I will begin by apologising to Fulham. Before kick off, I said that man for man, we were the better team. But after that performance, I feel I have done Fulham a disservice. I'm not the first to do so of course, they surprised just about everybody on their way through to the Europa League final last season, but I will put my hands up and admit that they are a much better team than I have previously acknowledged. Their midfield was ulta competitive and very effective today - with Murphy, Etuhu, Davies and Duff combining strength with intelligence and skill. Up front, in Dempsey, they had the man of the match, and at the back, they were strong and unfussy. In the end, we were lucky to come away with a point.
From our point of view, there wasn't an awful lot wrong, we just found ourselves up against a team who were very well organised, very competitive and who could play a bit too. Our midfield struggled to exert control and it was no surprise to see Barerra withdrawn because, apart from one counter attack, when he elected to shoot rather than cross to the wonderfully positioned Noble, he was about as effective as Lennon was at Upton Park last week. Boa had a hand in the goal so cannot be too heavily criticised but his pass completion rate must have been very poor over the 90 minutes. He seemed to give the ball away four passes out of every five. He remains a weak link in the team.
Noble and Parker played well in the circumstances and, of the two, I thought Noble again looked the better. True he took the wrong option when shooting towards the end, but he engineered the opening superbly, turning inside his marker beautifully and showing excellent strength to earn the opportunity of doing so. He must have burst his lungs to get into the box for that Barrera shot too and deserved the pass. His passing was mostly tidy, he so nearly played Piquionne in for a one on one with the keeper in the first half and his first half corner found Piquionne's head again and so nearly set up a carbon copy of the goal we scored against Spurs. Sometimes his passing is too straight and too ambitious, but he is playing with renewed confidence and is doing the grubby jobs very well, tracking midfield runners into our box and tidying up in front of our back four.
Defensively, we looked confident and composed in the first half and, although the distribution was poor from the back, we did not look like a team who would struggle. Upson, I thought, had a particularly good first 45. The Fulham goal, although brilliantly taken by Dempsey, had an element of luck about it because the Davies pass was deflected perfectly into the American's path. However, in the second half we needed two good saves from Green to keep us in the game, and Dempsey missed an excellent chance, heading wide from a cross. Gabbidon remains a concern, largely because he offers nothing going forward down the left. As a result, our play looked very imbalanced, with the right flank utilised much more than the left. We should have bought a left back or retained Daprela if Ilunga isn't up to the job.
Up front, Obinna and Piquionne combined superbly for the goal but I was less impressed by the Nigerian this week. I suspect we will see him blow hot and cold for a while. Cole didn't ignite things either after he came on.
There is no disgrace in this result: Fulham haven't lost yet in the Premiership so we are not the first to be frustrated by them. It is, however, another two key points lost. Looked at another way, this is four unbeaten games in a row which is not the form of a team destined to go down.
Ratings: Green 7: Jacobsen 6, Da Costa 6, Upson7, Gabbidon 5; Barerra 5, Parker 6, Noble 7, Boa 5; Obinna 6, Piquionne 7 Sub: Cole 5
70 comments:
Couldn't have summed up the game better myself.
Totally agree with you Hammersfan - Fulham better in application, passing and "as a team". Still, Irons getting better but a bit too slowly at the moment...
"gateman"
I think you got Upson's and Gabbidon's ratings the wrong way around HF. Watch Upson for their goal.
Noble still wasting set pieces. I better not say anything though, people may think I have something against him.
agree with you HF
We could have lost today but we could have won it first half if we had more luck
The Ref had a very poor game.
constantly giving free kicks to Fulham all the time and encouraged fulham to go forward more and attack the defenders
Fulham knew that the ref would blow his whistle as soon as we got in Fulhams half so they came and try to win it thanks to the ref
You are talking rubbish Stani and I am now convinced that it is bull headed prejudice. I saw Obinna deliver a terrible free kick, hit so hard it went out for a goal kick about 15 feet off the ground! In contrast, one of our best chances came from a Noble corner. I saw your comment in play that Upson was at fault for the goal. It was a lucky deflection that took the ball into Dempsey's path. Your record is stuck in a groove mate. Okay, you don't rate Noble or Upson or Green, we get that. But that doesn't mean you have to find something to criticise them for every game. By the way, I thought Piquionne was meant to be rubbish! He has a fantastic leap and is electric quick!
That would be the referee who turned down Fulham's penalty appeal would it? I don't have a lot of time for Mr Marriner but I thought he had a reasonable game today personally.
I can remember a momentin the first half when we were on the attack
in the first half when da costa was brought down and obinna still had the ball, he blew his whistle whillst we were still in posession
every little nudge or holding shirts was a free kick in his eyes.
killed a lot of the game and he didn,t have to blow his whistle for every silly littlie thing that happened
wasn,t free flwing football from both sides
Why would I be prejudiced?
I was talking about Noble's delivery, not Obinna's. But since you mention Obinna; why do you think that free kick went out for a goal kick? I do remember the one, it was aimed at Upson at the far post. It went out because he was trying to take it the right way, how free-kicks should be taken. They are hence easier to get wrong that way because the technique is difficult. Are you sure you play football HF? then you should know this.
And for every one of Obinna's bad ones, you can pick three of Noble's bad ones....that's if you were being fair that is. And he gets them wrong using the easier technique!!!
Whilst I make judgement on the game, you carry on making personal judgements on me. You're turning into Dale mate.
Upson was asleep for their goal. It may have been a lucky deflection but Dempsey was fully alert, so why wasn't Upson?
"Okay, you don't rate Noble or Upson or Green, we get that". Who is 'we' HF? Are you bringing up a race issue here? So do you rate Upson and Green then? Or is it only when arguing with me?
I didnt say Piquionne was rubbish. It's all in your head. And he's not electric by the way or he would have reached at least one of those through balls that Schwarzer got to first.
I agree with 20:18. The ref was poor, and fell for every bit of play acting by Dempsey and Duff. Turning down a penalty adds to the argument that he was poor, even if it was in our favour.
stani everybody has players they dont rate but most people give cridt where it is due where as you dont
Stani, I think Gabbidon was at fault when we conceded the goal. He was not marking Dempsey. Moreover, although overall Gabby did not have a bad game and that goes for the previous match as well against Spurs, he could have avoided the yellow and came very close with a second one.
