bazil85
-
Posts
10,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
14 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:
Highlights only show the first goal from McGinns pass, anyone found a clip which shows the whole move ?
Also , nice to see young Kyle doing well with the free kicks, don’t know if it’s been mentioned elsewhere but his touch and vision to find Baird for the goal was brilliant .... and great play from Baird to drop off and find that extra couple of yards space.I was thinking that as well, cut off half the build-up
-
5 minutes ago, shull said:
There are a few who most certainly do. It's their only reason to being on the Forum.
It's all oneupmanship for the trumpets.
Skim them Baz and free yourself.
I know mate, I just get triggered. My own fault
-
3 minutes ago, davidg said:
Baird has started 22 out of 23 games this season for the team that’s top of the league and lost only 4 games.
He’s had a fantastic season, some dodgy moments (like every other player), but an amazing season and a few man of the matches in there as well.
We don’t have a single player who hasn’t made mistakes but for some reason we always pick on the young centre half.
He’s improving all the time and on current form his place in the starting 11 shouldn’t be questioned.
Jack Ross seems to be getting the best out of him, not asking him to do things he’s not comfortable with. Let the others play football, pass it about and be creative.
Previous managers have asked centre halves to play beyond their capabilities, with Jack he’s doing the simple things well and clearing his lines if in doubt.
Gary Mac is rightly stuck sitting it out on the bench just now and only an injury or suspension will see him get back in temporarily.
Agreed, not in any doubt he's improved and worth his space in a very good team.
-
3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Last reply from me... Feel free to have the last word afterwords as it seems important to you, but I'm out.
It IS relevant because a player you repeatedly slated and wished were playing elsewhere is a key player in what could very well be a title winning side!
Okay I'll have the last word ^^^ Just completely wrong. It's important to me to have the last word when people lie about my posts yes.
-
4 minutes ago, Drew said:
Stop.
Now.
Again not me that brought it up. Take it up with the other form posters.
-
23 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Go fish elsewhere.
I'd rather celebrate our win than continue to give you a platform!In what way shape or form am I fishing? Members on here went out their way to bring up old posts. Zero of which are relevant to this season and zero of which have been an issue with me saying things that are wrong.
I’m with you that we should be concentrating on the team but some posters obviously get off on (inaccurately again) saying ‘I told you so’
-
37 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
More name-calling. How mature! - Snowflake! Is that name calling hurting your feelings? - No wonder you refer to my comments as abuse
Yes he WAS the ONLY player you singled out for REPEATED criticism and abuse. - Wrong
Others, self included, were critical of some of his performances but were willing to make allowances because - Wrong
a... The whole team was struggling at that time. - Correct and that reflected in my comments
b... he was still very much learning his trade under Jack Ross. - Agreed, still youth did not justify some of his performances or mistakes (Same for other players)
c... we could see the desire and potential. - Good for you, doesn't mean I need to agree with it
You were never prepared to even give him a chance and yes... You singled him out for over the top criticism. - Wrong and wrong
Congratulations, by the way.
A celebration thread turned into your side-show yet again. - I wasn't the one that felt the need to bring up the past. Some fans seem to get off on trying to get other fans (incorrectly) to admit they were wrong.
Nice work. -
54 minutes ago, smcc said:
Seems to me the point FTOF was making(not trying to make) is that you said " I know it's a bit of a hot topic but in my opinion he hasn't done enough for a new deal." If you had had your way he would no longer be a St Mirren player.
Yep that was my opinion last season, clarified it in another post. I didn't have a crystal ball about the Mac and Davis injuries.
-
50 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Your petty "Lord Bairdy" references only show up your own inability to accept that you were wrong.
For the sake of good mental health, let it go!When was I wrong?
-
3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
He was the only player you singled out for repeated criticism and refused to even give a chance.
You wanted rid if him.
Most others didn't.
Do you still wish we had got rid of him?
People only bring this up because of the incessant abuse you gave the lad... YOU were the catalyst for your own abuse, nobody else.No he wasn't, he was the only one that for some reason stuck in peoples mind. Not sure why.
I don't think this season has been kind to us in the CB position with injuries, hindsight is a wonderful thing but if I knew Davis would take two months longer than thought to get fit (quote was fit by end of August) and Mac would get another bad injury then I would of been fine with us giving JB the contract as we did.
I gave zero 'abuse' Don't be a snowflake
-
10 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
I couldn't make it last night but I remember reading this and thinking it was not consistent with other match reports.
Was this the case and he managed to overcome the nerves, or was the OP seeing things differently from everyone else?He was nervous at the back, booting the ball out again under little pressure. But the OP should be ashamed for being even a tiny bit critical of Lord Bairdy hahaha!
His nervousness at the back is easily forgiven though because he was outstanding for the most part. Greatly taken goal and some very important tackles, also charged forward a lot more which is great to see. If he sorts out his composure at the back he'll be even more of an asset for the title run in.
-
12 minutes ago, FTOF said:
You had him written off and into the under 20's.
Why does going back a year ago amuse you?
It's when you posted your most damning criticism of Baird.
