|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 15:47:01 GMT 1
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Apr 28, 2015 15:47:01 GMT 1
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 16:21:39 GMT 1
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Apr 28, 2015 16:21:39 GMT 1
Doc- an aerial challenge is what it says- one that happens IN THE AIR. That photo is Hudson heading the ball ( probably because hes read the situation well and got to it first- the one thing hes good at) . Gestede isn't challenging him in the air. gestede is not in the air. Gestede has not even begun to jump into the air. I didn't say Hudson didn't head the ball in that game and do you REALLY think thats what I meant by 'aerial challenge' ? really? Of course you didn't but you saw the chance to be a catch a sardine eh? I have no issue at all with people disagreeing with me, and i usually enjoy a heated discussion, but I don't know how simple it has to be for you to not find some tenuous way to misunderstand a post? It does seem to have become your favourite past time for some reason- miss reading or not understanding a point so that you can give it the 'Ooooo, look hes got that wrong!!! I'll be all arsey with him about it'. Followed by the standard hypocrisy about not admitting being wrong. Do I really need to make every post like some sort of legal document with a dozen caveats to every point for the sake of the hard of understanding? The aforementioned player known as Hudson, did not win ,in the sense that to win is to reach with his head towards the ball and direct it in a direction of his will, an aerial challenge, in that the challenge is a competition of achieving said direction of the ball with use of the head that takes place in the air, as in the area immediately above the turf of the pitch, by two or more players who have jumped, defined by the springed movement of the legs to propel the body into the aforementioned air........ So there weren't many actual aerial challenges in the game then? Lynch had quite a few "aerial battles" with Gestede in the second half but I can't remember if they were both jumping at the same time or if either or both of them had their feet off the ground, or if then they can then be defined as aerial battles. I think they probably need redefining as "heading tussles".
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Apr 28, 2015 16:26:23 GMT 1
No idea what you muppets are on about, every header that Town won on Saturday was Gerrard flying in direct from Oldham to snuff out some danger.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 18:08:11 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 18:08:11 GMT 1
Doc- an aerial challenge is what it says- one that happens IN THE AIR. That photo is Hudson heading the ball ( probably because hes read the situation well and got to it first- the one thing hes good at) . Gestede isn't challenging him in the air. gestede is not in the air. Gestede has not even begun to jump into the air. I didn't say Hudson didn't head the ball in that game and do you REALLY think thats what I meant by 'aerial challenge' ? really? Of course you didn't but you saw the chance to be a catch a sardine eh? I have no issue at all with people disagreeing with me, and i usually enjoy a heated discussion, but I don't know how simple it has to be for you to not find some tenuous way to misunderstand a post? It does seem to have become your favourite past time for some reason- miss reading or not understanding a point so that you can give it the 'Ooooo, look hes got that wrong!!! I'll be all arsey with him about it'. Followed by the standard hypocrisy about not admitting being wrong. Do I really need to make every post like some sort of legal document with a dozen caveats to every point for the sake of the hard of understanding? The aforementioned player known as Hudson, did not win ,in the sense that to win is to reach with his head towards the ball and direct it in a direction of his will, an aerial challenge, in that the challenge is a competition of achieving said direction of the ball with use of the head that takes place in the air, as in the area immediately above the turf of the pitch, by two or more players who have jumped, defined by the springed movement of the legs to propel the body into the aforementioned air........ I had to chuckle as I read the sentence above. You are generally so matter of fact and have used the phrase "how simple it has to be" in your post. Nothing wrong with that as such, yet you are contradicting yourself if you remember the abuse you gave me on the 9/11 thread in "Off Topic". I can't be bothered to re-read that thread but am sure you made me out to be some sort of nutjob for my beliefs whereas you had no problem in accepting that a mainly steel 110 storey building can collapse at near freefall speed as a result of a fire started by aviation fuel which incidentally would have burned out after about 10 minutes! Please try and be consistent. By the way I agree with your point regarding the Hudson/Gestede photograph. Two seconds earlier Gestede may have been 10 yards away from where the ball was coming down whereas Hudson might have been almost underneath. You'd have to see the video of the incident to know whether Gestede had any real chance of winning the ball. Pixie- you think the planes that crashed into the twin towers were a camera trick. 'nutjob, doesn't do you justice.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 18:11:55 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 18:11:55 GMT 1
