dayokanu:
What kind of verification are you looking for? That Jose Mourinho called 9 players untouchables or what? Like I asked what is your point assuming you have any?

his point is simple....he wants you to list the untouchable players who were in the line up week in week out under mourinho. nateevs did not dispute mourinho mentioned some of his players were untouchable but he does not agree it had anything to do with starting week in week out!

coogar:

his point is simple....he wants you to list the untouchable players who were in the line up week in week out under mourinho. nateevs did not dispute mourinho mentioned some of his players were untouchable but he does not agree it had anything to do with starting week in week out!

Is it that Nateevs cant think for himself that you have to verbalize what he is thinking for him??

Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable

dayokanu:

Is it that Nateevs cant think for himself that you have to verbalize what he is thinking for him??

Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable

I am sure if I took someone out of a mental institution right now, he will decipher the question I have asked repeatedly in only a few seconds.


Let me indulge you. Yes Muorinho said he had untouchables. What I want you to verify is that

dayokanu:
Mourinho had 9 untouchables in his line up week in week out even for Carling cup FA cup etc?

Any clearer now? Let's try this again!

At one point I enjoyed this arguement, now its just become so vain. Ibime seems to be the only one making some sense, I dont have to agree with what he says but at least he and to some extent DK have been consistent

Ibime: These forking shapeshifters. . . .











https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl3vxEudif8

Ogheneme!!! I even missed that part! Edumare would bless you this December! Your cup shall run over with 100's

I don't know why Debosky is not on True Blood with his shape shifting skills

Ibime: Now check the eediocy of his statement:



(1.) The same fool who said Torres is a top player now claims loaning out Lukaku is a mistake. If Torres (who's been healthy all season) is a top player, loaning out Lukaku should be no mistake.

(2.) The snake even takes his deception further by blaming RDM. Isnt the person who signs the players tasked with the responsibility of building the squad? Do you sign players without clearing space for them? You can't buy every single player, yet claim you didnt sell. Before you buy, you calculate who goes out to make space for your signings. Please see Nateevs if you need help calculating this simple fact.

Only a simpleton would blame RDM for Lukaku's exit on loan what is wrong with sending a 19 year old ninja on loan at a club like Chelsea. People are too dimwitted to realize that it could actually be a blessing in disguise as he would wind up with more playing time and would return a better player most likely! Even if he had stayed where is the playing time he woulda had as we all know about RA's man crush on Torres! Even Sturridge that's higher up the pecking order has hardly had playing time so where does hope lie for Lukaku?

dayokanu:

Is it that Nateevs cant think for himself that you have to verbalize what he is thinking for him??

Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable

whatever it means, it's surely not starting chelsea games week in week out - ballack was an untouchable but he featured in only 26 league games out of 38 - that's only 67%

mystikal: At one point I enjoyed this arguement, now its just become so vain. Ibime seems to be the only one making some sense, I dont have to agree with what he says but at least he and to some extent DK have been consistent

only fools would understand the words of another fool - i don't really expect you, with all due respect, to understand 10% of the things i write here. the intelligence in my missive is beyond 96% of the posters in this section. majority of y'all just go with the most popular theme - the herd mentality!

nateevs: am sure if I took someone out of a mental institution right now, he will decipher the question I have asked repeatedly in only a few seconds.

Let me indulge you. Yes Muorinho said he had untouchables. What I want you to verify is that

Any clearer now? Let's try this again!

Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006

So If you agree that Mourinho said he had invincibles then

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable

mystikal: At one point I enjoyed this arguement, now its just become so vain. Ibime seems to be the only one making some sense, I dont have to agree with what he says but at least he and to some extent DK have been consistent

No vex. this exercise is to show who the charlatans are and I'm glad its becoming glaring right now that Nateevs doesn't know what he is saying most of the time. If you look at those long worded posts you would notice they are empty and full of half truths and outright lie.

He is now being found out for who he really is. A football novice

A-40:

what is wrong with sending a 19 year old ninja on loan at a club like Chelsea. People are too dimwitted to realize that it could actually be a blessing in disguise as he would wind up with more playing time and would return a better player most likely! Even if he had stayed where is the playing time he woulda had as we all know about RA's man crush on Torres! Even Sturridge that's higher up the pecking order has hardly had playing time so where does hope lie for Lukaku?

