Jump to content

TPAFKA Jersey 2

Saints
  • Content Count

    4,422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by TPAFKA Jersey 2

  1. Ok I see where you’re coming from now but I think we’ve both misunderstood each other’s point. My original point about Forrest was meant in direct comparison to Griffiths from a Scotland point of view. I still believe that is a relatively fair comment, albeit as you say Forrest has played more games than Griffiths. I was never trying to make out Forrest was some sort of goal machine. As for Gilmour, I think we actually agree. Of course my opinion on how good he is/will become is largely built on speculation (although I don’t agree that he’s been nothing special in some of the games he’s played. He won a man of the match award in a game against Liverpool for a start and has drawn plaudits from pundits in many games). I’ll concede though that we haven’t really seen one of those performances since he returned from injury. But I agree that he probably won’t see much if any game time (I said as much in my post) but I still believe it is absolutely right to include him ahead of an older player who is equally unlikely to see any game time and more importantly is not the future.
  2. One might be forgiven for thinking that you were new to this forum and had never read any of TT’s posts before. FWIW (which I suspect will be very little), I’d rather read 100 of Tom’s amusing wee posts than one of the overly serious, tedious, negative shite that you tend to come up with.
  3. Not sure I follow you there FS. Griffiths has scored less that Forrest so I’m a wee bit lost with your point. Anyway, neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. We have a difference of opinion. It’s allowed. There’s no evidence to prove a definitive case either way. Arguing about who is better in a Scotland sense between these two players, is akin to two bald men fighting over a comb. I do however completely disagree with you on the inclusion of Billy Gilmour. This “match fit” notion only goes so far. Sometimes people are just too good to be left out. Even if Gilmour isn’t the finished article yet, I believe he definitely will be and that it’s absolutely the correct decision to blood him in this squad at such a young age. I’d rather have him in the squad not featuring, than some old player who isn’t the future not featuring. Opinions Opinions.
  4. In fairness to Forrest, historically he’s been no stranger to the onion bag. A particularly good example being his majestic hat trick against Israel. His double away to Albania wasn’t bad either. The question is whether he still has it post injury I suppose.
  5. As disappointing as it is to say, I’d have to agree with this.
  6. I think to some extent you have to factor in who the respective players are playing for. With respect to Gauld, he’s playing for relegation fodder in the Portuguese League whereas as Gilmour plays for one of the top teams in the EPL. Purely hypothetical, but I’d hazard a guess that Gilmour would star for Farense too. So unless you are suggesting he might be in some way unfit to play (which I completely wouldn’t agree with), then my view is firmly if he’s good enough, get him in. International fitba is littered with players who play for big clubs that often don’t get a lot of game time. Doesn’t stop them starring for their country. But as I’ve already said, I’m with you on Gauld, I’d have had him in too.
  7. Perhaps not but from what I’ve seen of him I think he’d be even more suited to a RWB role than RB in a flat back 4 (assuming that’s what you were getting at). I just believe that we are in no position to ignore talent because they are “too young/too inexperience” etc. That classic old Scottish bullshit that has got us nowhere in the last 30 years. Especially when the incumbent in that position isn’t any great shakes. Throw the dice for christ’s sake. Also, completely disagree with your comment about the DR picking the squad. On the contrary I think I can say for the first time ever, barring Gauld for Fleck, that is exactly the squad I’d have wanted.
  8. Ah just saw no Gauld. Disappointing but glad that Gilmour, Turnbull and Patterson have all been included. I’d have had Gauld ahead of Fleck but never mind. Otherwise happy with the squad.
  9. Agree on McBurnie, but whilst I won’t be wringing my hands in anguish at McLean’s exclusion, I think he’s always been a really handy option for us and has never let us down. That said, if his absence leads to the inclusion of Gilmour or Gauld, I’ll be quite happy.
  10. As delightful as that would be, I fear it may be a fanciful thought. I’d settle for both Gilmour and Gauld making the squad. Sadly I think that is almost as unlikely.
  11. I’m watching this play off game. How desperate am I? Tough choice. The soap dodgers or the North Lanarkshire HunLite BritNats. Soapies all the way I think.
  12. Oh. Forgive me for failing to spot that. 🙄
  13. You’ve lost me. Clearly I’m being whooshed. 🤷‍♂️
  14. Aw FFS Balfy, you know better than to engage this cretin.
  15. So, can we move onto this now? What are we all thinking? Are we all waiting with bated breath like wee rosy cheeked optimists? Or are we collectively shiting our pants about the potential impending abject humiliation? Think I’m currently somewhere in the middle.
  16. That reminds me of the big fight at the biscuit factory the other night. Two bandits hit a penguin over the head with a club and then made a breakaway in a taxi.
  17. Me and Jimmy H heading to downtown St. Helier to smash it up and have a tear up with some Jersey Bulls fans.
  18. McGrath had some absolutely magical touches today. Will be gutted if (when) he goes. Ethan had a stinker today, as did Cammy when he came on.
×
×
  • Create New...