Did you hope we'd forget about the search facility that takes a couple of minutes to show up your glaring inconsistencies on this matter?
So if Davis and Mac had stayed fit and kept their last season form they showed when playing together do you think JB would of played as much? It's a completely fair comment
My damning criticism of Baird was when he was making a lot of mistakes and costing us games. You say it like he's the only player I was frustrated with. I suppose again Lord Baird is untouchable for some.
Zero inconsistencies.
-
7 minutes ago, FTOF said:
Are you saying Jack Ross is wrong?
exhibit A, going back for posts close to a year ago!
And I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make? He wasn't JR starting CB this season and got his spot and chance early because of injury. Absolutely delighted for Baird now that he's taken that opportunity and able to keep MacKenzie out of the first team. Did any single person think Baird would be first choice this season over Davis & Mac? If so they were very quiet about it...
-
1 minute ago, faraway saint said:
It's not that "calling out his poor performances" were wrong it was continually calling it out and failing to see that he's young, developing and there were clear signs he was improving with every match.
Every player has poor games, defenders and goalkeepers can cost us goals with errors, that's football.
It's amazing how some people can't just enjoy things and feel the need to (inaccurately) point out other peoples comments. If anything is clear on here it's that no one is allowed to say a single thing against Lord Bairdy without getting hounded.
Last season Baird had some absolute howlers that you can't pass off on being young. He's also made a few costly mistakes this season and his composure is wanting at the back on occasion. For some reason fans just aren't allowed to make reference to that at all. For the record I wouldn't of made reference to it after such a brilliant performance last night, if it wasn't for other fans ridiculously trying to point out I was wrong for being frustrated at him.
Even Jack Ross said in his interview last night that he's had to work hard to get to this level and playing best football of his career. I agree with that fully. But do you think Jack Ross is wrong?
-
9 hours ago, faraway saint said:
I can hear him right now.............beep beep beep, reversing.
Playing well in some games this season means people that called out his poor performances last season were wrong?
-
9 hours ago, faraway saint said:
Baz will be seek.
The thought that any St Mirren fan wouldn't be delighted with how much he's came on and improved this season.
-
10 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
In the real world, 4 out of 8 is 50%. Just because you are trying to answer a question that you weren't asked does not change that fact.
I'm going to drop it now though, as you obviously aren't going to answer the question.
Just so you know, under none of the nine scenarios would I cancel my SMiSA subscription.Good for you. To clarify I have full faith in St Mirren in making the right choice on this.
Yes 4 is 50% of 8 well done lol.
-
12 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
If you knew that, why did you try to tell me that I was by saying that it wasn't 50%?
I was only trying to ascertain in which scenarios you would take that action, not how likely the scenarios were.
Because in the real world it isn't 50% try and understand we're talking about two different things here. Me cancelling my SMISA membership only relates to very specific outcomes. You have presented hypothetical examples of other outcomes that WILL NOT HAPPEN and are as relevant as my traveling home from work example.
You've said you don't understand my stance. I genuinely don't know how I can make it any simpler but I'll try one more time:
- St Mirren vote yes to Colts without consulting fans.
- St Mirren consult fans (they will without question be against the idea) and still vote yes
These are the only two scenarios that have any chance of occurring that will make me cancel my membership and not renew my season ticket. The reason I say that is because you can take out all your possibilities around fans supporting the idea. There is zero doubt in anyone's mind that fans will be against this idea, therefor we don't have to consider any scenario relating to that.
You may think it's a wee bit of fun to run over different scenarios and get me to answer 8. but for me it's pointless. Like I've said umpteen times, that scenario would present me with a conflict of interests. I'd have to think long and hard about what I would do. Something I'm not willing to do just because you've asked because I know it's a circumstance I'll never be in.
Final try there mate, I genuinely think it's really simple to grasp but if you can't get it then fair enough.
-
44 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
I'm not getting home by any of those means tonight so your comparison makes no sense.
Again, I'm not talking probability or likelihood or chance or any other such thing. In fact, I think the only time I mentioned probability was to categorically state that I wasn't talking about it.
I said, "in 4/8 scenarios (50%) you will cancel your SMiSA membership" not that there is a 50% chance of you cancelling your SMiSA membership. Ignoring option 8, there are 8 scenarios, 4 of which would result in you cancelling. That is, no matter how you try to twist it, 50% of the scenarios.
Exactly, you're not talking about probability or likelihood so it makes the whole task completely pointless.
-
3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
You haven't really explained anything, though. Just because you type something three times, doesn't make it an explanation.
Let's take number 8 out then and leave it at in 4/8 scenarios (50%) you will cancel your SMiSA membership.
They aren't 50% though are they? Because you're not taking into account probability. You can't just say options then split them up and say it's a 50% scenario.
By your recognition I could say how are you getting home tonight?
- Car
- Train
- Bus
- Walking
- Hovercraft
- Plane
- Spaceship
- Helicopter
By your logic there's a 50% chance of you getting home by one of the bottom four means
yet again (fourth time) I'm happy to answer the other options because they are either likely and reflect my views or are unlikely but would NOT present me with a conflict of interest. I'm not willing to answer option eight because it's both NOT likely at all and WOULD present me with a conflict of interest.
