Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Zach Mitchell - Jan 2026 recalled from Hibernian (p29)
Comments
-
Thought it might make some people smile that Hibs lost 4-1 today2
-
We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player0
-
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player9 -
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player0 -
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
4 -
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player0 -
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player1 -
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
2 -
Harsh !IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Against Charlton recently everyone looks a class player !
We made Azeez look like Lamine Yamal 🤷🏻♂️1 -
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?3 -
Just pretending that Aztec isn’t one of the best wingers in the league are we?soapboxsam said:
Harsh !IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Against Charlton recently everyone looks a class player !
We made Azeez look like Lamine Yamal 🤷🏻♂️0 -
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
4 -
Come on Lyle, rather than LOL my comment, how about you answer those three questions with proper facts and a logical argument. You know you can do it.0
-
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
I will call this now, no doubt you and your companions will just hot lol button than engage the facts I have used to rip ypur position apart. When that happens it should just be taken as you conceding.3 -
I literally never clicked lol and I have you, can see the below you may try as I am the only one presenting facts not opinions. Please stop calling me, Lyle its very tiring that you think its witty or clever.Addick Addict said:Come on Lyle, rather than LOL my comment, how about you answer those three questions with proper facts and a logical argument. You know you can do it.0 -
Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.3 -
OK "Lyle". You'll always be "Lyle" to me.Radostanradical said:
I literally never clicked lol and I have you, can see the below you may try as I am the only one presenting facts not opinions. Please stop calling me, Lyle its very tiring that you think its witty or clever.Addick Addict said:Come on Lyle, rather than LOL my comment, how about you answer those three questions with proper facts and a logical argument. You know you can do it.1 -
Are we just arguing for arguments sake? All this talk about facts when it just boils down to each of your opinions on the lad.The way I see it. He was a talented youth player who was probably loaned out to Colchester a little too early in his development. His first few matches there, he did reasonably well but it went downhill from there as he struggled up until a new manager came in who dropped him from the squad. I personally was at a match where Colchester gave up 5 goals and Zach was partially responsible for three of them. Colchesters fans pretty much booed him off the pitch. That has to be devastating for a young players confidence.
He then performed well in a brief stint in Scotland at his next loan and now hasn’t played at his latest loan. None of these situations have been good for his development. Because he hasn’t played much the last two years, it is hard to gauge what his ultimate potential is. He is a skilled player on the ball who lacks athleticism. There are players who have fit that profile in league two, league one and to a lesser extent in the championship. So what’s the best thing for him now? Probably not being thrown in the deep end in the championship but I really think being with our squad/staff for the rest of the year will probably help with his confidence. As for next year, if we stay up, a loan is probably best but they should be really thoughtful about where. If we are relegated, I would expect him to him to be a reserve with the first team3 -
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
This is a thoughtful and well constructed argument that pretty much sums up my view. Unfortunately any iota of criticism towards ZM here seems to invokes hysterical screams of heresey and result in accusation of writing him off etc.Bostonaddick said:Are we just arguing for arguments sake? All this talk about facts when it just boils down to each of your opinions on the lad.The way I see it. He was a talented youth player who was probably loaned out to Colchester a little too early in his development. His first few matches there, he did reasonably well but it went downhill from there as he struggled up until a new manager came in who dropped him from the squad. I personally was at a match where Colchester gave up 5 goals and Zach was partially responsible for three of them. Colchesters fans pretty much booed him off the pitch. That has to be devastating for a young players confidence.