I had to chuckle as I read the sentence above. You are generally so matter of fact and have used the phrase "how simple it has to be" in your post. Nothing wrong with that as such, yet you are contradicting yourself if you remember the abuse you gave me on the 9/11 thread in "Off Topic". I can't be bothered to re-read that thread but am sure you made me out to be some sort of nutjob for my beliefs whereas you had no problem in accepting that a mainly steel 110 storey building can collapse at near freefall speed as a result of a fire started by aviation fuel which incidentally would have burned out after about 10 minutes! Please try and be consistent. By the way I agree with your point regarding the Hudson/Gestede photograph. Two seconds earlier Gestede may have been 10 yards away from where the ball was coming down whereas Hudson might have been almost underneath. You'd have to see the video of the incident to know whether Gestede had any real chance of winning the ball. If you go on the Blackburn website you will find the entire match, only thing is you need Town Player log in details. The incident in question a high lofted ball from the Blackburn left full back position has Gestede jockeying for position with Hudson as it comes down. 21 minutes 38 seconds of the first half for those that can. bloody hell. You need to get out more Codd. Look, I don't see what all the drama is for. MY opinion of what constitutes an aerial challenge ( if Im allowed an opinion, not sure anymore) is when two players jump for the ball in the air- they challenge for the ball in the air. If you want to have a different view of what an aerial challenge is, then thats fine by me.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 18:17:35 GMT 1
Post by pixie on Apr 28, 2015 18:17:35 GMT 1
I had to chuckle as I read the sentence above. You are generally so matter of fact and have used the phrase "how simple it has to be" in your post. Nothing wrong with that as such, yet you are contradicting yourself if you remember the abuse you gave me on the 9/11 thread in "Off Topic". I can't be bothered to re-read that thread but am sure you made me out to be some sort of nutjob for my beliefs whereas you had no problem in accepting that a mainly steel 110 storey building can collapse at near freefall speed as a result of a fire started by aviation fuel which incidentally would have burned out after about 10 minutes! Please try and be consistent. By the way I agree with your point regarding the Hudson/Gestede photograph. Two seconds earlier Gestede may have been 10 yards away from where the ball was coming down whereas Hudson might have been almost underneath. You'd have to see the video of the incident to know whether Gestede had any real chance of winning the ball. Pixie- you think the planes that crashed into the twin towers were a camera trick. 'nutjob, doesn't do you justice. There you go again. Only your opinion is valid is it? I never mentioned the planes by the way, only the manner in which the towers fell. Keep to the point.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 18:22:53 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 18:22:53 GMT 1
You said those planes didn't exist. The film of them is bogus. They can't have existed because they would have bounced off the building. I doubt Im alone in the particular opinion that you're a sandwich short of a picnic old lad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 18:30:16 GMT 1
If you go on the Blackburn website you will find the entire match, only thing is you need Town Player log in details. The incident in question a high lofted ball from the Blackburn left full back position has Gestede jockeying for position with Hudson as it comes down. 21 minutes 38 seconds of the first half for those that can. bloody hell. You need to get out more Codd. Look, I don't see what all the drama is for. MY opinion of what constitutes an aerial challenge ( if Im allowed an opinion, not sure anymore) is when two players jump for the ball in the air- they challenge for the ball in the air. If you want to have a different view of what an aerial challenge is, then thats fine by me. What drama?? I know your opinion and I'm sure you will allow me mine? My post was in reply to Pixie stating where Gestede's starting position may have been. My discussion with you ended the post prior to that. My view on an aerial challenge is when a player gets up and wins the ball under pressure, whether Gestede (who was in contact with Hudson) leaves the ground is neither here nor there, the fact is Hudson got up and won that particular tussle, imo.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 18:38:44 GMT 1
Post by pixie on Apr 28, 2015 18:38:44 GMT 1
You said those planes didn't exist. The film of them is bogus. They can't have existed because they would have bounced off the building. I doubt Im alone in the particular opinion that you're a sandwich short of a picnic old lad. At this point I can't actually prove that there were no planes, so I passed on that. What is definitely provable however is the fact that the buildings couldn't have collapsed as claimed. Do you believe that fire brought down those towers despite the burning kerosene and after 10 minutes just burning furniture etc. being well short of the required temperature to melt 2" thick steel. Yes or No? If your answer is "yes" then it's pretty obvious which of us shouldn't be at the picnic.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 19:22:23 GMT 1
