* The "Kendall Lurvs Heurelho Gomes" Thread *

[jamesc0le]

Shut up you little turd, you're the biggest fool on here.

.

kendall you clown you've always come across as someone who feels very inferior and is desperate to come out and say something meaningful, all too hastily..

hence people starting threads with the only objective being to undermine you. further. i don't see why though , you do a sterling job of it all by yourself.







p.s zamora for 5 million GET THAT FAT FUCKER IN!!

 

[Kendall]

kendall you clown you've always come across as someone who feels very inferior and is desperate to come out and say something meaningful, all too hastily..

hence people starting threads with the only objective being to undermine you. further. i don't see why though , you do a sterling job of it all by yourself.







p.s zamora for 5 million GET THAT FAT FUCKER IN!!

Nobody started a thread to undermine me you fool. This was a discussion that grew out of the Giovani thread in transfer rumours yesterday and got moved and dumped here as 'Gomes'. It was then renamed by a mod.

 

[PT]

Nobody started a thread to undermine me you fool. This was a discussion that grew out of the Giovani thread in transfer rumours yesterday and got moved and dumped here as 'Gomes'. It was then renamed by a mod.

Fixed.

 

[Bobishism]

Actually I renamed it. I think I'll... Just go. sob

 

[The Apprentice]

So, in summary, Gomes was shit until Tony Parks started getting him doing lunges and press ups instead of shuttle runs and star jumps? Is this some kind of wind up?

Gomes has always been class. In the same way that O'Hara will never be good enough, Bent will always be shit, Dawson wil always be clumsy and Keane will never pass to Defoe.

 

[Coyboy]

Ignore him Kendall, but to be fair the reason I started this was that you just use rather outlandish and silly language when describing Gomes- 'a clown', 'a joke', 'hopeless' which is surely contradicted even by your jaundiced view as Parks was the beacon of hope.

If you said a bit more accurately and pragmatically why you didn't think he was a good keeper then fine, I'd still disagree with you but it would be a bit easier to have a debate. I don't see the enjoyment of point of saying 'he's not a clown' 'yes he is'. It's your rationale that 'I thought he was shit, but then he wasn't shit and so I was right' that I find rather hard to come to terms with.

You may think I am being pedantic and getting wrapped up in semantics but I think it's important. The fact is players don't just become better overnight due to coaching, they have to have some talent, determination and technique to suceed in the first place. I have pointed out the mitigating circumstances last autumn and that through the flickers of unfortunate and conspicuous mistakes you could still see in the clear light that Gomes was an excellent shot stopper (ok, you have acknowledged that) but he was also intensely, physically and professionally brave. He put on his body and reputation on the line, injured his ribs and Hansen and other numnuts tried to injure his spirit but he proved them wrong with the help but not exclusively because of Parks.

You could see, even for PSV, the way he came out for balls and snuffed out attacks that he was just what we needed. With our makeshift and Leddersless defence, not to mention myriad other problems lasy year, there were always going to be teething problems but the fact that he got over them and got within a ****'s hair of breaking a Spurs record is testament more to him than the coach himself. Even Rednapp doesn't really accept any credit.

If you think he was poor until Parks came in well that's your opinion, albeit reinforced with anecdotes and selective memory, but when you call such players cartoon and gimmicky nicknames it doesn't do your fragile argument any good for me. You may not care, but I am just explaining why I took exception to it.