I beleive that Illunga is better choice for that position. Upson surely had a better game than Gabbidon. As of course, once again, Da Costa was solid at the back.
Touchy, touchy Stani. Me turning into Dale? That would explain why I have taken to coming into my house through the back door.
The racist comment is beneath you and actually is racist in itself. How dare you read "we" as racist? You are not the only non lillywhite to participate in debates on this site and to hide behind a racist claim when I challenge your argument is, frankly, shameful. Save that for the real racists - there are enough out there without seeing racism every time somebody disagrees with you.
Being Asian doesn't, in itself, make you right Stani, so somebody disagreeing with you doesn't make that person racist. You were not excluded from the "we" because of your race but because you are intent on seeing the bad in certain players and you are WRONG to do so!
Now, back to the debate after the Tottenham game. If Noble is so crap at set pieces, why has he been given the role by Curbishley, Zola and Grant. If, as you wrongly claimed last week, the job was passed to Obinna because he is better at it, why was Noble the first choice set piece taker again this week? If he is so crap at it, why did we very nearly score from one of his corners again?
If the skill is so easy, why don't teams score from every other corner? In fact, why do pundits and managers moan when a team CONCEDES from a corner. Basically, if the defence do their job properly, scoring should be difficult. The keeper has hands for God sake so should be favourite to at least punch the ball clear, and with men on the line and extra players in the box, the odds are always in favour of defenders. That is why we (not white skinned people!) are so angry when we conceded from a set piece!
I suggest you reflect a little on the way you have reacted to my comments and on the way you seem intent on blaming Noble and Upson every game. Upson was our BEST defender in my opinion and Noble was our BEST midfielder. Neither was the worst! And yet you focus on the pair yet again. I included Green to show that I try to judge as I see, not according to fixed ideas. I thought Green did very well today. He was arguably our best player. Yes he made a bit of a hash of one punch but, that apart, he was very good. Try seeing the positives in the performance of Noble and Upson - you might be surprised.
The Obinna freekick was AWFUL and yet you try to defend it because he was trying to do the right thing! Ludicrous! They are all TRYING to do the right thing! Yes he was looking for whip on the cross but he nearly put the bloody ball into orbit!
He's worse than Dale Stani. At least Dale is brave enough to be out of the closet. This fella hides in his closet flinging his attacks from behind closed doors where no one can get to him. He's a coward. And a tw*t.
Thumbs up to that comment? I don't need to come out of the closet thank you very much. You accuse me of hiding yet write your comments under an "anonymous" handle. Ironic?
Hammers, you should just come out of the closet, no one will think any worse of you. Let's face it, no one COULD think any worse of you.
So you are homophobic then 2334? I don't think badly of anybody because they are homosexual and you shouldn't either. If I was homosexual, I would happily come out of the closet; but I'm not. But if I was a Tory, I WOULD keep quiet about that!
And Stani, having watched the replays on Match of the Day, Da Costa was at fault for the goal. Upson held the defensive line, Da Costa dropped deep and played Dempsey on side. It was not about "ball watching" from Upson, it was about good defending. Had Da Costa held the defensive line on the edge of the box - and he should have done - the flag would have gone up when Dempsey received the ball.
terrible loser, aren't you?
Please explain how 23:34's comments were in the least bit homophobic? Not very good at all this are you? I suppose that's why you hide in here where you can control things and not let your ego get the battering it would in the real world. Very sad.
I am yes. When West Ham lose, I hate it. Puts me in a bloody foul mood. But me personally? I can't lose. I control the Game. YOU are ensnared by it! You've lost again!
what on earth are you talking about you strange little man? mork calling orson, come in orson...
0022, I quote: "you should just come out of the closet, no one will think any worse of you!" That implies that being homosexual is worthy of approbation. Most homosexual people are proud to be gay.
But how does that imply that 22:34 is homophobic as per your accusation? 22:34 is clearly supporting the fact that no one would think worse of you for coming out as gay? Looking at this site, it is only you that use peoples sexuality as a stick to beat them with (a la you many rants and cheap pokes at Dale). You're not making sense?
Cheap pokes at Dale? I make the same cheap pokes at Cameron. No issue with Iain being homosexual, it is his politics I object to.
Are you insane? You haven't used Dale's sexuality as the source of derision? Are you seriously saying that? I mean, it is all there in (very poor taste) white on black on your own little site? And in what way is 23:34 homophobic, as you have accused him/her of being?
I have never judged Iain Dale for being homosexual - if he is. I am hetrosexual, I do not object to people making reference to that. Please find any examples of me criticising Iain Dale for being homosexual. I have criticised the banality of his posts, I have criticised the use of a football blog to promote his candidacy in the Open Primary for Bracknell & Sandhurst and I have criticised the way he censors threads on his site, but I have never criticised him for being homosexual. I am not homosexual myself but if I was, I wouldn't be ashamed of my sexuality, just as I am not ashamed of being hetrosexual. When people try to imply that I am homosexual because they see that as an insult, then that is homophobic. If they joke about my hetrosexuality, that is not hetrophobic.
I think you need some sleep. You are the worst for censoring posts on this site as soon as you start to lose an argument - you have already done so this evening. I never said you used his sexuality to criticise him, I sad you use it to deride him. How would you describe this: http://thegamesgonecrazy.blogspot.com/2010/08/coming-up-in-rear-until-i-die.html
Oh yes sorry, I criticised him for being behind this blog too with two reports on the same evening. That's what the headline refers to. Read the article! Oh, and I criticised him too for carrying Duxbury's bullshit.
Lame, Fanno, very lame. I'll leave you to it.
I think you meant limp. Good night.
Fred
Is that right? Or did you just make that up in your head and thought it sounds good so I just write it?
Sav,
Watch the goal again, if you still think it was Gabbidon's fault then I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise, it's not worth it. Gabbidon was not marking Dempsey because Upson was! There was a one-two between Davies and Dempsey...who was with Dempsey then? Yep, Upson. And where was he just two seconds later when Dempsey was putting the ball in the back of the net? Sleeping.
HF,
Me touchy? Look how you go into one as soon as I criticised Noble. Scroll up, see for yourself. I was asking you what you meant by 'we'. Where did I say you were being racist? I was asking what you meant. And I'm the touchy one? You used the word 'we' out of nowhere. There was no context previous to it that I could infer meaning from. So what is 'we'? Is it we the white folk or we the real West Ham fans? Which is that group you're in that I'm not?