I really don't want to get into this again with you, amusing as it is.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 19:24:53 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 19:24:53 GMT 1
bloody hell. You need to get out more Codd. Look, I don't see what all the drama is for. MY opinion of what constitutes an aerial challenge ( if Im allowed an opinion, not sure anymore) is when two players jump for the ball in the air- they challenge for the ball in the air. If you want to have a different view of what an aerial challenge is, then thats fine by me. What drama?? I know your opinion and I'm sure you will allow me mine? My post was in reply to Pixie stating where Gestede's starting position may have been. My discussion with you ended the post prior to that. My view on an aerial challenge is when a player gets up and wins the ball under pressure, whether Gestede (who was in contact with Hudson) leaves the ground is neither here nor there, the fact is Hudson got up and won that particular tussle, imo. Fair enough. We have different opinions on what constitutes an aerial challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 28, 2015 19:29:35 GMT 1
You said those planes didn't exist. The film of them is bogus. They can't have existed because they would have bounced off the building. I doubt Im alone in the particular opinion that you're a sandwich short of a picnic old lad. At this point I can't actually prove that there were no planes, so I passed on that. What is definitely provable however is the fact that the buildings couldn't have collapsed as claimed. Do you believe that fire brought down those towers despite the burning kerosene and after 10 minutes just burning furniture etc. being well short of the required temperature to melt 2" thick steel. Yes or No? If your answer is "yes" then it's pretty obvious which of us shouldn't be at the picnic. Is"both of you " the correct answer ?
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 19:49:59 GMT 1
via mobile
Tinpot likes this
Post by upthetown on Apr 28, 2015 19:49:59 GMT 1
At this point I can't actually prove that there were no planes, so I passed on that. What is definitely provable however is the fact that the buildings couldn't have collapsed as claimed. Do you believe that fire brought down those towers despite the burning kerosene and after 10 minutes just burning furniture etc. being well short of the required temperature to melt 2" thick steel. Yes or No? If your answer is "yes" then it's pretty obvious which of us shouldn't be at the picnic. Is"both of you " the correct answer ? Most lacklustre picnic of all time.
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Apr 28, 2015 19:51:09 GMT 1
Plus 'slapper doesn't deem it a sandwich unless you eat it with both feet off the ground.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 19:55:43 GMT 1
Post by pixie on Apr 28, 2015 19:55:43 GMT 1
I really don't want to get into this again with you, amusing as it is. I only asked for a Yes or No; it's not that difficult. It's my opinion that you are subconciously scared of learning what really went on that fateful day. Some of us will not bury our heads in the sand and hope the incident dies a slow death. The people who died deserve better. Shame on you, your stock has fallen with me ... chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 19:59:46 GMT 1
Im getting my lawyers to write up legal definitions of 'picnic' and 'sandwich' as we speak.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 19:59:47 GMT 1
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 28, 2015 19:59:47 GMT 1
I really don't want to get into this again with you, amusing as it is. I only asked for a Yes or No; it's not that difficult. It's my opinion that you are subconciously scared of learning what really went on that fateful day. Some of us will not bury our heads in the sand and hope the incident dies a slow death. The people who died deserve better. Shame on you, your stock has fallen with me ... chicken. Captain. Read this before being tempted by the bait: www.metabunk.org/threads/the-usual-retorts-conspiracy-theorists’-top-10-misconceptions-of-debunkers.1202/
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 20:09:40 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 28, 2015 20:09:40 GMT 1
I really don't want to get into this again with you, amusing as it is. I only asked for a Yes or No; it's not that difficult. It's my opinion that you are subconciously scared of learning what really went on that fateful day. Some of us will not bury our heads in the sand and hope the incident dies a slow death. The people who died deserve better. Shame on you, your stock has fallen with me ... chicken. Chicken stock? This is a different board from Off Topic, so there might be new people who didn;t catch your theories on the made up planes, burning fuel etc last time and be entertained by them. But Ill give it a miss this time cheers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hudson
Apr 28, 2015 20:15:48 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 20:15:48 GMT 1
Meanwhile, on planet Huddersfield Town...