He then performed well in a brief stint in Scotland at his next loan and now hasn’t played at his latest loan. None of these situations have been good for his development. Because he hasn’t played much the last two years, it is hard to gauge what his ultimate potential is. He is a skilled player on the ball who lacks athleticism. There are players who have fit that profile in league two, league one and to a lesser extent in the championship. So what’s the best thing for him now? Probably not being thrown in the deep end in the championship but I really think being with our squad/staff for the rest of the year will probably help with his confidence. As for next year, if we stay up, a loan is probably best but they should be really thoughtful about where. If we are relegated, I would expect him to him to be a reserve with the first team0 -
This is where I'm at too basically. Don't even think the Col U loan under Ben Garner was a bad idea and the Cowley's just didn't fancy him for whatever reason. That's the risk with any loans that the manager changes and they come with a completely different philosophy or bring in their own guys.Bostonaddick said:Are we just arguing for arguments sake? All this talk about facts when it just boils down to each of your opinions on the lad.The way I see it. He was a talented youth player who was probably loaned out to Colchester a little too early in his development. His first few matches there, he did reasonably well but it went downhill from there as he struggled up until a new manager came in who dropped him from the squad. I personally was at a match where Colchester gave up 5 goals and Zach was partially responsible for three of them. Colchesters fans pretty much booed him off the pitch. That has to be devastating for a young players confidence.
He then performed well in a brief stint in Scotland at his next loan and now hasn’t played at his latest loan. None of these situations have been good for his development. Because he hasn’t played much the last two years, it is hard to gauge what his ultimate potential is. He is a skilled player on the ball who lacks athleticism. There are players who have fit that profile in league two, league one and to a lesser extent in the championship. So what’s the best thing for him now? Probably not being thrown in the deep end in the championship but I really think being with our squad/staff for the rest of the year will probably help with his confidence. As for next year, if we stay up, a loan is probably best but they should be really thoughtful about where. If we are relegated, I would expect him to him to be a reserve with the first team
I don't really know what the next steps are , I guess next season you look for a L1 loan if we stay up? Jacko and the Wombles or a newly promoted Bromley? Keeps him local at least and no moving up and down the country which can't be easy. Or Mat Sadler and Walsall who seem to be becoming one of our favourites to work with after doing excellent work with Asiimwe and DK.
I'm far from writing him off , maybe an extended period working around some experienced defenders like Coady will help.4 -
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.2 -
Whats with the personal attacks?Addick Addict said:
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.
Its truly bizarre that you went through my comments especially when my profile is private. The vast majority of what appears to have triggered you are clearly jokes or said toung firmly in cheek.
As for arrogance during our whole back and forth I am the only one who has concedes and tried to see the others side - such as agreeing the lack of game time for ZM was bad and probably our fault for loan strategy. You however seem to take any slight disagreement as a personal attack. Also I have desiree for lols or likes, neithers make any difference to my self-esteem.
Anyway as said if you want to start having personal pops its a clear sign of how the "debate" has gone, I have no intention of engaging in such decrepit, low brow behaviour. You can rage after this, accuse me of whatever but this is my last post in response to this. I have made my points which are quite clear and anyone I respect would agree with me and thats all that matters.
Enraptured Regards
LYLE.1 -
Get a room you two3
-
Of course they are all "toung firmly in cheek". Regularly telling people that you want to "educate" them really sounds like that. Anyway, thanks Lyle for promising not to engage in any more "decrepit, low brow behaviour"Radostanradical said:
Whats with the personal attacks?Addick Addict said:
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.
Its truly bizarre that you went through my comments especially when my profile is private. The vast majority of what appears to have triggered you are clearly jokes or said toung firmly in cheek.
As for arrogance during our whole back and forth I am the only one who has concedes and tried to see the others side - such as agreeing the lack of game time for ZM was bad and probably our fault for loan strategy. You however seem to take any slight disagreement as a personal attack. Also I have desiree for lols or likes, neithers make any difference to my self-esteem.
Anyway as said if you want to start having personal pops its a clear sign of how the "debate" has gone, I have no intention of engaging in such decrepit, low brow behaviour. You can rage after this, accuse me of whatever but this is my last post in response to this. I have made my points which are quite clear and anyone I respect would agree with me and thats all that matters.
Enraptured Regards
LYLE.0 -
Oi, keep out of this or I'll start on you too (for the avoidance of doubt, this is a joke). It was probably before your time we did used to have a thread for alerting people to spats on here. The good old days.fenaddick said:Get a room you two2 -
PHEW !!!! No more posts from Lyle !Radostanradical said:
Whats with the personal attacks?Addick Addict said:
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.