I've answered your question about why Noble gets special treatment from managers and fans before. You've ignored it. Why did we nearly score from one of Noble's corners? Well it certainly has little to do with the corners I can tell you that much! It's just probability. Eventually it will happen. It doesnt happen often enough though and you know that. I can have the robotic foot that adidas use to test their footballs taking corners, and we'd eventually get a chance from which we nearly score. I'd rather let you take corners than Noble...and I dont even like you that much :)
Skill is easy? No, I said it is hard, which is why Noble uses the easy option to get the ball in by floating it with little pace and no whip. Your point about the keeper at corners merely serves to back up my point. Whip a ball in, even 10 yards from the goal line and the keeper will not come for it because he doesnt have time. Do what Noble does then its the keepers all day, floated up there for nice easy training ground catch. Have a look at Drogba's corners, Gerrard's, Nani's.
If Noble was trying to do the right thing then he would try to whip the ball in to increase our chances of scoring...or better still, let someone else take them and stop trying to get brownie points with the manager and fans. By trying to do the right thing, it does no mean you just avoid personal mistakes or risk. Obinna tried to take the freekick the right way, and that will always be better in my books then someone who purposely plays for himself, to avoid mistakes and safeguard his place in the side rather than play for the team with ambition and that element of risk. "I dip my pen in the blackest ink, because I'm not afraid of falling into my inkpot." Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I suggest you reflect on how you make personal criticism of people when they just come on here to talk about football. You are turning into the very people you hate on here. I also suggest you reflect on how you judge people and paint them with the same brush.
Upson held the defensive line? Hahaha! First rule of defending: You defend! Also, you said up there that it was a lucky deflection that took the ball in to Dempsey's path i.e. arguing it was something difficult to account for. But now, by saying Upson held the defensive line, you are saying he did account for it? He would have only held the line if he knew the ball was coming towards our goal but he couldnt have known because it was a lucky deflection right? You're talking garbage, he was ball watching, it is clear. When a defender plays the offside trap it is clear to see. Upson was not doing that. It was not an opportune moment to do so anyway. Not enough time. Offsides in those situations are either fortunate or from the attackers over-eagerness. They cannot be set up by the defence because the action is too quick.
But let's keep it simply. Davis and Dempsey did a one two. Upson was marking Dempsey, he was right up against him. Two seconds later, Upson's looking at the sky and Dempsey is putting the ball in the net. He left his man. Simple.
Upson is a poor defender. You know this because your posts in and around the World Cup period say so. He made a major error that led to their goal yesterday which is why I argued with your scoring. Gabbidon did a lot of good work in an unfamiliar position. He also got forward, something which, judging by your scoring and comments, was ignored by you and Sav. Put Upson left back and we'll see what happens!
I will take it in parts. Let's start with Gabbidon. He was marking Davies and failed to close him sufficiently, enabling the one-two in the first place. But we were unlucky. The pass from Davies would not have fallen into Dempsey's path if not for the deflection. As for getting forward, yes he did move over the half way line a few times but he is useless in a forward position. He won the corner that Noble put onto Piquionne's head in pin point fashion, but the cross was lame and had he delivered it properly, we might have scored from open play. I'm not having a go at Gabbidon here, he is being played out of position and doing his best. Grant used Mullins in a similar way at Pompey incidentally. The problem is that we only have one specialist left back on our books. That is crazy!
Now to the goal. Watch again. Davies was coming inside and there was a possibility he could break into the box or shoot. Indeed he was trying to shoot! Upson took the correct position and HELD THE DEFENSIVE LINE. Had Da Costa held the same line, instead of retreating into the box unnecessarily, Dempsey would have been offside. It is basic stuff Stani. Why did Da Costa retreat into the box? What was he hoping to achieve? He was 20 yards away from the play and had no hope of reaching Dempsey. Had he held his position, as he should have done, Fulham would have had to go backwards to try to set up play again, or attempt a pot shot, which is what Davies was attempting when the stunned deflection carried it very luckily into the path of Dempsey.
The fact is, and you cannot counter this, HAD Da Costa not retreated into the box, Dempsey would have been offside. Da Costa was serving no useful purpose standing on the penalty spot, all he did was play Dempsey onside. Why do you want to mark an offside player Stani? That's not in the coaching manual is it? Da Costa showed his inexperience, pure and simple. Upson, on the other hand, held the defensive line on the edge of the box, in textbook fashion, and allowed Dempsey to render himself inactive by running offside. The trouble was, Davies' shot took a deflection and Da Costa had retreated unnecessarily, so playing Dempsey onside. Even then, it took a superb finish from Dempsey for him to score. To blame Upson is churlish in the extreme.
Now to your comment that Upson is a poor defender. That is WRONG. He is not a GREAT defender but he is certainly not a poor defender. Poor defenders don't collect as many England caps as Upson has. When he and Collins were alongside each other, they were superb. He was paired with raw kids by Zola last season, and invariably had Faubert and Spector "making up" the rest of the defence. Bobby Moore would have been tested in the circumstances! Upson struggled last season, but so did the whole team. Now Zola is gone and we have a manager who at least has a clue, Upson is looking fine. He aint great but there are a lot worse. We would miss him hugely if he wasn't there!
But you have agendas Stani. You have DECIDED that Upson is a poor defender so you LOOK to blame him. Just as you have DECIDED that Noble isn't good enough, and so look for negatives all the time. I am accused of doing this, but unfairly. When Green plays well, I say so. He is not an England keeper but neither is he a complete yard dog. Upson is barely England quality, but he is a long way from being a yard dog at Premiership level. Noble is not yet good enough to play for England, but he is only 23. When a player p[lays poorly I say so; when he plays well, I say so too. You don't - as is typified by your percentages claim for Noble's corners. It sounds like a vendetta at times, as if your honour is at risk if Noble, Upson or Green play well. Start with a clean slate and judge them as you find, not as you have found in the PAST! That was Zola's fault anyway!
Now, to the biggest point of all. I quote your words:
"Who is 'we' HF? Are you bringing up a race issue here?"