|
|
|
Post by Torquayterrier on Apr 29, 2015 17:37:22 GMT 1
And there are plenty of other similar videos taking care of pretty much all the conspiracy theorists arguments.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 29, 2015 20:08:30 GMT 1
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 29, 2015 20:08:30 GMT 1
Thats a good video. I don't think the guy has to try too hard to show all those morons up for what they are.
|
|
|
Hudson
Apr 30, 2015 0:56:56 GMT 1
Post by hi on Apr 30, 2015 0:56:56 GMT 1
Gestede and Rhodes are two brilliant strikers who are a hand full to defend. we certainly know that rhodes is. they've both caused trouble with every bodys defence. clearly shown by the 21 and 20 goals they've both scored each
yes hudson may not have had a good match but he is an excellent captain
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Apr 30, 2015 1:00:00 GMT 1
This thread has gone off topic!
|
|
|
Hudson
Jul 26, 2015 7:39:42 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by morleyterrier on Jul 26, 2015 7:39:42 GMT 1
Some interesting debate around Hudson from back end of last season.
So Hudson, are we in or out?.
|
|
|
Hudson
Jul 26, 2015 8:07:19 GMT 1
Post by Nickhudds.UTT on Jul 26, 2015 8:07:19 GMT 1
Out
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Jul 26, 2015 9:22:53 GMT 1
Last season - not out, but not as good as hoped! This season - tbc!
It should be pointed out that after signing Hudson, our goals against per game did reduce by over a goal a game from the small sample size before we signed him.
18 conceded in the first seven games at 2.57 per game before his arrival and 63 conceded in 42 games at 1.50 per game with him in the team.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 26, 2015 9:29:44 GMT 1
Whether we like it or not he is part of our squad... We can't just say " OK Mark we've decided we don't like you anymore please leave and by the way we won't be paying you " ... He has competition for a role in the team and will have to fight and scrap ..I have a low bar after being brought up on the likes of Chris topping and Bernard purdie ( and there were a lot worse that them ) why can't people just settle down and see how it pans out instead of jumping about like toads on acid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Hudson
Jul 27, 2015 9:02:33 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 9:02:33 GMT 1
Whether we like it or not he is part of our squad... We can't just say " OK Mark we've decided we don't like you anymore please leave and by the way we won't be paying you " ... He has competition for a role in the team and will have to fight and scrap ..I have a low bar after being brought up on the likes of Chris topping and Bernard purdie ( and there were a lot worse that them ) why can't people just settle down and see how it pans out instead of jumping about like toads on acid It would be a boring forum?
|
|
|
Hudson
Jul 27, 2015 9:07:14 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 27, 2015 9:07:14 GMT 1
Whether we like it or not he is part of our squad... We can't just say " OK Mark we've decided we don't like you anymore please leave and by the way we won't be paying you " ... He has competition for a role in the team and will have to fight and scrap ..I have a low bar after being brought up on the likes of Chris topping and Bernard purdie ( and there were a lot worse that them ) why can't people just settle down and see how it pans out instead of jumping about like toads on acid It would be a boring forum? Possibly megatron .. I suppose one of the sordid fascinations of this forum is the mix of characters it attracts
|
|
|
Hudson
Jul 27, 2015 10:17:44 GMT 1
Post by galpharm2400 on Jul 27, 2015 10:17:44 GMT 1
'seeing how it pans out'?
not sure what the point of pre season and transfer windows is then?
I thought it was the time to get as best prepared for the up coming season as you can?
The 'see how it goes' approach might be interesting unless you are paying to watch it 'unfold'?
|
|