My opinion wrote:
You seem to twist some of what I have said to suit your arguement., For a start, how on earth do you get that I am making out that he doesn't defend at all, and what am I inventing ?..
. What I am saying is that midfield players are expected to track back and help the defence out. TW likes his fullbacks to get forward and overlap, in these situations the side midfielder must help to cover the fullbacks position if the fullbacks has overlapped. Something Gillies did but not often enough in my opinion.
It doesn't matter if playing out wide never suited Gillies, that was the position he was given and expected to play in.. I bet you that at South Shields he is given a similar role.
The reason for my criticism of en passants comment was similar to your criticism of those who said that Turnbull didn't score enough goals.. in other words they play a completely different role. Kane is an out and out goal scoring centre forward, Gillies is a midfielder. You can't compare the two.
Finally, your use of the term "Saint Tommy" itwice n your last paragraph shows how childish you can be at times.
Just my opinion like.
Hi MyOpinion- quick question. Do you know what a chicken is? (Go with me on this - there is a point I'd like to make)
You see, to some it's a farmyard animal to be raised and then killed for food. To some, it's an egg's way of ensuring there's another egg. My point is one of perspective - it's different to different people.
My perspective of Gillies is that he's a creative player, ill-suited to defensive work. That's why calling him out for not doing enough defending is bizarre to me.
If I put O'Hanlon up front and then criticised him for not being a target man, that would be unfair criticism. In exactly the same way, Gillies is not a defensive-minded player, so to say he doesn't defend enough is unfair. And for the same reason, it's bizarre to expect him to change his game and weaken his own influence on the game.
My perspective of Kane/Gillies is that it's a fair comparison. Don't obsess on positions- that's irrelevant. The point is expectations of a player's contribution. En Passant's point is that you wouldn't expect Gillies o onr Kane to be big defensive workers. I agree with that, you don't.
And you might have the perspective that calling someone a saint is childish. My perspective is that putting "just my opinion" at the end of every post is more childish.
Why you need to start getting personal with me because I disagree with you, is beyond me. If you want a personal argument, trading insults like "childish", I'll happily get into one. If you want a more mature argument on topic, then I'd prefer that. Up to you.
There you go again taking things and twisting them to your arguement..what the chicken has to do with this is irrelevant.. you are deliberately missing the point of what I am saying to prolong the arguement. Read what I am saying instead of twisting over minutiae .
As for your comment on me being personal regarding my "childish " comment. Then I suggest that you look back at previous posts to me, from you, accusing me of being childish.
You can give it but unfortunately you can't take it..
You seem to have got yourself obsessed with involving yourself in an arguement (again and again) and changing what has actually been said to prove your point.
Read again my first paragraph and answer the questions..