The Fish

I do, but it's a component. It's a kernel of intelligence that needs nurturing.

Poor education, poor application, poor choices.

I can argue that were there no free will at all, there would be no examples of kids from deprived and/or destructive foundations making anything of their lives. I don't disagree that formative years can limit or broaden one's horizons, but to say that if you're born into X you will forever behave that way is, imo, patently untrue. There's a slither of individuality that decides a path, each choice will obviously be made based on prior choices, but there remains, at it's core, a choice.

I don't agree that we're on rails. We have different starting points and of course we're influenced and socialised to behave in certain ways, but we can choose to stay the course or change tack. I mean, this is a man who has been removed from those apparent negative influences while still a young man. Once in an environment that rewards professionalism to such an extent, it behoves the individual to accept this fresh influence. He must have seen kids who behaved badly binned off. He must have seen the crushing devastation when a kid's dream is snatched away from him. As I've said, football accepts kids largely from lower socioeconomic groups where, perhaps, the right messages haven't got through. Why have the majority of these other kids, starting from similar backgrounds who get a professional football career, changed their ways but Ranger can't? Were his formative instructions that much more entrenched than others? Was he particularly less privileged than everyone else? I don't buy it. Some people are just wrong'uns and choose to remain so. He's seen the same signposts everyone else has, but he's chosen to remain on a path that is ruining his life. He's done that because he arrogantly believes he'll get another chance, that his talent is enough. When all he's heard from managers, fans and the media that he'd be great if he could just sort that side of his life out. And he must hear it because after every infraction he trots out the same "This is my last chance and I know I have to sort that side of my life out" bullshit. I'm all for consideration of the broader picture, but Ranger isn't some victim of his environment any more because it's not his environment anymore. He's the arbiter of his fate and as such need to take responsibility. He's a grown man who's had more chances, more opportunities than any of the kids he grew up with and every time he fucks up it's a slap in the face to those kids who, despite coming from the same neighbourhoods, would likely behave better than he has.

Sorry like, but he wouldn't. His environment may have limited his appreciation, but he's been playing the game for at least 8 years as a professional. In that time he's beaten up his lass, he's broken and entered, he's committed bank fraud and I'm sure he's done more. Every time someone tries to blame his background or whatever I can't understand it. Troy Deeney went to jail and he's turned it round. Carroll was apparently a right little toerag when he was a kid, now he's not. Defoe was an arsehole growing up, wasn't he? These lads haven't come from Eton or anything. There's plenty of examples of footballer who've used the opportunities the game provides to turn their life around, Ranger is just a cunt.

Middlesbrough?

Yeah it's different, the kid won the fucking lottery and has pissed it away because he's thick as shit. There's plenty examples of other professional footballers who've come from rough backgrounds who've gone on to have great careers. There's plenty who've made a stupid mistake early in their career and pulled themselves back. There's some who've made a couple of mistakes and eventually pulled themselves together. Ranger has had chance after chance and fucked himself over time and again. Get no sympathy from me, I don't care if he grew up in a Gulag or Rotherham.

Aye, but I was a child.

How does it feel Wolfy, when your world crumbles around you? How does it feel when FISHAMANIA RUNS WILD OVER YOU?!

You said that size did matter beforehand. Now it doesn't?

Congrats Mrs T. Get her indoctrinating the little beggars into the global conspiracies asap!

What a hero.

You aren't accounting for size.

It'll take a new owner, realistically. Every new manager comes into a club with no good players* and no money to buy some. *after the exodus

The other lads on the podcast think I'm overly harsh on the lad, but he's totally wasted something I'd honestly have done some pretty fucked up shit to be blessed with. Bit of pace, bit of strength, decent finish, decent touch. He could have played professional football, if not in the top flight then certainly at Championship level. Earn, what, £15k a week? Plus all the bonuses that come with contracts, all the sponsors, all the freebies, all the glory, retire on a nest egg at 34, go into management or punditry, or just live off the money your property portfolio provides. And what's the dickhead done? Got himself banged up for trying to defraud someone out of a couple of grand.

Hang on, we weren't relegated because Mitrovic only scored 9 goals in a shit team. We were relegated because we had a poorly coached, poorly motivated and poorly constructed squad. Judge on his own successes and failures. 1st season, 9 goals in a relegated side managed by an idiot. 2nd season didn't take the limited opportunities he had and looked ill-disciplined as he tried to, but very much not the kind of striker the current manager likes to use (big powerful headerer vs nippy mobile pest) I see him as a not-yet-failed signing. If he isn't played, scores 4-5 and looks like a headless chicken whenever he crosses the white line we'll be wise to get shot and accept that we'll not make any money. If he scores 9 next year and we finish 12th he'll have repaid some the c£15m we've spent and should he do that and attract suitors, he'll certainly fetch a decent price because of his age, his experience and his previously decent goal scoring feats. Bournemouth already have a decent striker in King, they need to add a different option, they need to buy a statement player too. If they can get Batshuayi on loan, Sturridge? Maybe even Carroll? Sturridge is a risk because of his attitude and his streaky form, Carroll a risk because of his injury record.

Football season is over innit. You just don't like it because he's making you, as our resident "free thinker" look silly by association.

Nobody has any problem with you questioning the official story, it's your abandonment of your own standards when it comes to your theory. You aren't grasping large objects. Water droplets will sit proud from a surface, but go see if a bathtub of water will sit proud outside of the container, or a bucket, or a thimble sized hotel glass. It won't, yet we understand that viscosity of water permits it to act differently given the amount of water observed. Similarly large objects (a planet) have properties that are significantly different to smaller objects (football) Obviously because conduction and convection are more efficient methods of transferring internal energy within earth's atmosphere. We don't "need" fans, they're just better for the circumstances. Just like you don't "need" trains to get from A to B, they're just more efficient.

Cool cool cool, but you didn't answer my question. You just said how wonderfully open minded you are and how everyone else is just happy to go along with the status quo, because they're not dead brave like you are. So I'll ask again, if you refute the status quo because you don't believe the evidence and proof. Why do you believe your own theory when you've no evidence or proof? For a theory to be considered acceptable it must be proven or at least supported by evidence, you admit this is the cornerstone of your dissension. You don't believe the proof, nor the evidence, so you cannot accept the theory. Your theory isn't proven nor is it supported by any evidence, so by your own logic, you must also refute this theory.

That's not what Occam's Razor means. I've shown you liquid surrounding a sphere. You're hypothesis relies on many more assumptions than mine.

Just curious @wolfy, you reject the status quo because you don't believe the proof, right? Yet you believe your own hypothesis without any proof. Why? Bear in mind saying "It just makes logical sense" is not a good enough answer as it fundamentally doesn't.

I mean, this is just staggering arrogance right here. "Oh you all may think you're clever, but I'm actually the only clever one because I made some shit up."It's just fascinating to me that someone can be so deluded. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Your hypotheses are solely assumptions, the competing hypotheses have some assumptions, but also have empirical or anecdotal evidence.

I'm being hugely presumptuous, but I just can't imagine Kevin Phillips being much cop as a manager.