Zatara
Player Valuation: £100m
23 and 24 is really the upper limit of a Zat player. Question marks start appearing from 25-26, and from 28 years old onwards, they might as well be dead for all Zat cares
'Legally dead'.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
23 and 24 is really the upper limit of a Zat player. Question marks start appearing from 25-26, and from 28 years old onwards, they might as well be dead for all Zat cares
The funny thing is I've explained in at least three posts why Zat behaving the way he's behaving is in fact NOT backing young players
haha wow you really are trying your best to avoid a simple question here.Not fazed...
Just waiting for these quotes from those 2 about me slating Koeman for playing Davies...
@Mikey_Fitzgerald stuck me on ignore as he just showed himself up for telling fibs...then writing an insanely long post without including any quotes from me.
@Ashtonian is now asking me to write something about Koeman for him to supply these non-existent quotes.
Quite amusing really as Im the one who gets slated for wanting to play the kids all the time.
Find it a bit weird really.
The funny thing is I've explained in at least three posts why Zat behaving the way he's behaving is in fact NOT backing young players
If he actually read my posts he might understand that no quotes are required, but he's too busy running away from an argument, so hey-ho
I've had a few Bungle "shut up" posts. They actually sting for a second
I do think that's unfair Mikey. He's not big on DCL, but he's one of the most vocal supporters of young players on this forum. Arguing around that is being a little pedantic
Zat brings out the worst in Bungs mate, he brings out the worst in a lot of people. Seeing a pattern yet?me too, he's very angry
haha wow you really are trying your best to avoid a simple question here.
Did koeman do something good by playing Davies yesterday?
In case you can't see the question mate. I will give you the quotes you are after if you answer one simple question here. One yes or no question, why is this so difficult for you to answer? I am offering the quotes in exchange for it, so if i indeed mis quote you then it gives you oppertunity to show me.
So does Koeman deserve some praise for playing davies yesterday?
1--Posting lies about my posts
Yet, I'm "Spineless, a coward, and running away"
I'm literally beaming at how your brain works.
I do think that's unfair Mikey. He's not big on DCL, but he's one of the most vocal supporters of young players on this forum. Arguing around that is being a little pedantic
answer the question instead of purposely and publically avoiding it and i will give you the quotes you desire.Why cant you provide these quotes?
Come on, dont be shy...you and your pal were just posting about my anti-davies comments...
Where are they?
*Clue, they dont exist.
answer the question instead of purposely and publically avoiding it and i will give you the quotes you desire.
Does koeman deserve praise for playing Davies yesterday?
Getting a little weird now why you won't answer my question. I am more than happy to provide you with quotes, if you answer the one simple question you are avoiding at all costs. Why is that? Why not give me a yes or no answer to that question, does Koeman deserve praise for playing Davies yesterday?
Zat is becoming more and more like Adversus, it's is becoming an issueThis all started from me saying that Koeman could play Davies and Zat would still have a problem with him
Low and behold, he plays Davies for a full 90 and Zat still won't give him credit for it
There are no quotes here because my argument wasn't based around quotes
I've explained my argument at least FOUR times now
If Zat can't get it now, he's never going to
There are no quotes to quote, because it's got nothing to do with quotes
I have explained why not giving credit to Koeman for playing Davies hurts Davies, and in turn does not constitute backing him
Everyone else, is this a difficult argument to comprehend? Help me out here because maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough
Zat is entitled to disagree with my argument of course, but good grief the least he could do is try to understand it!