wrong yet?

P.S - Hilarious you try and deflect attention back to the ‘sale’ thing! However, fairs fair – I was guilty of sloppy paraphrasing, by sold I meant let go. My utmost apologies, although you have to admit it is a long way from your error! Happy reading!

Aug
Villareal; 76 – subbed (D)

Sept
Levante; 90 (W)
Sociodad; Bench, 70 (W)
Betis; Bench, 72 (W)

Oct
Atletico; Bench, 70 (D)
Getafe; 68 – subbed (L)
Barca; Bench, 88 (W)
Gimnastic; Bench, N/A (W)

November
Celta; Bench, 65 (L)
Osasuna; Bench, 83 (W)
Racing; Bench, N/A (W)
Valencia; Bench N/A (W)

Dec
Bilbao; Bench, 46 (W)
Sevilla; 90 (L)
Espanyol; Bench, N/A (W)
Recreato; 90 (L)

January
Deportivo; Bench, 12 (L)
Zaragoza; Bench, N/A (W)
Mallorca; Bench, N/A (W)
Vilareal; Bench N/A (L)

February

Levante; Bench N/A (L)
Sociodad; 90 (W)
Betis; 90 (D)
Atletico; Bench, N/A (D)

March
Getafe; Subbed at 69 (D)
Barca; Bench, N/A (D)
Gimnastic; Bench, N/A (W)

April
Vigo; Bench, N/A (W)
Osasuna; Bench, N/A (W)
Racing; Bench, N/A (L)
Valencia; Bench, 66 (W)
Bilbao; 90 (W)

May
Sevile; 90 (W)
Espanyol; Bench, N/A (W)
Recreativo; 90 (W)
Deportivo 90 (W)

June
Zaragoza; 90 (D)
Mallorca; Subbed 65 (W)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

Wonderful - you're posting smileys whilst getting excited because you think you've proved a point! Comedy to watch.

I'm not frustrated, why would I be? I'm right, and here's why:

As I have already told you, after an initial period of not starting under Capello, Beckham worked his way into his starting XI. The annoucement of his transfer came at a time where he was a first choice player for Madrid.

You'll see from your stats that going into December, after starting the first game on the bench, he was then first choice for every game - missing only Espanyol through suspension (you have laughably got that down as an unused sub... oh dear).

It's fair to assume that Real and Beckham had already discussed this move by the 7th Jan, 3 days before it was announced to the public.

So no, you told me that he was dropped and eventually sold - which can only mean that after falling out of favour with Madrid the club decided to dispense with his services.

Why then do the stats show him working his way into the team under a new Manager and being first choice for the entire month before announcing his departure? Doesn't fit with your analysis, that much is clear.

Add that to the fact that contract negotiations seem to have been ongoing, and it doesn't paint a picture of a club who had decided they did not want a player who was not playing.

So, I'd love to hear which part of this is wrong...

... take your time, won't you.

How does this work - <chuckle>...?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

You see? You can’t do it can you!

Now you are pretending you can’t post smiley’s despite filling your previous post with them! I take it back, this has got fun again! Let’s have a laugh with “” as it bothers you so much!

“I'm not frustrated, why would I be?”

I bet you typed that really fast. I bet if you said that out loud, your voice would be wobbling.

> “As I have already told you, after an initial period of not starting under Capello”

“it has been proven that he was a first choice player for Capello in the two months up to the point that his transfer was confirmed”
- Little Devil

> “The annoucement of his transfer came at a time where he was a first choice player for Madrid.”

“it has been proven that he was a first choice player for Capello in the two months up to the point that his transfer was confirmed”
- Little Devil

Great fun, I can argue against you with your own quotes!

> “So no, you told me that he was dropped blah blah desperate blah you are wrong etc”

5 starts in all competitions, in 23 games! Seriously, are you going to choke to death before you admit you are wrong?

“first choice for an entire month before announcing his departure?”

Just the one month now is it? Entire month? 2 GAMES!

Take my time? That was easy!


Seriously though, don't worry about the admission - I'm done with this now, and won't be returning; post what you like. This has become like arm wrestling a 9 year old girl!

Oh and,

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

That looks suspiciously like running away to me.

Firstly, you're trying far too hard to project an image of someone who isn't annoyed.

Secondly, you haven't actually responded to the point. Yes, I was wrong to say two months - it was only the one. Doesn't change the fact that your initial suggestion that he was dropped due to poor form, leading to a 'sale' doesn't match up with a player who fought his way into the side and was a regular at the point of confirming his transfer.

I actually thought you might admit you were wrong, given the proof in front of you. I was sadly mistaken.

Your posts have gradully degenerated into poor attempts at put downs and your argument never really got going. Unlucky.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

For goodness sakes you two!!

Anyway, England are so-so thus far. Defensively soild apart from silly INDIVIDUAL mistakes. Need to offer more offensively in the second half.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 11, 2009

Did I just see that!? I'm a little drunk admittedly but is Terry trying to injure his own teammates now?! Bet you loved that EP!!!?? Hahahaha!!

add comment | complain about this comment