That is a disgraceful thing to say and you should apologise. I don't give a toss about the colour of your skin and to suggest I do is cheap and beneath you. In fact, it helps the cause of racists because it makes it look as if people from ethnic minorities deliberately seek out excuses to claim racism. Where do I say anything about your race? What right have you to interpret a "we" as a racially exclusive "we"? You owe an apology.
Now to Noble. Explain again why three consecutive managers have chosen to use a relatively inexperienced player - Noble - to take the corners. Are all three idiots?
Stani, see Blackpool's second? See the way Johnson dropped deep as Liverpool's back four held a line at the front of the penalty box. Johnson played the scorer onside, exactly as Da Costa did. Who did Dixon blame on MOTD2? Johnson. Quite rightly. Basic defending. Read a coaching manual mate. Preferably not one written by Zola!
Isn't 'we' just HF and the other readers of this blog??? I find it very strange that that term could be interpreted as racist.
Using the race card in this scenario was completely unfounded and unjustified. In fact, it's just plain insulting, probably as much as racism itself!
Davies was on the right touch-line when the move began. It would have been silly for Gabbidon to be out there. As the move developed and Davies moved forward, yes, he then became Gabbidon's responsibility. Not before though. Now this nicely leaves Upson with Dempsey.
Yes, deflections are lucky but Dempsey profited from the luck because he was alive to it and Upson was asleep.
I agree, Grant should never have sold Daprela :) I think Gabbidon is doing better than ok though for a right footed centre back playing left back.
Da Costa retreated to cover for Upson's sleepiness. Could they have played the offside trap? Well yes, but it would have been difficult. Did Upson play it? No, he was just asleep.
But it was a deflection HF. Are you saying Upson accounted for this and played the offside trap? No way.
You're saying Upson was in that position because he played the offside trap. I'm saying he was in that position because he was ball watching.
We have a manager who has a clue? More like a support staff who does!!! I think I'd rather believe the Chelsea players than you when it comes to Grant's abilities HF. He can learn, yes, but I dont think he has this quickly yet.
Upson makes too many big, costly errors.
HF, just because I pick out someone's errors does not mean I'm saying they did nothing good. All it means is I am talking about their errors. I can say they did this that and the other good but that is not the subject of my comment. I look at the errors so theyre corrected and not repeated so that we improve.
I think you owe me more apologies for your personal insults than I owe you. I asked you what 'we' meant. Don't exaggerate the hurt, please.
I've told you before that three managers have used Noble to take corners, to their detriment, because they suffered from the same thing some of our fans do. He is not relatively inexperienced.... unless you're comparing him to Cafu or Maldini. Noble also likes to get himself in there if you know what I mean. Just yesterday I think he was in the press talking about blood and guts and something. Clever he is. Injured last season and had no reason to teasel to an away game (Bolon I think) but still did. Why? Because he knows just what goes on on the pitch will not be enough to keep him his place. Whenever him and Stan were in the side and Stan wanted to take corners and freekicks, he always insisted he take them himself. Stan had to come down because Noble's a local lad, West Ham through and through...and the rest of it.
Oh please. How can you compare that Liverpool situation to ours? Different game, involving a right back and a totally different type of circumstances in play.
Read a coaching manual? There you have summed up everything wrong with English football.
What do I know about defending? I've told you twice to organise a game on here. Do it, and I will SHOW you what I know, and then you can come on here and tell everyone what Stani knows about football.
Tim,
It would be if I or HF knew that the other readers of this blog agreed with HF's point. We didn't know this of course, so 'we' couldn't have been that, right?
Wasn't I just asking? Or am I not allowed to ask to clear up something ambiguous? I didnt use the race card, you accused me of using it, so who is being insulting now? Plus, I'd be surprised if you actually knew...actually understood...experienced, what racism was.
And I'm sure you can leave HF to fight his own battles, he's certainly big and ugly enough. Thanks for your contribution nevertheless Tim!!!
I think Tim is fully entitled to make his comment actually and does not deserve your patronising thanks at the end Stani.
And no, you are not entitled to suggest that I am a racist; if I was, I would not have engaged with you so often on a friendly basis, including an offer to meet up.
It is not sham offence, it is genuine offence. I am not a racist and find racism repugnant. For you to suggest otherwise, just because I suggest that there is a collective sense that you are overstating your criticism of three key players - all of whom happen to be English incidentally (I might ask if this is racism perhaps?) - is unacceptable in my book and hurtful.
Of course, your near pathological opposition to Ben Haim and Avram may also be interpreted by some as racist, given they are Jewish and you are a Muslim. Would you like it if I suggested this? Would you consider this acceptable Stani? I suspect such an allegation would be deeply offensive to you. And I would apologise if I suggested this wrongly. Your inference was wrong and offensive and, more seriously belittled racism.
With regard to Upson, watch again. As Davies moved inside, Upson held his position and blocked the run into the box. Had Upson tracked Dempsey, he would have opened the door for Davies to move into a scoring position. Da Costa dropped deep when he should not have done, playing Dempsey onside. But if you watch again, you will also see that Gabbidon tracked the run of Dempsey as Upson blocked the run of Davies.
And I'm entitled to reply to Tim HF. Thanks.
Once again, I did not suggest you are racist. You suggested I did...and so did Tim. I know you're not a racist, I've said this on here before. Your statement was ambiguous and I was making sure.
So I'm racist then? Because I criticise Noble, Green and Upson? How about when I say Collison is better than Noble...or when I was defending Parker on here against you? Can I still be racist?
As for Ben Haim and and Grant; I have given you footballing reasons to why I criticise them. But if I say Grant got the job because he is Israeli, and that he brought in Ben Haim because he is also Israeli i.e he had a favour done for him and then did Ben Haim a favour, then it is not racist either. It is just the truth. I said it would happen before it happened. The zionists take care of each other, that's good for them, it's admirable. Grant did not become the manager of one of the biggest clubs in the world because of his management proficiency.
Well judging by the criteria you applied to me then you are suggesting I am racist. I wont overdo it though and I wont pretend to be, or actually be, deeply offended. I know what I am, you can call me what you like. I couldnt be racist, come to Mosque with me one day and you'll see why.
I belittle racism? I don't think, although I may be wrong, that you could have experienced the racism I have HF so lets not go there. In fact, had you done so, you would understand why I initially asked what you meant by 'we'. The fact that you threw a hissy fit, means you haven't.
