mrfahaji

He will always be synonymous with Steven Davis! I found it really annoying, but I think that was initially a reaction to Davis being everyone's "unsung hero" and "massively underrated" award, and when you are against the tide, you end up arguing more vociferously than otherwise. Most of the time Verlaine's posts are well reasoned, and his comments above are no different. Pointing out a player's weakness, or critiquing someone's blind faith is not the same as slagging a player off. Adams is obviously playing well now, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say he's an automatic starter because of his all round contribution rather than his prowess in front of goal. He's lacked conviction on several notable chances, that doesn't detract from the rest of his good play.

I actually didn't remember that, that's why I asked! All I recall about Delgado was he was Ecuadoran striker who came from the Mexican league along with his mate Kleber Chala, so wasn't sure what comparison he was trying to make! Thanks for clearing that up - my memory is usually pretty good but that transfer was nearly 20 (!) years ago...

Why have you picked Delgado as a comparison?

Not sure I'd go as far to say he is just as good as MLT... To be honest he has taken his game to a new level under Hasenhuttl. Of course he's never been a bad player, but before Ralph arrived he always struck me as a bit of a 'nearly man'. He'd nearly close down the shot, he'd nearly make the challenge etc. He's always had a good delivery, but even his direct free kicks nearly went in. That has changed now of course!

Fair. Perhaps I didn't need to introduce 'who' I am into the discussion, but no need to find it depressing - I wasn't trying to score points, just thought it might be relevant to know that I'm not arguing from an obviously biased position (I basically don't tick any of the boxes that apply!) My comment about the minority was a general observation, both to the comments on here and in the world at large. I do actually agree with some of what you say, and I'm not claiming that you don't know anything, more suggesting that there might be other circumstances which you, or I, or many people on here, don't have experience about and therefore we shouldn't assume we have all the knowledge/answers. Re what I actually think: I'm not playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. My position is that these things are not black and white (no pun intended). I'm interested to read or debate shades of grey, and if I think people are arguing for one extreme or the other without any consideration or tolerance for the opposing view that naturally goes against where I stand. In fact in my first post on the matter I say that I think quotas for interviews could be a good thing (because it helps overcome that faceless prejudice), but going so far as having a quota for actual hires seems a bit much (for some of the reasons you've even mentioned yourself) - and I was looking for someone to convince me otherwise! Instead all I read was a barrage of criticism for the idea. There shouldn't be any question that discrimination and even abuse has existed and still exists in our country, and I find it hard to believe that doesn't spill over in some ways into subconcious discrimination in less obvious settings. To what extent is of course open to debate, but if people say they have experienced it, I am prepared to at least consider that it might be true. Your opening sentence is what maybe sets us apart - and to be honest I'm fine with that view. If some positive discrimination now helps with equality of opportunity further down the line, I'd probably say it was worth it. And that can apply to race, gender, class etc for all kinds of issues. You don't think it's worth it or right, and I can understand why and on that point maybe we can agree to disagree. Hopefully you can see that my posts have been trying to offer different possible angles (some hypothetical rather than literal scenarios which some people on the board seem unable to grasp) rather than necessarily a criticism of you or your points.

No, it's narrow minded not to consider that these intiatives might have a positive effect. Instead of saying "these are the problems with it, but what good might come from it? Does the good outweigh the bad? This is my experience, but what about people who has different experiences from mine?" Everyone is just writing it off as a bad thing, so I'm trying to offer a counter argument, hopefully to make people think about another angle. If everyone was on here saying "how great, about time too!" then maybe I'd put forward some of the arguments that you and others have made as a counter the other way! When you're not a minority, isn't it quite patronising to tell those that are that there is no problem or say "maybe you're the racists after all"? (etc) As a qualified middle class white male, I don't have much to gain on a personal level from this kind of thing, I just think maybe my own experiences aren't necessarily reflective across the board, and if people say they experience discrimination - while I am sure there are some cases that are made up or exaggerated - perhaps it's important to listen and to ask if we should do something about it if we can.

Let's say there are 10 white people and 10 black people of the calibre required to work for your company. They're all 'good enough' but you don't necessarily know how they rank amongst the 20. You currently have an all white workforce. You advertise the job, the 10 white people apply but only 2 of the black people, because they see your all-white workforce and feel intimidated, or maybe just uncomfortable that they won't fit in. Although the best candidate is white, you decide to take one of the black candidates on. Next time you advertise a job, and every time after that, because you have a mixed workforce, all 10 (well 9 now) of those potential candidates who are black now apply for the job. So you have 19 people to choose from rather than 12. Perhaps one of the black candidates who didn't apply before is actually the best qualified for the job, and is going to be a future star at your company. Probably worth that initial 'hit' in taking an inferior candidate for the long term benefit of having a bigger talent pool to select from, isn't it? I realise this is a simple scenario, but it feels like many people just can't conceive of any way in which quotas can possibly be a good thing, because they look at the immediate future and only look at it from one angle. My original post was actually questionning the policy, yet I have been so taken aback by the dismissive and narrow minded tone from so many responses I've ended up almost championing the directive, which was not what I set out for at all!