Hmmm! According to mofos, Emenalo was a fool for sending Lukaku out on loan and buying Moses. Now we have someone from the same camp who believes that actually, it was the right move.
Well unless he's not in the same camp. Or it could just be that mofos don't know what they are yarn. . . . again!

dayokanu:
Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006
So If you agree that Mourinho said he had invincibles then

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable

it could mean several things but it's definitely not what you claimed it means....ballack is a good example! jose could have meant the players he endorsed himself for roman to buy....he could have meant the players who epitomise him on the pitch, etc. an untouchable player would not appear in only 26 league games out of 38 - this is common sense. "the week in week out" in your sentence destroyed your argument, dayo!

Ibime: These forking shapeshifters. . . .

You degenerate phat phool - I said WHEN When Benitez succeeds with this same team. . . .has Benitez started succeeding with the team at the moment?

It seems there is a stoopidity bug that is biting you muppets here.

I stand by my claims that Benitez is already highlighting RDM's failings and highlighting a failing does NOT imply an improvement. If you send out a striker on loan leaving yourself short upfront, that is a failing. If you refuse to use your squad properly such that a few players get exhausted, that is a failing. The mere facts that failings are highlighted cannot be synonymous with improvements being seen.

I am sure even a phat muppet like you has heard of the term question - if you don't know what failings have been highlighted, the rational thing is to ask a question as to what failings have been highlighted.

dayokanu:

Jose Mourinho said he has Untouchables in December 2006

So If you agree that Mourinho said he had invincibles then

What does untouchable in a club mean in the Mourinho context in 2006? And why did he say Sheva was not an untouchable



No vex. this exercise is to show who the charlatans are and I'm glad its becoming glaring right now that Nateevs doesn't know what he is saying most of the time. If you look at those long worded posts you would notice they are empty and full of half truths and outright lie.

He is now being found out for who he really is. A football novice

Hehehehe. Evasive tactics. Come back here and list the 9 untouchables who played in the team week in week out and quit your endless attempts at defining untouchables. Everyone is fully aware of what JM said. You have gone a step further by saying they play week in week out.

To verify, you cannot. You are hiding from place to place and quoting others for cover. It's another goof from you. Same way you didn't now until yesterday night, the difference between "starts and games"

dayokanu:
Mourinho had 9 untouchables in his line up week in week out even for Carling cup FA cup etc?

Come back and verify.

nateevs: Hehehehe. Evasive tactics. Come back here and list the 9 untouchables who played in the team week in week out and quit your endless attempts at defining untouchables. Everyone is fully aware of what JM said. You have gone a step further by saying they play week in week out.

To verify, you cannot. You are hiding from place to place and quoting others for cover. It's another goof from you. Same way you didn't now until yesterday night, the difference between "starts and games"
Come back and verify.

Like Coogar has attempted to do, Can you interprete what Jose meant by the 9 untouchables. Assuming you can think for yourself or should we take coogars thoughts as yours?

Ibime: Now check the eediocy of his statement:

(1.) The same fool who said Torres is a top player now claims loaning out Lukaku is a mistake. If Torres (who's been healthy all season) is a top player, loaning out Lukaku should be no mistake.

This is how you continue confirming how jaw-droppingly stoopid you are. RVP is a top player - did Ferguson then send Hernandez, Rooney and Welbeck on loan?

Only someone as incredibly daft as Ibime can ever claim that leaving yourself with only one recognised striker is 'no mistake'.

(2.) The snake even takes his deception further by blaming RDM. Isnt the person who signs the players tasked with the responsibility of building the squad? Do you sign players without clearing space for them? You can't buy every single player, yet claim you didnt sell.

Was Lukaku sold or loaned out you deranged phool? We have it in print - RDM's OWN WORDS that Lukaku wouldn't get playing time in his squad. Or does Emenalo also determine who gets playing time in RDM's squad? Yet this degenerate recidivist wants us to believe RDM wasn't responsible.

Again I will present RDM's OWN words:

From your beloved Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2176498/Romelu-Lukaku-wants-loan-move.html

Chelsea boss Roberto Di Matteo has confirmed he will make a decision on Lukaku's immediate future following the club's pre-season tour.

More evidence:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/7918328/Lukaku-would-consider-loan

Blues boss Di Matteo admitted he will make a decision on Lukaku's immediate future following their pre-season tour, but revealed he was happy to see the talented teenager among the goals.

He added: "We had a talk at the start of pre-season and I'm very keen to see him perform for us and then we will see what is going to happen.

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/transfer-zone/2012/08/10/3298826/lukaku-set-to-go-out-on-loan-reveals-di-matteo?source=breakingnews

"At this stage of his career the most important thing is to play," Di Matteo told reporters. "It might be a bit more difficult here with us so it's the best choice to let him go out on loan."