Upson was caught napping. He wasn't blocking runs, or playing offside (which is it HF?), he was asleep.
Interesting Stani. To begin, I have not thrown a hissy fit, I have challenged you for wrongly suggesting that I am racist. I take strong objection to that and believe an apology is in order.
Why did you feel the need to "check" whether I was being racist on the basis of the simple use of the word "we"? Is every "white man" who uses the word "we" potentially a racist? Do all "white people" have to fight shy of using the word "we" when in conversation with somebody who isn't "white" in case the use of the common pronoun is deemed indicative of racism? That's what I mean by belittling racism. You are suggesting that I have to use different words when speaking to you in case you take offence. That is absurd. If I give you CAUSE to consider me racist, then you take me to task. Sav took issue with my views on Cyprus and we had a discussion via email - but my sympathies were with the Muslim Turks, not the Christian Greeks in that one, which kind of makes a nonsense of any racist imputation with regard to Muslims.
If I had called you a racist name, or implied that you were an idiot because of the colour of your skin, or responded that Asians should stick to cricket, a game they understand, that would have been racist. But I didn't and I wouldn't dream of doing so.
You seemed to take my racist comments slightly seriously. Of course I don't think you have an anti English bias, that was to highlight the absurdity of your response and to communicate my level of offence at such a disgusting imputation that I am racist.
I must say, if I were to use the word "Pakis" you might reasonably take offence and accuse me of being racist. But you have deliberately used the word Zionist to describe Grant and Ben Haim, and we both know that, amongst many Muslims, that Zionist is a pejorative term for Israelis. There are many Israelis who favour an independent Palestine and a dual state arrangement and who might feel uncomfortable with being labelled Zionist by a Muslim - given the stigma linked with that word in the Arab and Muslim communities. Grant and Ben Haim are Israeli and Jewish; they may be Zionist but you do not know for sure if that is the case. Why, therefore, did you choose the Z word rather than the I word or the J word? That smacks of racism to me, I must say. I referred to them as Israeli, why did you respond with Zionist? I think there's more scope for racist allegations there than in the use of the word "we" mate. "We" is a pronoun used in every day speech; Zionist is a very deliberate choice, and a loaded word in the same way that "Paki" is loaded. (I apologise for using it again, I am simply illustrating the use of a comparable word with racist connotations).
The point is, when I "talk to you" I talk to Stani. I do not talk to a Muslim or an Asian and if I have to be aware of your skin colour or religion for fear of you taking offence, then you are raising barriers based on race. Why would you do that? Why would you hide behind a race barrier rather than stand toe to toe in the virtual street and debate? YOU introduced the subject of race, not me. You inferred racism with no good reason whatsoever. For you to then choose to describe Isaelis as Zionists is hugely ironic!
Let's go back to who had a hissy fit. Who over reacted to the use of the word "we" and inferred racism? THAT is a hissy fit!
I would apologise if I did something wrong. Nothing wrong with clearing something up.
I'm not saying you cant use we or have to use different words. What I am saying is you have to be clearer.
Muslims aren't a race HF. You could be Muslim, and I pray that one day you will be if you're not already, sincerely. Zionists aren't a race either and even less a religion.
Now how much times worse is what you have just accused me of (using Zionism for Judaism) than me asking you what you meant by 'we'? Yes, ten times worse.
Zionists are those that support the illegal state of Israel. I didnt even mention Jewish people. There are some Jewish people, like those of the Neturei Karta, that I hold more dear than certain 'Muslims'. You are talking utter bollocks, if I may say so. How you can compare the word 'Paki' to the word 'Zionist' is a joke. Zionist is not a slur. It used for those that support the state of Israel. You dont have to be Jewish, or of any religion in fact, to be a Zionist. Despite what they may have you believe. Dale is a Zionist, for example, or our very own Arthur James Balfour.
You can apologise for using 'Paki' as much as you like. There was no need to use it. You are merely winding me up and rubbing it in even if, as I genuinely believe, you are not being racist. There's no need to use it because there is no comparison. Control yourself HF.
And no, you had the hissy fit when I criticised Noble.
Read what you have just written Stani! You have just described Israel as an illegal state. Israel is NOT an illegal state, it was accepted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote in 1949. It is this sort of nonsense that leads to I'madinnerjacket pledging to wipe Israel off the map and results in racial hatred between Jews and Muslims. Whether you agree with the Israeli state or not, you cannot claim it is an illegal state - it has been internationally recognised for 60 years. Unlike most Islamic states, Israel has a democratically elected government too and generally respects civil rights - unlike the majority of states that have Islam as their state religion!
You confirm, by the use of that word "illegal" that you used Zionist pejoratively. Why did you do that? Do you KNOW that Avram and Ben Haim are Zionists? I am English and proud of my nationality but that does not mean that I supported our occupation of the Falkland Islands, for example. I didn't and don't!
There is every reason to draw a comparison with the word "Paki" I'm afraid. You chose to use the word Zionist for malicious and prejudicial reasons as you have confirmed by calling Israel an illegal state. That means that, in your view, all Zionists support criminality. I did not use the word you object to, I said it would be unacceptable to do so in the same way as it is inappropriate for you to tag Ben Haim and Grant as Zionists (And I apologised for doing so!). What gives you the right to use the word Zionist in a pejorative way whilst standing on a soap box and denying the right of others to use labels you object to? There is huge inconsistency here and, I am sad to say, it is all too typical of the double standards that are often applied by supporters of Islam to Israel.
Pakistan is not a whole lot different to Israel is it? The state is based on ancient territorial claims and is a religious refuge, just like Israel. Why is Israel an illegal state but Pakistan a legal state exactly?
Please stop using silly phrases like "Control yourself". I am not the one who has accused somebody of racism because of the use of the word "we", nor am I the one who has termed a nation of people an "illegal state", nor am I the one who has used a label in a pejorative way, based on my own prejudice. Your statement that Israel is an illegal state is factually wrong so you should retract it. Israel has illegally occupied certain territories and behaves as a rogue state, I accept, but how many Islamic states respect international law? Pakistan also operates as a rogue state at times and has recently been accused of providing a safe refuge for international terrorists. Before you throw bricks at Israel, perhaps you might reflect on the similarities between the Jewish religious refuge and the Islamic religious refuge on the Indian subcontinent!