In fairness, I haven't seen many road workers full stop when I drive on the motorway. Plenty of roadwork signs and cones though.

That's fine, totally understand that argument and of course in isolation I agree with the sentiment. However, what if a highly qualified black woman doesn't get a job because clubs DON'T have to fill a quota and therefore give it to someone else - because even though she appears to be qualified, is she really going to fit in with the 'culture' in the office? She might have the grades, but she doesn't sound that intelligent with that accent... Sounds like she has read up on the club, but (being a woman) it all sounds a bit forced, she doesn't come across as a 'natural' follower of the industry etc. It works both ways, but so many of the comments on this thread only look at it from one angle.

Absolutely, but if "virtue signalling" encourages other people to be better, is it something to feel particularly nauseous about? More nauseous that the original problem? It seems common nowadays to dismiss anyone trying to raise awareness about issues as "virtue signalling". While it no doubt exists and some examples are irritating, there's also a lot of people out there doing a lot more (even if it is 'just words') than others - including me! - to improve other people's lives, and writing them off as do-gooders or virtue signallers is just a comfort to one's own laziness, apathy or prejudice.

Could you not argue that because of their quotas, even though they took a dip for a while, that positive discrimination led to more black kids being interested in the sport (because they saw more people from their backgrounds playing, and therefore didn't assume it was off limits to them), and eventually leading to an even better team in future? Because now they have a bigger/better talent pool as a result of black people playing rugby? I'm not a follower of rugby but you said they are current world champions, so it hasn't really done them any harm in the long run has it? While I do understand some of the criticisms here, and even share some of the views, my general impression is there is a massive lack of empathy from people who have never had to face such (negative) discrimination themselves. Reminds me a little bit of when people criticise benefits cheats or hungry kids whose parents have just upgraded their Sky TV. Of course there are cases where people are either undeserving or exaggerating their difficulties, but what about all the people who are genuinely struggling? Let's throw them all under the bus to make sure no-one can 'abuse the system' shall we? I do find it a bit annoying how the world jumps on the bandwagon for things that are much more serious in the US, but anyone who thinks the UK doesn't have any problem with racism and other forms of discrimination is kidding themselves.

Sure, I was thinking even as I was writing it that maybe people imagine that it's discrimination and not a repeated error etc, but my aim/point was to try and take those possibilities out of the equation, because while I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people exaggerating discrimination, I also think it's far too easy for people to CLAIM it's all made up! Those made me laugh btw, thanks I am definitely the type of person who would judge based on spelling/grammar and lament that so many people seem to think it's not important anymore (I have a pet peeve of people writing "with regards" instead of "as regards" or "with regard to", but I am fighting a losing battle with that one I fear...) But of course it doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't be good at the job... (think I've reached my post limit for the day now, since the site switched to the new host my subscription has been lost)

Depends. But not if it's there to combat negative discrimination, which exists. Like all these things I could put myself in either situation and find fault with it. Would I be annoyed if I went for a job at Southampton FC and didn't get it because while I was the best qualified and performed best at interview, they had to take on someone else who was female or an ethnic minority? Of course I would, might even make me feel a bit racist/sexist! However, if I had a foreign sounding name, and thought I was cut out for jobs (or at least knew I was good enough for an interview) that I kept on being turned down for (before having an interview, say), then I probably wouldn't care about being "patronised" by positive discrimination, I'd want it! That's why I expressed surprise that these rules specify 'hires' rather than 'interviews' or something similar. As much as I'd like to think discrimination wouldn't be so blatant/stupid, at least an interview gives someone a chance to say "she might be a woman, but she knew much more about the club than I expected" or "I wasn't expecting Mohamed to be such a likeable chap!" Perhaps - could be about to answer my own question - you need to change the perception amongst people who might apply. If I compare to Oxbridge, for example - they are criticised for the bias towards posh/rich kids, but the issue is less than they reject students from poor backgrounds, but rather those kids assume Oxbridge "isn't for them", so don't apply. This obviously creates a vicious cycle. Oxbridge start taking on more state school pupils, is that patronising? Tokenism? Even if their required grades are slightly lower? Maybe. But maybe they have to do it for a bit so that in future some of those pupils who would have otherwise assumed Oxbridge wasn't for them now look and think "maybe I can go there after all". And then in the long term, you do genuinely get the best.