Its truly bizarre that you went through my comments especially when my profile is private. The vast majority of what appears to have triggered you are clearly jokes or said toung firmly in cheek.
As for arrogance during our whole back and forth I am the only one who has concedes and tried to see the others side - such as agreeing the lack of game time for ZM was bad and probably our fault for loan strategy. You however seem to take any slight disagreement as a personal attack. Also I have desiree for lols or likes, neithers make any difference to my self-esteem.
Anyway as said if you want to start having personal pops its a clear sign of how the "debate" has gone, I have no intention of engaging in such decrepit, low brow behaviour. You can rage after this, accuse me of whatever but this is my last post in response to this. I have made my points which are quite clear and anyone I respect would agree with me and thats all that matters.
Enraptured Regards
LYLE.
But cabt believe he won't manage to find his toung before too long...and realise he should have dtayed in the "disagreement" a bit longer.
Indeed, this forum is all arlbout Addicks' opinions but Radolyleradical's style ensures he's one Lifer I won't be blthered to waste time on in the future.
1 -
Thanks for making fun of my dyslexia. Its actually very hurtful and hope you dont have any friends afflicted by it. Also its well known when one picks at spelling mistakes its because they cant address the argument.Fanny Fanackapan said:
PHEW !!!! No more posts from Lyle !Radostanradical said:
Whats with the personal attacks?Addick Addict said:
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.
Its truly bizarre that you went through my comments especially when my profile is private. The vast majority of what appears to have triggered you are clearly jokes or said toung firmly in cheek.
As for arrogance during our whole back and forth I am the only one who has concedes and tried to see the others side - such as agreeing the lack of game time for ZM was bad and probably our fault for loan strategy. You however seem to take any slight disagreement as a personal attack. Also I have desiree for lols or likes, neithers make any difference to my self-esteem.
Anyway as said if you want to start having personal pops its a clear sign of how the "debate" has gone, I have no intention of engaging in such decrepit, low brow behaviour. You can rage after this, accuse me of whatever but this is my last post in response to this. I have made my points which are quite clear and anyone I respect would agree with me and thats all that matters.
Enraptured Regards
LYLE.
But cabt believe he won't manage to find his toung before too long...and realise he should have dtayed in the "disagreement" a bit longer.
Indeed, this forum is all arlbout Addicks' opinions but Radolyleradical's style ensures he's one Lifer I won't be blthered to waste time on in the future.
I'm very upset by these ableist slurs. I just cried in my Aston Martin and my swimming pool. Thats all. You have my permission to go about your day.0 -
Ok, point taken but it's got nothing to do with " the arguement" you refer to.Radostanradical said:
Thanks for making fun of my dyslexia. Its actually very hurtful and hope you dont have any friends afflicted by it. Also its well known when one picks at spelling mistakes its because they cant address the argument.Fanny Fanackapan said:
PHEW !!!! No more posts from Lyle !Radostanradical said:
Whats with the personal attacks?Addick Addict said:
Semantics? What are you talking about? You are the one that declared it a FACT in BIG BOLD LETTERS. That isn't semantics. This is someone trying to undermine an argument, a la Trump, by declaring that they know the facts when they clearly haven't bothered to do the research. You actual words were "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone".Radostanradical said:
Its actually funny you cabt even define a fact and are looking at semantics to prove something that was a fact. Generally speaking ZM started the vast majority of matches and they were in the relegation fight and looking at relegation a manager came in decided to drop ZM and he dtayed up. If you cant define the differance between a fact and an opinion what are we even doing here.Addick Addict said:Radostanradical said:
This is actually quite funny for me. Its fact that he played he played more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone. Yet you consider only one of those successful because it suits your narrative. I don't go out to wind up people but typically people with less insights or knowlesge than me take it personally when I point out the faults in their arguments.Addick Addict said:
Despite your elevated opinion of yourself, Lyle, you have failed to "pull apart the logical basis" of all of my arguments. We've seen you on other threads doing exactly the same thing in trying to wind people up. So, just answer these:Radostanradical said:
Lol when someone pulls apart the logical basis of all your arguments its clear you resort calling people names like WUPM. You are literally the one trying to spin a narrative when presented with facts.Addick Addict said:
Mitchell was at Colchester at 18 for nine months and didn't kick a ball for the second half of that season. He was only at St Johnstone for two months.Radostanradical said:
So how many games did he play at St Johnstone? He literallh kicked a ball more at Colchester than he did at St Johnstone? One of those you call a success the other you call a waste. Also the call by colchester manager was vindicated by them staying up.Addick Addict said:
He didn't kick a ball from January to May when at Colchester for anyone including the U21s. Those five months of doing nothing and this season's debacle means that he has started 14 games of football in the last two years. For a 19/20 year old as he was, that is worse than useless from the perspective of development.Radostanradical said:
Tbf you say two wasted loan spells but didnt he play more matches for colchester than he did at St Johnstone? (Which I assume you dont think was a waste).Addick Addict said:
Agreed. Players do develop at different rates though and Zach's progress has been stifled by injury but, more to the point, two wasted loan periods. He has had to sit in the stand for two half seasons, during those periods he wasn't playing for anyone, not even an U21 side. That's why I say let's see in four years time because the comparison will become more of a level playing field at that point.ForeverAddickted said:
To be fair, Billy has been making a good amount of Championship appearances since 19Addick Addict said:
His brother is four years older and has made almost 200 appearances. Let's where Zach is in four years time for comparative purposes.IR94 said:We deffo got the worse brother, his brother looks a class player
Oh and for the record, Colchester picked up 22 points from the 23 games Mitchell played in. Under their new manager they collected 23 points from 23 games so dropping him for the duration of that time and bringing in all those new players was hardly a dramatic turnaround was it? They survived by 3 points so, on all known evidence, the chances are that they would have stayed up anyway had Mitchell been playing.
Only starting 14 games in two years as a 19 and 20 year-old is a backward step for any footballer, even an amateur, let alone a pro. As it's you Lyle I'll just take you as the WUPM you are because it really shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Just remember this, though, never let a narrative get in the way of the facts.
Now obviously im not Lyle but I want to ask you a sincere question and I think I know the answer but it will go a long way to understanding your views on the matter. Are you related or have someone sort of personal connection to ZM?
(1 ) Where is your evidence that Colchester would not have survived had Mitchell played?
(2) Do you believe that only starting 14 matches in two years is a backward step for a young footballer?
(3) Do you accept all the positive comments made by Hibs' fans about Mitchell and the negative ones about their manager being so reluctant to drop his favourites?
As for a personal connection, I do not know the lad. He was at both my son's primary and senior schools but was a few years younger and his brother, Billy, was a few years older. My son doesn't know him to speak to either. There are any number of other people in sport I know personally but that doesn't mean I am going to wax lyrically about them because there is a connection. I haven't even ever said that Mitchell should be playing for Charlton right now. All I have done is to point out the facts and circumstances about him not playing which you totally ignore.
As I say, Lyle, don't let the facts get in the way. Please also try not to change the direction of your argument by insinuating that I am biased because that's the only way you can win an argument too.
Now ill answer your questions -
1) There is no evidence they woudnt of stayed up had ZM stayed in the team, so we actually agree on that. What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone, a new manager came in to keep them up he dropped ZM and achieved his aim of keeping him up. Now that means there is evidence that dropping ZM was a decision that kept them up. There is no evidence to suggest they would or wouldnt of stayed up had ZM played more. You may have an opinion but thats it am opinion. Now as anyone knows that completed GCSEs the abscene of evidence is not, in fact evidences in itself.
2) Nope agreed he needs to play more football and we have failed him with either not putting him out on loan early enough in season or at too high a level.
3) No I do not accept them all and I feel I have been very clear. No one should 100% believe any opinions they see on the internet, they would need to see all the matches ro amke their own opinion. I am sure some of what they say has some semblence. I do accept the comments he had on the first match where he got glowing reviews. Equally if I found negative reviews based on his 2nd match would you accept them ALL (as thats the key word all) of course not and I wouldnt expect you too. I do not accept the concept of manager picking his mates for reasons already explained, its illogical they are doing well in league, managers are literally paid to win matches and that involves picking beat players.
