A recent quote from everybody's favourite manager..

Theres hairs breadth between hemsworth's pet trolling (debating) points (hassell, steele & wilson etc) and your pet debating points around Him from over thur, hassell and butterball. The difference being that you put your points more eloquently and can spell better.

Ultimately you both do it because you know it draws a reaction. By the way, 3 pages in 24hrs!! hemsworth can p!ss that in half the time.

Anyway, this is not me having a pop, its a free world and you can post what you want, just gi'oer wi the Keef stuff he makes my back teeth itch.

 

Keith hills team before losing vaz, butterfield and drinkwater was superb. He was unlucky with butterfield, didn't get the support I would have liked with vaz te. Things could have been v different for him.

He signed a lot of crap, but a lot of managers do, par for the course.

What undid him was his attitude to the fans, seeds he had sewn in the first few weeks. That was naivety.

 

I would like to think that all of us on here when posting a thread are after a reaction (as you call it), or (as I'd call it) debate. But as much I love Hemsworth Tyke, I find it a little unfair to compare me posting an article of relevance about our former manager, to the stuff Hemsworth posts. But hey, it's an open forum and you're entitled to your opinion. You're not the first poster on here to assume what I intend when I post. It's summat I've never done myself, but as I say, an open forum is exactly that.

I can only refer back to my last response to you, mate. I found the article on Keith Hill, and assumed it might be worth sharing on here, so I did. I hoped it would stir debate. It did indeed. But your response is one that suggests I'm forever posting threads about the same bloke in order to get my 'kicks'. But - and you only need to check the archives - this is the first Keith thread I've created in months.
Of course, many other posters have created Keith threads in that time, and I'll have posted my opinions on him, within them. It's an open forum, I'm entitled to do so.

End of the day, mate, you give it away at the end of your last post. You don't agree with a lot of my opinions in relation to Keith Hill. Not a lot of people do. Doesn't make them right, nor me. It's an open forum...


PS - I don't post reaction seeking stuff about 'Butterball' or 'Hassell' either.

 

Laughing

 

Wow. That's pretty special.

But yeah, the Dawson signing is bit baffling because we've better players in the role he usually plays. If Hill wants to reinvent him as a defensive midfielder, then the jury is most definitely out.

Kennedy wouldn't be first choice LB if Done is fit, but he's better than Rose there. If Done gets his more advanced role back after injury, then again it's understandable. If he's been brought in to play centrally it might make more sense as we're currently struggling there with injuries and being a player short to start with. Would I have chosen to bring him back? No. But times change in football and this was all too predictable.

At the moment we're a striker and centre half short because we've played some great stuff but it's all about what happens in both boxes. Neither of these two arriving changes that, but there could be other things happening amongst other personnel which explain the moves.

In short, keep dragging up old threads. I'll always have an answer.

 

Thomas Gordon Kennedy or 'teacake' to his friends (born 24 June 1985) is an English footballer who plays for Rochdale. Kennedy has had previous spells at Bury, Rochdale and Leicester City. He mostly plays at left-back. He's an adventurous, attacking full back who has often been compared to the likes of Roberto Carlos and [Steve Middleton] in terms of his style of play. His preferred moves are to launch the ball up the left side and to pointlessly float dangerous free kicks and corners, eliminating any threat.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

No you haven't. We're all just laughing at you.

 

We're laughing at you not with you. There's also a thread where you said you would definitely never have Dawson back but I'm much lazier than Jay and can't be arsed to find it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I believe it's called either backtracking or clutching at straws, whichever way it is our rochdale friend will have all the answers

 

Agree with every word of that

 

So Done and Kennedy are your left back options? **** me you are a bad team.

 

Never have him back? He's not played for us before.

My opinion remains the same, I've never rated Dawson that highly. It's up to him to change my mind on that, but would have preferred our other midfielders get a chance first.

Not sure where the humour part comes in. It's just a debate about football.

 

Like having to decide whether to eat a turd or drink a bowl of vomit.

 

Kennedy was excellent for us in L2, average when he came back on loan in L1.

From what I've seen/heard, he was good for you in a central position, poor at left back. I'm not disputing that. At this moment in time, i think he's a better option than Rose at LB, but would prefer him to be used in a back three where we're short at the moment.

And Matt Done was excellent at LB for most of the time last season. I can only say what I see, if you've seen him there playing badly consistently, fair enough. When was it?

 

Shows how bad League 2 must be if Kennedy is classed as excellent ffs.

 

The humour comes from you flip flopping around now the inevitable had happened. Better to say yes they are both very disappointing signings given their lack of quality rather than trying to defend the indefensible in typical Keef style.

 

He's just **** at association football, full stop. No heart, no skill. **** on a stick. This applies to done, Kennedy and also Scott wiseman for that matter. Awful players that stole a wage from us. Just to rub it in, Kennedy wouldn't piss off until we paid off his undeservedly excessive contract.

 

Presumably you're reading the replies about the negatives of signing such players. I can't control what Hill does, merely offer opinion on it. If he thinks it's the right move, let's see how it plays out.

Was our squad back then better served to do better than yours at the time containing those two who I'd seen, as you had, playing very poorly? Yes. Has your squad changed significantly? Yes. In fact I reckon we're much of a muchness now as we have lost our top scorer and we're still wondering how he'll be replaced. Time will tell. Not sure what Hill's masterplan is involving these two signings, but he's got it right more often than not with us, so we've learnt to trust him.

If it doesn't work out, Kennedy's contract ends in January - he returned back to his parent club after we had him on loan last time after losing his place, and we've plenty of talent in midfield to ensure Dawson doesn't have to play every week unless his performances dictate he should. A lot might depend on Matt Lund who has a year left on his deal and will naturally attract attention and is also being used in a slightly different role to last season.

I honestly have no problem with the ridiculing, but I'll try and stick to a conversation that sticks to the football most of the time. In spectacular detail.

 

Disappointing? They're just additions to the squad. If we're having to rate them I'd give it 6/10. Whereas I might not fancy them as players, I can understand why they've been brought in. Actually that's harsh, because I know that Kennedy CAN be excellent, having seen it often enough. It was disappointing (there's that word) to see how he hadn't really pushed on as a player after he returned on loan and when I saw him for your lot - poor at LB.