I am surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that the aims specify "hires" rather than "interviews". I can totally see how someone with an unusual name might not get an interview because someone is either prejudice or subconciously biased, but you'd like to think that a face to face interview would give an opportunity to overcome that discrimination (supposing of course that the person hiring isn't a massive racist). To enforce that you actually have to HIRE a % of a certain type of person rather suggests the best people for the job won't necessarily get it. I'd be interested to hear a counter argument to that though, I'm not against positive discrimination, perhaps someone with a bit more understanding could explain how this eventually leads to a better outcome. (Not looking for a response on how the world's gone PC mad or how it's pandering to black history month etc... yawn)

Just of interest Lord D, on the Carrillo thread you seem rather sympathetic to the player, pointing out that "at least he tried" (which I agree with btw). Do you feel the same towards Boufal or do you put him in the category of "taking the piss"? The way I see it is that Hasenhuttl - who is not afraid to criticise players for their lack of commitment or unprofessionalism - has always been positive about Boufal's attitude and by all accounts he is a popular guy at the club. He has obviously disappointed overall, but he has made a few good contributions along the way too. It strikes me that he is a player who just isn't suited to the way that Hasenhuttl wants to play (which I'm surprised at, but it is what it is), and perhaps not to the Premier League in general. But sometimes that happens (like it did with Clasie and a few others that we've narrowly missed with). Just trying to understand why there is such constant negativity towards him when even Carrillo gets a "best wishes". Is it just a backlash against the several people who are fans of him?

He had some great games for us too, MOTM in some. He also had some pretty terrible ones, and I think that's why on balance our fans feel like we got a good deal and he wouldn't be that great at Spurs in the long term, but I don't think we should be surprised that he has put in some crowd (or armchair fan) pleasing performances so far. My best mate is a Spurs fan and says that so far - based on the reviews he got from me and other Saints fans - he has been pleasantly surprised by his passing but surprised by how bad he is at tackling.

To be fair, why wouldn't they wish him well? If someone offered you (and let's be honest, whoever you are, you're probably not that much worse than Guido...) a ridiculous amount of money to join a Premier League club, you'd take it, and wouldn't be too fussed about moving on to a less well paid job. I don't think he's done anything but TRY to be good. Unfortunately he hasn't been good enough but not through any fault of his own. He is a name I'm sure we'd all rather forget about, but it is firmly on those in charge at the club who deserve any wrath over this rather than the player himself!

You can stop there

Yeah, after he missed a penalty in a pre-season shoot out if I recall.

Agree he was pretty anonymous in the final vs Man Utd. 😉

But my point is that Redmond ISN'T "blisteringly fast" like Long is. He has quick feet, maybe a decent turn of pace, but in terms of straight line speed he's not actually that quick. How often do you see him overtake defenders to get the ball in the way Long does? The thing is, it doesn't matter much, because there are more important things, like you have listed. However my point is just that Redmond often gets cited as someone with "pace" and who we should be using to "stretch the play" when in fact that is a myth. And funny that you should bring up that Spurs game, as that was one in particular my friend used as evidence that KWP isn't that quick - he asked me, "Didn't you say Redmond isn't particularly quick? Because he was regularly outpacing KWP. Hate full backs with no pace!" - hence my original reply to S-Clarke. I have been impressed with him too, but am reserving judgement on "pace in abundance" until I see more evidence of it. At no point have I sought to compare Redmond and KWP as footballers, but simply as examples of players who might have their speed overestimated.

In the spirit of debate rather than being condescending, does he have pace in abundance? I say that because my best mate is a Spurs fan and one of the things he mentioned he found disappointing with KWP was that he was a bit slow. In the games I watched I don’t recall seeing him really turn on the burners. I could be wrong, but just think it’s worth paying attention to this to see if it really is the case. There is a tendency for certain players to appear fast. Redmond is a good example. I’m sure some people will get annoyed over this comment, but there’s a reason Redmond has a higher Pace atttribute on Fifa than Shane Long, and it’s not because he is faster...!

Wow I thought we were going to lose him for around £10m, which would have been a bit disappointing. If someone offers £35m we'd be bonkers to knock it back (we won't, and no-one will). Anything over £20m would be pretty good given his contract situation I feel. I'd be happy enough for him to stay because I think he works well in our system and you can't guarantee a replacement will be successful - and he would need to be replaced. I'd rather not have to worry about that and focus strengthening other areas. However, if we get decent money for him I'm not going to be too gutted - he has good games but he also has poor ones. He covers a lot of ground but also gives the ball away cheaply and has poor composure.

Yeah - it would look ok if it was just the logo or just the text, but the two together (as well as english and chinese text) is too much.

Everton. One of my most disliked teams in the league as it is, but especially because they are just above us. I grew hating Manchester United, moreso than any club apart from Portsmouth, but in recent years I've softened to them a bit. I think seeing City (& Chelsea) buy success and obviously having Liverpool up there too makes me think I'd find a Man Utd team at the top a lot more comforting than I ever thought possible.