But surely that is the problem with having strong opinions on very emotive subjects isn't it. If many times being opposite positions to the consensus then they will often appear more extreme than they actually are. It is only if they ultimately prove to be very wrong that it becomes a problem surely. Perhaps if we analyse the question SB raised in this match: Why was Ekotto marked 6 and Walker 5 ? Simplified: Both made poor judgements on a couple of occasions. We can toss those back and forth. Neither had shitloads to defend but neither defended impeccably. But Ekotto made 104 passes in that game. Walker made 28. They are both full backs, both with similar players that night in front of them. That's 74 more times Ekotto helped us play football, retain the ball, build an attack etc etc. If nothing else there is a point mark right there IMO. I explained that IMO, Walker really didn't contribute a whole lot that was overtly positive in that game. Whilst Ekotto made mistakes - which I mentioned - and didn't mention Walker's in my original post - he also saw more ball than any other player on our side, Walker less than any other player on our side bar Adebayor - who I gave an extra point than Walker because he was battling alone up front for the whole game. Brutally extreme or brutally rational ?