As for the question of race, you know that the first duty of a Muslim is to Islam. You are a Muslim first and foremost are you not, before you are a Pakistani or British? That was certainly my understanding when I read the Qu'ran (in English translation).
Stani, I quote HF from his original post. The one that you asked if it might be racially loaded...
"Okay, you don't rate Noble or Upson or Green, we get that."
What is factually wrong with that? You've quite clearly made a point in your earlier posts on this thread that you didn't rate those players. HF is using 'we' to say that (in his opinion) 'we' the other readers will have that view of your opinions (all readers whether they're white, black, asian etc.). He may be wrong in his assumption but what the hell has that got to do with racism?
And yes, having a white father and african mother, I can assure you that I understand racism. It seems to me that you've wrongly assumed from my English name that I couldn't have possibly encountered racism.
It would be easy to cite racism for every decision or comment in my life that I don't agree with but I choose to think very carefully before making such a serious and potentially damaging accusation.
Seems to me that you cast racial stereotypes just like a racist would. You certainly did at me, simply because I have an English name.
It was illegal from it's inception. It's like you and Dale meeting up and deciding that you're going to give Dale the downstairs portion of MY house. Don't allow yourself to be indoctrinated HF. I never had you down as a friend of Israel.
And please, United Nations? Hahaha, why do I bother!!! When has Israel, America or Great Britain paid attention to what the United Nations says? Only when they can get what they want. Otherwise they just veto or ignore everything without consequence. WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE. The United Nations exists only for the purpose of these criminals. Can you tell me how many UN resolutions Israel has defied? No, because there are too many. AND many of these are resolutions just asking Israel to comply with basic principles of international law.
My views are not just my views or the views of Muslims, they are the views of orthodox Jewish people. Here is some reading for you, if you can be bothered:
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
And then you decide to bring Islamic states into it when no one is even talking about that? Well you've made your intentions perfectly clear. If Israel is so great and democratic, why do they not recognise Hamas? Hamas was democratically elected. Actually, is our new British government even democraticly elected? Really? Think about it.
And many of the leaders in these Islamic states are there because they are allowed to be there by their masters in the West. They've tried similar tactics in Iran to oust Ahmedinejad but unsuccessfully.
Ben Haim and Grant represent Israel. This makes them Zionist no? "You confirm, by the use of that word "illegal" that you used Zionist pejoratively." "What gives you the right to use the word Zionist in a pejorative" More bollocks! Don't twist my words or tell me what I am saying. You attribute incorrect things to me then use them as evidence against me!? Laughable. Classical Zionist tactics!
"Why is Israel an illegal state but Pakistan a legal state exactly?" Because the people living there agreed. The people living there.
"Paki" is a racial slur. It is not limited to Pakistani people. It is a slur for Asians.
Pakistan a safe refuge for international terrorists? Tell your friends to get out of Palestine. Get the British troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq (illegal invasion!). Tell your friends in India to comply with UN resolutions on Kashmir. Stop being hypocrites in regards to nuclear capabilities of Iran and then we will see if there any international terrorists. Pakistan is fighting your war. No nation has suffered for this more than Pakistan and you have the audacity to accuse it? Please, pull your head out of your arse HF.
Yes, I am Muslim first and last. And it's British or Kashmiri HF, not Pakistani. Yes, you assumed...incorrectly though. Islam discourages nationalism. Look around the world and you can see why. See the wisdom.
I did suggest you believed in God, and I was right. You're not an atheist, you are your own God. You will always believe what you want so what's the point? I think I've given you enough time. So good luck and all the best. I pray that you have it in you to open your heart and mind so that you can help yourself. And keep reading (and understanding) the Quran. You have the best start therefore no excuses. All the best
I will continue to read the Qu'ran and continue to understand it for what it is, a piece of literature written by man. You are right Stani, I am a god, a creator of life in the form of my children who have been made in my likeness and the likeness of their mother. Unlike YOUR God, I allow my children free will and do not require them to bow down before me in thanks for what I have given them. My love for them is UNCONDITIONAL and I will do what I can to protect them, not expose them to harm because they go against my wishes. Your god is an autocrat and the Hadith gives authority to dictatorial forms of government. I do not believe that Islam is evil, but I believe that it lends itself to evil and evil is happy to exploit it.
Your reactions here are so typically extreme. You threw the first stone, unfairly, by interpreting "we" as a racist comment. You have launched a tirade against Israel and Israeli sympathisers, against myself personally and against the entire Western World and the United Nations. As I read your words, I see burning American flags and the faces of hatred of those that take to the streets in Islamic nations at the slightest provocation.
I am not an Israeli sympathiser, I am a supporter of the Palastinian cause, but that does not mean that I see the situation in Israel in simple black and white: that is stupid, naive and is inspired by dogma and prejudice. Of course Israel cannot recognise Hammas until Hammas renounces terrorism. Hammas is pledged to annihilate Israel. How can you expect Israel to recognise and negotiate with an organisation that is hell bent (and I use that term advisedly) on the murder of every Israeli citizen if that is what it takes to destroy Israel?
You claim that Islam is a rejection of nationalism, but you feel the need to point out that you are from Kashmir and raise that territorial issue. If Islam isn't interested in nationalism, why does it matter if Kashmir is in India or Pakistan or an independent state? Allah is in Kashmir anyway isn't he, so what's the problem? Can you not see a contradiction here?
For your information, I resigned my membership of the Labout Party because of the attack on Iraq. I agree it was illegal and I support the arrest of Blair for war crimes because I believe you lied over the reason to go to war. My principles directed me to vote against Blair and New Labour because of that war. Please do not preach to me on the subject of Iraq and assume I supported the British government. You are wrong.
But there is the difference between us. I judge each situation on merit, not on dogma. I supported the Turkish Muslims in Cyprus and the Palastinians in many of their disputes with Israel. I opposed my own government's actions when invading Iraq. However, I recognise the right of Jews to a homeland and the right of Israelis to defend themselves. Indeed the Qu'ran defends the right to defend yourself against aggression. To allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be criminally stupid. There are mad fanatics in Iran and we could see a nuclear war triggered in the Middle East if they ever get their hands on the bomb. God help the world if that ever happens.