-
11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
Of course they make sense, you just never read it properly. I mentioned %s of the options, not that the %s I gave were the probabilities of the outcomes. There were three options regarding no consultation of which you picked two where you would chuck SMiSA - that's 2/3 or 66% (OK, 66.6666...% if you want to be completely accurate). Similar for the last 6 options where you chose 33% of the options (or possibly 50% since you had a dilemma over one option).
Option 8 was a valid option, just because you didn't like it (and it is unlikely to happen) is completely irrelevant.
Edit: Why didn't you "not answer" option 4, which mentioned the fans voting for the proposal?
I've explained this to you three times now, Option 8 is the only one that present a conflict of interest to me. St Mirren taking action I support against the will of my fellow fans. Yet again as it's hypothetical, has a 0% (know you like percentages) chance of happening and will add no value to a debate. I'm not willing to answer it
-
20 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
I'm not trying to back you into a corner at all, just pointing out that you gave opinions on others that won't happen but refused to give one on one that may (but in all reality, won't) happen. It was all hypothetical and, i think, after all that, we are not really much nearer knowing what your stance actually is - apart from that you may or may not want the club to consult the fans depending on how the club intends to vote without consulting the fans (66% or the options for which you would withdraw your SMiSA membership) and if they do consult the fans then there is either 33% or 50% of the possible outcomes that would result in you withdrawing your SMiSA membership.
Plus option 8 was put in there knowing it was the only one that would cause me a conflict of interest. You realise what a conflict of interest is don't you? Basically you were asking me to work out an ethical dilemma. Why should I when it will never come up in this debate? The others did not form an ethical dilemma so I was happy to answer. Again very simple to grasp.
You may well of asked me what would I do if I found £100 on the street if:
- No one else was around and there was no way to know who's it was
- Someone was walking 20 yards in front of me
- the same person was 20 yards in front of me but actively looking for something
- I had seen on the news someone had lost £100 in the area
- I knew who had lost it but also knew the person has a history as a drug dealer. i have no idea if they still deal drugs or if this money relates to dealing drugs.
- What if I knew who had lost it but they were very wealthy and my mum was sick and the only way to make her better was to buy £100 medicine
Can you see how some of them might cause ethical dilemmas in keeping the money but will still not ever happen?
-
15 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
I'm not trying to back you into a corner at all, just pointing out that you gave opinions on others that won't happen but refused to give one on one that may (but in all reality, won't) happen. It was all hypothetical and, i think, after all that, we are not really much nearer knowing what your stance actually is - apart from that you may or may not want the club to consult the fans depending on how the club intends to vote without consulting the fans (66% or the options for which you would withdraw your SMiSA membership) and if they do consult the fans then there is either 33% or 50% of the possible outcomes that would result in you withdrawing your SMiSA membership.
My stance is overwhelmingly clear because the stance of supporters is overwhelmingly clear. Consultation or not the club should reject this proposal because fans don't want it. Coming back with 'aye but they might want it' Is not a valid response because it's simply not true. The club have enough evidence in my opinion and in anyone forming a common sense opinion that this is not what supporters of St Mirren football club want.
your percentages don't make sense.
what don't you get about fans not wanting this proposal? The only way those percentages would be worth anything would be if it wasn't clear what the fan opinion is.
-
10 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
It might never happen but, let's face it, (at least) 8 of the 9 options won't happen and you were happy to give opinions on the others.
If a majority of fans were in favor of Colt teams in the league than that would be a big surprise and would put St Mirren in a difficult position. As I said previously under that circumstance I would empathize with the team having to make such a call. Answering the question is pointless like i say because it won't happen. Trying to back me into a corner instead of looking at the argument from a common sense perspective helps no one.
Dunfermline v Saints. (Friday 26/01/18)?
in Matchday & Travel Club
Posted
Another one wanting to jump on the 'I told you so' wagon. My comment that I believe you're referring to is that my belief was Davis and Mac would be the first choice CB for this season. Because they play so well together and also have a goal threat, not one person could argue that last season. I'd said (again my humble opinion) I wouldn't be disappointed if JB left and JR used his wage to try bring someone in to challenge them at a higher quality. Again hindsight on the injuries would of been a useful thing but in not having it, IMO it was a fair comment.
I was not the one that put up any comments today, people just seem hell bent on trying to prove something that isn't there. As you've said we all have opinions. People are free to disagree with mine but as I told Shull I'll always get triggered when people say simple lies about what I've said, that I can't have an opinion (May thee who don't praise Lord Bairdy be punished beyond reckoning) or that I have verbally abused a St Mirren players.
Feel free to show me one point that I've said that's actually been wrong? Being critical of his poor performances last season does not become wrong when he plays well this season
Lord Bairdy chant next week! he's the only player I know that can step over the ball, lose where the ball is, then accidentally kick the ball out the park and then immediately have a chant started by the buddie fans!