Now this modaforker wants people to believe RDM wasn't the one who took a decision on Lukaku - you must be a stark raving-mad lunatic.

fûcking hell.....
i know ibime wouldn't just let debosky destroy him like this - jeeeez, debo went in!!!!!

dayokanu:

Like Coogar has attempted to do, Can you interprete what Jose meant by the 9 untouchables. Assuming you can think for yourself or should we take coogars thoughts as yours?

I have to remind you that you have misinformed us all, goofed, lied, falsified Jose's intentions and comments, that you've added your piece to the whole story and then I have to help you interpret what "9 untouchables" means? Are you being deliberately thick?


Whether Jose had 9 untouchables is not the issue. The issue is your exaggerated claim that he had them in the team week in week out. So I ask you to be a gentleman and back up your claims.
How difficult can this be?

nateevs: I have to remind you that you have misinformed us all, goofed, lied, falsified Jose's intentions and comments, that you've added your piece to the whole story and then I have to help you interpret what "9 untouchables" means? Are you being deliberately thick?


Whether Jose had 9 untouchables is not the issue. The issue is your exaggerated claim that he had them in the team week in week out. So I ask you to be a gentleman and back up your claims.
How difficult can this be?

Is this not a moronic thing to say. I have asked what do you interprete Joses comment to be, you cant say it but claimed I falsified his comments and intentions? Is that not stupidd even looking at it from your moronic prism?

You cant tell us what it means yet you claim it was falsified, Can something be false when there is no true version?

Abi lets wait for coogar to explain what you mean cos he seems to have the ability to read the mind of retardds

Back which claims. I already gave you Joses own words where he said they were untouchables and you said you dont dispute that. So are you asking for the interpretation of untouchables?

Ibime: Isnt it funny? The same guys who launched campaign to get some of our best performers out the team to "clear space for talent" are now coming back to give excuses for their non performance. "They are still in development", "Calculate how many games they've played ", "They are only 21", "They are too small" and yada yada yada.

Didn't they know all these when campaigning to "clear space"?

This week Benitez came out to say these boys have no physical or mental strength and they are losing confidence from being physically dominated. Yet some of our esteemed friend think "we dont have enough MaZaCars"

First of all, I have no problem with the new guys, neither would I blame them entirely for the recent run given that their striker is not firing,. . . their defensive midfielder was not built for them. . . and they are demoralised by Roman's actions recently. They are the spark we've needed to make a difference in certain games over the last few years but style doth not a team make. The style is only an add-on to a solid base.

But the technical director decided to overstock on style with no base. For one, Mikel is a no-no to carry such lightweight midfield.



I am tired of repeating myself consistently for months whilst others blame calculators, age, Lampard, need for more Matas, tiredness, RDM, and invent new DIAGNOSES of the problem every week.


Let's hark back to the summer :


May 29th 2012:

Ibime is an OG! So you said this as far back as May? You ninjas should pay homage or pay the doctor
Truly what an old man sees sitting down a young man would climb the Himalayas and not see it

dayokanu:

Is this not a moronic thing to say. I have asked what do you interprete Joses comment to be, you cant say it but claimed I falsified his comments and intentions? Is that not stupidd even looking at it from your moronic prism?

You cant tell us what it means yet you claim it was falsified, Can something be false when there is no true version?

Abi lets wait for coogar to explain what you mean cos he seems to have the ability to read the mind of retardds

Back which claims. I already gave you Joses own words where he said they were untouchables and you said you dont dispute that. So are you asking for the interpretation of untouchables?

Jose said many things. Jose says things for the media, things to spite other managers, things to spite his own players. So what Jose says about untouchables does not matter.


There is nothing complicated about what is being asked. Tell us how you came about the fact Jose had 9 untouchables in his team WEEK IN WEEK OUT!.
Jose never said he had 9 untouchables in his team week in week out. If you add that, you have to have the baalls to back it up.

A-40:

Ibime is an OG! So you said this as far back as May? You ninjas should pay homage or pay the doctor
Truly what an old man sees sitting down a young man would climb the Himalayas and not see it

Yeah yeah. He saw this as far back as 2008.

Lemme spell it out: Drogba's touch is not up to league 2 level!
Drogba is finished! That is why I have been advocating to sell Drogba before he reaches thirty. This is simple analysis!

It is harmful to keep players on past glory.

I have said it before and Ill say it again, Drogba without stamina is as useless as John Carew.
Class (Anelka: 1997-2009) is permanent, whilst form (Drogba: 2006-2007) is temporary.

