Nat V Johnny - YOU decide!

This is not a popularity contest thread, (that wouldn't be fair to Nat) no, it's a vote to see who you think won the debate on the other thread about whether Baptiste is shit or not.

They've been at it all afternoon and neither party is prepared to concede defeat and they've even resorted to accusing the other party of moving the goal posts because they know they've lost the argument, so we need the public to definitively decide who won the debate.

Remember, this thread is purely about who you think made the more persuasive argument and NOT about thoughts on Baptiste.

And I will be asking the mods to delete any comments along those lines.

So who would make the better politician, Johnny or Nat?

I'm fooked soon as 80 percent of the accounts on here are nats/scotts/ads/mo's whoever is the real person.

I'm saying nothing.
Johnny would edit it to his advantage.

I'll simply say I'd rather face Johnny than Nat across the despatch box.

boltonbonce wrote:I'm saying nothing.
Johnny would edit it to his advantage.

I'll simply say I'd rather face Johnny than Nat across the despatch box.

What's a despatch box

y2johnny wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:I'm saying nothing.
Johnny would edit it to his advantage.

I'll simply say I'd rather face Johnny than Nat across the despatch box.

What's a despatch box

QED.

Ah. So I'm the weaker one.

No johnny. Nat is a blusterer,and convinces herself she's won even when she's not.
Get yourself a megaphone.

Nat burys Johnny every time.

To be fair bonce i know it sounds stupid and cocky but for once i know im right. Normally i would say "in my opinion" or "well i think" but the arguement is that a rb has a different job from a cb and a cb playing at rb will have a tougher job because it is a different proposition, speed and angle of the tackle etc. Nats arguement is its 8 yards out fr where they usually play and there professionals.

So. ......

scottjames30 wrote:Nat let's me touch her dick.

Bread said no nonsense posts

y2johnny wrote:Ah.  So I'm the weaker one.

Just made it 3 a piece for you

karlypants wrote:

y2johnny wrote:Ah.  So I'm the weaker one.

Just made it 3 a piece for you

Cheers kp. Just happy to see at least three people know arb is a different position to a cb

No one is arguing it's a different position - but you suggested that full-backs don't know how to tackle properly, but if they are made centre backs they will be ace.

Natasha Whittam wrote:No one is arguing it's a different position - but you suggested that full-backs don't know how to tackle properly, but if they are made centre backs they will be ace.

the bullshit you spout would be perfect for politics


A rb has to tackle differently and has a different job to do than a cb.  

What i am saying is a cb who was played at rb for us and not faired great yet played cb elsewhere and has faired better is my point proven.

I think they both lose because they don't appear to know what they are arguing about.

y2johnny wrote:
the bullshit you spout would be perfect for politics


A rb has to tackle differently and has a different job to do than a cb.  

What i am saying is a cb who was played at rb for us and not faired great yet played cb elsewhere and has faired better is my point proven.

He's a hot head. Rash tackles have blighted his BWFC career. Putting him at centre back isn't going to change his mentality.

And unless you've seen every game he's played for Blackburn you have no idea how he's playing.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Baptiste was an utter liability. Headless chicken defending was his trademark.

Johnny wrote:in a full back position chasing back yes, centrally i think he has proved at blackburn he is a lot more reliable!

Nat wrote:Yes, because a tackle is completely different when you stand 8 yards to your left 

Johnny wrote:its a different position you tool and tackling from different angles etc.  so fucking facepalm that knob head!

a right back is constantly chasing back and forth (or at least should be) and the angles in which they have to tackle are completely different from a centre half who most of the time is facing people head on and "usually" behind the ball.

That is why so many centre backs give away fouls when chasing back (something baptiste did playing full back positions) because it isn't what they usually do.

Yes they are all professionals etc etc, but they are two different positions hence the different naming of said positions otherwise we would just have 4 CB's spread out across the back wouldn't we!

Ill even give the last word to nat so everyone can see how deluded her arguement is

He gave three penalties away in 4 games.

Two on the right hand side of the box and one more central. So if he's named in a different position on the teamsheet he makes those tackles safely?

Get real, you make a tackle in an instant, you don't think "..what position am I playing" to determine how you make it.

Did we miss this bit?

Remember, this thread is purely about who you think made the more persuasive argument and NOT about thoughts on Baptiste.

Think on........

As someone who played as a full back over many many years, I can say from my experience that playing centre back when I had to was not natural and I never ever felt completely comfortable in that position.

As a full back, although I never had any speed to speak of, I used to be able to get up and down the touch line all game and provide an overlap/spare man when needed - but still get back to cover my defensive duties.

As for tackling, I've not had chance to read whatever it is was Nat and Johnny's views, what used to happen in my day as a full back was to 'hit' the winger I faced very hard in the first tackle of the game (man and ball - sometimes just the man!), and many of them kept away from me for the rest of the match.

Fair play to the ones who did come back for more, I knew I had a game on that day.

As a central defender though you had vastly more dealing with attackers in the air, and were on the whole better in the tackle on the ground as you did not want to give free kicks away in the centre of the pitch just outside the box - or even worse penalties.

I guess there is an arguement the professional players today do have time and coaching to get better in other defensive roles, but for me it was natural to play in either of the full back positions but not as centre half (or sweeper as was played back then).

Happy days.


Edit, just seen Johnny's summary above which was posted as I was composing this.