Why did I bring in Islamic states? Because you brought in Zionism for no good reason whatsoever. Track back through the exchanges Stani. The debate was about who was at fault for Fulham's goal, YOU have turned it into a debate on Israel, the Middle East and world religion.
Stop being a ignorant snob Tim. Answer this question:
When did I accuse someone of racism? I asked. Are you too stupid to understand this???? Answer?
You are the one making accusations.
HF,
Written by a man? An illiterate one right? Do you read things man writes? Full of mistakes and contradictions. There are none in the Quran. It's magic is clearly lost on you because you went into reading it with a closed heart and a closed mind. Your loss, truly your loss.
Do what you can to protect them? You can do nothing. If harm should come the way of your children (God forbid) you can do nothing to protect them. You are needy and helpless yourself. There will come a time when even a pregnant mother will leave the child in her womb to save herself. You have forgotten who you are. A drop in the ocean, a grain of sand on the beach, if that.
And dont talk about Hadith when you know little about them. You havent even watched that link I sent you of the talk by Dr Jonathan Brown on Hadith. You havent even done that. The Hadith are one of man's greatest achievements.
You dont believe Islam is evil but my God is a autocrat? See what I mean about man and his contradictions? You just put down my holy book and insulted my God but I wont exaggerate like you. You will get what you deserve, I'm sure.
"As I read your words, I see burning American flags and the faces of hatred of those that take to the streets in Islamic nations at the slightest provocation."...Hahaha. Pathetic. Well that's a fault in you, not me. You fail to judge people individually or take what they say objectively. You label and paint them with the same brush. A life time of indoctrination hasnt helped you I'm sure. You said I was extreme! It's clear what you think of Muslims then. We are amongst the best citizens in this country.
Some of the best people in this country are Muslims....BECAUSE they are Muslims. I can tell you because I am one. And dont say you dont have to be Muslim or have religion to be like so because they are few. They have some of the best manners, etiquette, respect for the law of the land and human/brotherly love you will find amongst any demographic. They dont make the news. I know how good honest people with bad livers in this country have to wait to be seen at the hospital I'm at because the hospital is full of alcoholics who have destroyed their livers in a lifetime of boozing. I know the burden these people are on the NHS. Any Muslims? Just an example. The children are generally respectful, to elders, parents, teachers. I'm not saying others arent, just telling you about us because you suggest we're extreme.
Here's the words of British barrister and convert, Martin Thomson (Ahmad Thomson). He's put it better than me: "“When I had first embraced Islam some four years earlier, I had known next to nothing about it, other than the fact that the community of Muslims whom I had joined were more knowledgeable and radiant and better behaved than any other human beings that I had ever met during my life up until then. I had embraced Islam in the hope of acquiring that knowledge and radiance and courteous behaviour, and as time passed my hopes were gradually fulfilled, as, little by little I learned about and tried to embody the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, may the Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him"
"You claim that Islam is a rejection of nationalism, but you feel the need to point out that you are from Kashmir". Wrong again. You make some silly assumptions for a bright guy. Maybe you deliberately try to do it, I dont know. You assumed my lineage was Pakistani when you said "Pakistani or British". I was merely correcting you saying that it was Kashmiri, not Pakistani. I may hold dual nationalities, may support a cricket team from one nation, a football team from another, a racing driver from another or a tennis player from another but I do not love any of these nations more than the other. I'm a person of the world. Where there is suffering and injustice, that is my country, those are my people.
And there is no contradiction in my Kashmir point. The people there should be allowed to choose who they are ruled by. Very simple. India should comply with UN regulations. So should Israel.
Hamas has been democratically elected. It is not up to you, Israel or anyone else. The people chose. What right does anyone have to impose something on another country because they dont agree with their type of rulers? Do we get Iran or Iraq coming over here telling us to dispose of the leadership because Britain has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe? Or that millions is wasted on policing the drunken yobs who party all night in the towns? (Nightwatch with Steve Scott ITV). The West needs to mind it's own business and get off it's high horse. What made them so great? They've had or have a hand in most problems in the world right now.
"I recognise the right of Jews to a homeland and the right of Israelis to defend themselves". So this means they can take over someone else's land? Answer this, dont ignore it like you do with all my other important points. Or if you at least do ignore it, go and find out more about it so you can have more correct understanding. Dont just say I'm wrong and youre right and forget about it. You suggest Israel and the West shouldn't recognise Hamas but you expect Israel to be recognised? Absurd, truly absurd. And read the neturei karta link I sent you above and see for yourself what the Torah says about the Jewish homeland. Do not confuse Jewish people with Zionists, they are different.
"Qu'ran defends the right to defend yourself against aggression.". Israel was the aggressor. Thanks! You cant give Dale half of MY house HF and then moan about it when I decide to defend myself.
"Qu'ran defends the right to defend yourself against aggression. To allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be criminally stupid." Contradiction? Iran has the right to defend itself. Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons.
"There are mad fanatics in Iran and we could see a nuclear war triggered in the Middle Eas". More British snobbishness. Who the hell are you and the West to judge? Which is the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on innocent people? Yes, your friends over the pond. So who is the mad fanatic? Answer please?
Who used chemical (white phosphorous) and biological weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq in defiance of the Geneva conventions? Britain, America and Israel are no better than anyone. Do not fool yourself. They are just better at hiding it.
And you brought religion into it. I simply made a factual point of why Grant got the job and why he brought Ben Haim with him. It had nothing to do with religion.
And this is my last post, I can't be bothered any more. Your personal attacks, lies, accusations, exaggerations and inventions have gone too far. Don't worry though, you'll survive! People come and go out of our lives all the time. Whether they make a impact or get us thinking, it's all up to us. You can now hit back with more exaggerations because I wont be there to reply. I'm sure it's an opportunity you wont miss.
I have known you to be a quite intelligent guy, but you clearly lack wisdom or don't allow yourself to attain it. Maybe if you opened your heart, maybe. Keep searching, keeping thinking and give yourself the best chance. Most of all, do not be afraid to find the truth, do not be afraid to reconsider everything you ever took to be as the truth.
I'M TAKING HOME MY BALL AND WON'T PLAY ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU HAVE UPSET ME. VERY CHILDISH DON'T YOU THINK STANI?
Too scared you might lose if you stay in the debate?
That won't work with me HF.
Only by me going is there any small chance of introspection from you. Small, but it's worth it.
So respect my choice, and don't forget about this or there's no point.