Last I am not lyle Taylor and its bizarre anyone thinks so it comes from the bizarre ramblings of someone who couldnt accept a dissenting opinion.
1) I hate to disappoint you re "What we can also agree on is the FACT that when ZM was starting they were in the relegation zone" because I can't agree as that is factually incorrect. Mitchell did not play the first 5 games during which time Colchester picked up just 3 points. In the subsequent 23 games he did play up until and including the Bradford game on 13th September they took 22 points - so that's 25 after 28 games. The two ultimately relegated sides, at the point, namely Sutton and Forest Green had 19 points and 18 points respectively. Love the FACT that you used capital letters for something that wasn't a FACT though!!!
2) Glad you agree that two bad loans have resulted in him not being able to progress as a footballer.
3) I'm sorry but if you truly believe that all footballers are equal and not that some are more equal in the eyes of a manager then you live in cloud cuckoo land. Managers will always have their favourites. They will give more leeway to some than they will others and players that a manager has known for years have taken precedent over a loanee who he knew was likely to go in the January window anyway.
As for point 3 you are basing a lot of this on opinion of Hibs fans and your own assessment of ZM. Hibs fans who only saw ZM play twice yet somehow know he is better than there current stafting defence. You are YET AGAIN twisting words to suit your own argument. Of course managers have players they trust more and favourites however my point is that typically speaking players will break in to team if they are good enough. Managers are paid to win matches that typically means playing your best players.
Now hit the Lol button or twist my words to argue something ive never actually said as usual rather than actually debate what Ive written.
I really don't need to LOL your comments. On this thread and others your "modus operandi" is to try and belittle other people by declaring that you know more about a subject than other people do. The evidence is all there. It seems that this is the only reason you come on here. To get a dose of confrontation for whatever reason.
Here's just a few examples from other threads (there are plenty of others):
"Its not my job to educate you, Sam."
"Lol how arlbout you respond to the points I actually made and not just make up ypur own counter arguments to arguments I havent made or already debunked. Look this is a waste of my time and I jave no desire to derail this thread for my fellow addicks. I have givin my experienced, professional and expert opinion, you have…"
"Luckily for you I have a bit of time today so will educate you.!"
"Who said keyboard warrior? No one is having a go at you, it was a joke dont be such a snowflake."
"cant be blthered with this as you arent actually reading what I write and just imagine arguments you want me to have made."
"Thank you for explaining 2 is different to 3, I feel like my parents may have wasted money on my education now."
"The answer is so blindly obvious we can just close the thread after i share the correct answer."
Try toning down the arrogance and you might actually find less people LOL your comments and more will "LIKE" them.
Its truly bizarre that you went through my comments especially when my profile is private. The vast majority of what appears to have triggered you are clearly jokes or said toung firmly in cheek.
As for arrogance during our whole back and forth I am the only one who has concedes and tried to see the others side - such as agreeing the lack of game time for ZM was bad and probably our fault for loan strategy. You however seem to take any slight disagreement as a personal attack. Also I have desiree for lols or likes, neithers make any difference to my self-esteem.
Anyway as said if you want to start having personal pops its a clear sign of how the "debate" has gone, I have no intention of engaging in such decrepit, low brow behaviour. You can rage after this, accuse me of whatever but this is my last post in response to this. I have made my points which are quite clear and anyone I respect would agree with me and thats all that matters.
Enraptured Regards
LYLE.
But cabt believe he won't manage to find his toung before too long...and realise he should have dtayed in the "disagreement" a bit longer.
Indeed, this forum is all arlbout Addicks' opinions but Radolyleradical's style ensures he's one Lifer I won't be blthered to waste time on in the future.
I'm very upset by these ableist slurs. I just cried in my Aston Martin and my swimming pool. Thats all. You have my permission to go about your day.
However, there are ways & means of dealing with spelling issues which, when utilised would solve the ptoblem when posting on here.
A free online AI spell checker.
If you choose to ignore my advice, that's your decision.
Take a look at "Grammarly" .0
