Will Hughes Watch

[Day]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Pedant. In the above praise of Bent it is implied.

It is not implied at all. I wrote the post, I should know.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, David said:

It is not implied at all. I wrote the post, I should know.

Perhaps you should have been clearer in the way you wrote then, because it comes across as a slight on Hughes "As good as Hughes cheeky little chip was, I can't help but admire Bent more in this goal". As I said it was more than a cheeky little chip.

[Day]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps you should have been clearer in the way you wrote then, because it comes across as a slight on Hughes "As good as Hughes cheeky little chip was, I can't help but admire Bent more in this goal". As I said it was more than a cheeky little chip.

Seeing as 3 people have liked the post, maybe it was clear. 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, David said:

Seeing as 3 people have liked the post, maybe it was clear. 

Or maybe they liked the slight.

[Day]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or maybe they liked the slight.

I will let them respond to that, but I believe once again you might find that you thought wrong.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, David said:

I’ll let them respond to that, but I believe once again you will might find that you thought wrong.

Then I will reiterate you should have been clearer.

[duncanjwitham]

3 hours ago, cannable said:

Iniesta was all about short one-twos, he never really went around spraying diagonals, naturally he produced the odd amazing lofted through-ball

But being 'a good passer' is nothing to do with spraying diagonals, or even really through-balls.  Iniesta (and Xavi and Messi) are amazing passers of the ball because they execute the 'simple' stuff so well, all of the time.  Yeah the flashy stuff catches the eye, and they're all capable of it too, but with those guys passing the ball, every other player is better on the pitch. You keep the ball better, so defenders are under less pressure. Players receiving the ball don't have to adjust to control it, so you can move the ball quicker, pulling opposing players around creating space to attack. If forwards aren't having to adjust, they get more time and space to get shots and crosses away.  And so on and so on. 

Hughes might not be in the same class as Iniesta, but he's that type of player. If he's on the pitch and getting on the ball, every other player will play better.

[Day]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Then I will reiterate you should have been clearer.

That's fine Roy, I am also happy with the post I made and reiterate as good as Hughes cheeky chip was, Bent deserves a special mention for his role in the goal ticking every box that you look for in a forward. Have we done now?

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, David said:

Have we done now?

Obviously, it's your bat and ball.

[cannable]

37 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

But being 'a good passer' is nothing to do with spraying diagonals, or even really through-balls.  Iniesta (and Xavi and Messi) are amazing passers of the ball because they execute the 'simple' stuff so well, all of the time.  Yeah the flashy stuff catches the eye, and they're all capable of it too, but with those guys passing the ball, every other player is better on the pitch. You keep the ball better, so defenders are under less pressure. Players receiving the ball don't have to adjust to control it, so you can move the ball quicker, pulling opposing players around creating space to attack. If forwards aren't having to adjust, they get more time and space to get shots and crosses away.  And so on and so on. 

Hughes might not be in the same class as Iniesta, but he's that type of player. If he's on the pitch and getting on the ball, every other player will play better.

This has gone full-circle… 

My response to somebody stating that Iniesta was the best passer ever whilst Hughes isn’t as good a passer.

I pointed out that Iniesta doesn’t go around spraying it.

The only differing of opinion is that you categorise using the ball intelligently as good passing whereas I categorise it under footballing intelligence.

 

[rynny]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or maybe they liked the slight.

Nope, not at all. Think you are missing the very first 3 words;

3 hours ago, David said:

As good as

Meaning that the pass was good, super, awesome, brilliant, amazing (whatever superlative you wish to chose) but the finish was better. No where does it take anything away from Hughes' pass. 

[RoyMac5]

35 minutes ago, rynny said:

Meaning that the pass was good, super, awesome, brilliant, amazing (whatever superlative you wish to chose) but the finish was better. No where does it take anything away from Hughes' pass. 

As I said there was more to Hughes part in the goal than the 'pass'.

[BOB BIGGS]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

But being 'a good passer' is nothing to do with spraying diagonals, or even really through-balls.  Iniesta (and Xavi and Messi) are amazing passers of the ball because they execute the 'simple' stuff so well, all of the time.  Yeah the flashy stuff catches the eye, and they're all capable of it too, but with those guys passing the ball, every other player is better on the pitch. You keep the ball better, so defenders are under less pressure. Players receiving the ball don't have to adjust to control it, so you can move the ball quicker, pulling opposing players around creating space to attack. If forwards aren't having to adjust, they get more time and space to get shots and crosses away.  And so on and so on. 

Hughes might not be in the same class as Iniesta, but he's that type of player. If he's on the pitch and getting on the ball, every other player will play better.

Absolutely right. Too late now, no use crying over spilt milk and all that, but what a shame we couldn't build around him. 

Guess I'm still crying over spilt milk?

[Rev]

49 minutes ago, rynny said:

Nope, not at all. Think you are missing the very first 3 words;

Meaning that the pass was good, super, awesome, brilliant, amazing (whatever superlative you wish to chose) but the finish was better. No where does it take anything away from Hughes' pass. 

One of the more bizarre quibbles recently, and that's saying something.

[cannable]

5 hours ago, rynny said:

Were any as good as this though?

 

I always preferred this one! 

 

[Day]

18 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

One of the more bizarre quibbles recently, and that's saying something.

Is that a slight on me?  

[Rev]

32 minutes ago, David said:

Is that a slight on me?  

If you'd admired both contributions equally, it would never have happened!

 

[Day]

Just now, reveldevil said:

If you'd admired both contributions equally, it would never have happened!

I've always admired you Revel, ever since the day I met you.

[Rev]

29 minutes ago, David said:

I've always admired you Revel, ever since the day I met you.

I know.

Who knows how things may have developed without the beady eye of @Boycie there?

Maybe I'd be buying your used Apple merch instead?

[Ramslad1992]

5 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Obviously, it's your bat and ball.

Don't play at all then? Or go and get your own?!