I never blow my own trumpet, unless it's on a football pitch, but you upset a decent person. Ask yourself how and why. I'm sure you'll end up blaming me anyway.
And I forgot...I was wondering the other day what God would think of atheists. Then out of the blue, the answer was provided to me by someone. You know who this is:
"We love the Game mate. We love seeing your frustration. We love your obsession. We love your pathetic attempts at come backs. We love your humiliation. We love the way you don't understand that we could block your comments if we wanted to. We love the crass stupidity of you thinking that you can score points given we could block you whenever we wish. We love the way you think this site matters, that it is real, that it exists outside of your own PC. We love the way we are driving you insane. We love the way you see Fannos everywhere. We love the way you think there really are other anonymouses. We love the way you can't get the joke. That the joke is you. You are trapped in the Game. Welcome to Room 101."
But it has worked already. And tell me, what do you prove by retreating with your tail between your legs? You see, for our friend who is trapped by the Game, his obsession is me. You, however, are trapped by another Game, a much more dangerous Game. Your Game is, in the opinion of some, the whole Globe's Room 101. You rant about Western governments but fail to acknowledge the sins of "Islamic" states. name me a well run islamic state. Yes we have people dying of liver failure but that is because they are stupid and exercise bad choices. But they are allowed CHOICE, they have to freedom to make the wrong decision. THAT is FREE WILL. You talk as if Muslims never touch alcohol. What nonsense! Even the Qu'ran and Hidith are unclear on this point! I have read Hadith stories where alcohol is not only consumed but consumed in the name of the religion. What about the use of alcohol to induce trance states by your mystics? The Sufis employ alcohol and drugs as part of religious practice as you very well know. And you also know that alcohol is consumed by Muslims around the globe, just as Jews eat pork.
If you really live you life according to a religious book written 1500 years ago, then what a waste of your life. What IF you are wrong? What if this is your only shot at life and when you die, that's it, nothing?
I'm sorry I must go. I don't tell you about Islam or want you to be a Muslim because I hate you. Think about it. I sincerely wish for you the best. Take care HF.
That is a confusing piece of writing. Initially I read it as "I hate you"! Nothing makes you go except your own weakness Stani. I don't think the Qu'ran tells you to cut and run does it? The Qu'ran I read encourages Muslims to defend the faith, not hide from a challenge. If you have the strength of your convictions, you will continue the debate - although hopefully in a less emotive way. If you run, it will suggest that your faith is threatened by my logic.
...running is my argument HF, don't you see? I sacrifice myself from this site for you. Like I said, if I stay, it easy for you to just dismiss everything. If I go, hopefully, one day when you have nothing to do and are twiddling your thumbs, you'll think, think of me, and think of everything we talked about.
I don't intend to stay permanently at places I visit anyway. I try to leave a mark though, it's up to the people who remain behind to take from it what they will. Remember HF, we are all travellers in this world, in a transitional stage.
Assalamualaikum, may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon you (The Muslim greeting and farewell. Not bad for extremist terrorists!)
You should let me go now.
Oh, email me your real name now that I'm going. It would be nice to know who I've been speaking to....if you really trust me and are really fair, like me.
But words are cheap Stani. What words were said immediately before the planes hit into the Twin Towers? What words were said in the tube trains and on that bus? What words are said before a suicide bomber kills himself in a market square in Iraq or in Jerusalem? That was / is all the name of Allah isn't it? And nobody dies unless it is at the will of Allah do they? So that is the ultimate get out for these maniacs who murder and maim isn't it? It couldn't happen unless Allah willed it to happen? So how easy is it to condition and program young, impressionable Muslims on that basis? That's why your religion lends itself to evil and is so easily exploited by evil.
Look how easily you flare up. Look at the irrational fury of your responses. Look at how you sought to turn a debate on who was guilty for a goal in a Premiership game into some sort of trial of your and my integrity. Look at how you sought division, separation and conflict with somebody who has offered fellowship. Is this healthy? Is this even sane?
Sadly, your responses have reinforced concerns that I strive to fight against. Your responses conform to stereotypical images of Muslims. You make the noises about how wonderfully understanding and forgiving Muslims are, but look at the way you abuse Tim. How dare you call him an "ignorant snob"? He said nothing to provoke or justify that.
I make no secret of who or what I am. I do not claim to be a wonderful human being. I do not claim to belong to a special group in society. But you? The face you hhave revealed on this thread is scary. Look in the mirror instead of judging others!
I feel very sad having read this debate. To me, it typifies why religion can be so devisive.
Surely anyone with a hint of intelligence and wisdom can appreciate that there are good and bad people in any demographic group. I don't really see a need to pigeon hole individuals in to groups but that's what religion does and from his comments above, that's how Stani seems to see the world.
I certainly know white and muslim alcohol drinkers (all seem good people). Living in East London, I know of both white and muslim groups of 'ASBO' kids. I also know some very philanthropic muslims, jews, christians and atheists.
I'm not perfect myself so I try to judge individuals as I find them not based on their 'label'.
Well said sir. Your disappointment is as nothing to mine. I accepted Stani as a friend, offered to meet before a game, exchanged emails and came close to giving him moderator rights for the site. To be accused of being a racist because I used "we" and then to witness his tirade against Israelis and Westerners is very disappointing.
We all have stereotypical images in our heads and I strive very hard to put them to one side and judge people as I find them. Sadly, the irrationational bile that has spewed forth from Stani in this debate conforms with every stereotype the media projects of hate filled Muslims.
His decision to flounce off is also sadly stereotypical. In fact, I'm wondering if this was all an elaborate set up. A racist couldn't do a better job in turning people against Islam than Stani has done in this debate. Very sad.
Quote... "You'll get what you deserve, I'm sure."
Don't you just love the compassion of the religious!
Does God/Allah really condone such aggression to your fellow man?
If that's how having a faith makes you approach others then I'll happily make the most of my 70 years on earth (hopefully) and take my chances with pot luck after.
No point in living on the promises of tomorrow. It's always a day away.
Stani - I don't know whether you are born and bred in the UK or not but either way, why do you choose to live in the UK if you have such obvious distain for Western society and it's approach to islamic states.
I find it very strange that you could demonstrate such passionate discord with 'the West' but still want to live in the UK, one of it's central points.
Post a Comment