Ibime is an OG! We should pay homeage.

i love this thread.......

ibime is a true OG......he hated drogba's first 2 seasons in 2008 but he loved it in 2012. if there's an award for the poster with the ability to talk from the 2 sides of his mouth - ibime takes the cake! that was the same drogba most chelsea fans wanted out of the club after his first season.....if ibime takes a lie detector test, the machine would explode!

nateevs:


Hmmm! According to mofos, Emenalo was a fool for sending Lukaku out on loan and buying Moses. Now we have someone from the same camp who believes that actually, it was the right move.
Well unless he's not in the same camp. Or it could just be that mofos don't know what they are yarn. . . . again!

What's with the subliminals? Are you illuminati?
How can anyone with common sense call sending Lukaku to West Brom an RDM failing when we don't know who even made the call in the first place?? I'm not even Anti-Emenalo and I also don't get this camp talk. Lukaku is an EPL greenhorn at 19 makes perfect sense to send him on loan

nateevs: Jose said many things. Jose says things for the media, things to spite other managers, things to spite his own players. So what Jose says about untouchables does not matter.


There is nothing complicated about what is being asked. Tell us how you came about the fact Jose had 9 untouchables in his team WEEK IN WEEK OUT!.
Jose never said he had 9 untouchables in his team week in week out. If you add that, you have to have the baalls to back it up.

Oh If this isnt the definition of stupidd I wonder what is.

Jose Mourinho said something, I quoted it Now Nateevs said what Jose said doesnt matter. isnt that insane?

Nateevs made A Mistake 3 days ago, i corrected him last night, Nateevs response "My mistake does not matter"

My guy does anything matter to you? These posts of yours are shallow. We cant start teaching you football if you cant understand simple logic and common sense

A-40:

What's with the subliminals? Are you illuminati?
How can anyone with common sense call sending Lukaku to West Brom an RDM failing when we don't know who even made the call in the first place?? I'm not even Anti-Emenalo and I also don't get this camp talk. Lukaku is an EPL greenhorn at 19 makes perfect sense to send him on loan

You should know nateevs doesnt think that much, and he lacks the basics to start with So arguing with him is always an exercise in futility the best you can do is to educate him

Ask him for his position on issues and he doesnt have any. Just waiting for coogar to say something and he would claim thats his position all along

A-40:

What's with the subliminals? Are you illuminati?
How can anyone with common sense call sending Lukaku to West Brom an RDM failing when we don't know who even made the call in the first place?? I'm not even Anti-Emenalo and I also don't get this camp talk. Lukaku is an EPL greenhorn at 19 makes perfect sense to send him on loan

Bros take it easy. I used your post to forward a message. My response had nothing at all to do with you.

My argument has been consistent all year. Some dudes wanna throw lowblows in an attempt to muddy the waters, even dudes who hated Drogba till May 2012 . . . and would prefer to argue trivial matter about Jose Mourinho which is neither here nor there, yet has proved how featherbrained he is in the real argument of the season.

Just pay attention to the arguments we've been making since May, and you will see how the calculators keep clutching at new straws every new week whilst my argument has been consistent. . . and largely been proved right.

nateevs:


Yeah yeah. He saw this as far back as 2008.







Ibime is an OG! We should pay homeage.

Why don't you bring out what he said since the Big Bang?
He called Chelsea's deficiencies and sounded the alarm bells early when some of you ninjas where getting boners about Mazacar and how they would combine with Torres

nateevs:


Bros take it easy. I used your post to forward a message. My response had nothing at all to do with you.

I aint a mind reader? How am I supposed to know

Ibime: My argument has been consistent all year. Some dudes wanna throw lowblows in an attempt to muddy the waters, even dudes who hated Drogba till May 2012 . . . and would prefer to argue trivial matter about Jose Mourinho which is neither here nor there, yet has proved how featherbrained he is in the real argument of the season.

Just pay attention to the arguments we've been making since May, and you will see how the calculators keep clutching at new straws every new week whilst my argument has been consistent. . . and largely been proved right.

I started paying attention to the Chelsea thread like a year ago and found numerous falsehood that nateevs has been pending for years unchallenged. This is someone who cant take a position.

His views on AVB We saw how that brand of football ended in Cheslea
His views on RDM We saw how RDM went on to win the double with the same players he said was finished
His view on how MAZACAR would improve Torres We now see how that has done so far
His views on torres everyone can see how wrong he has been all these while

My own argument has been consistent and i have been vindicated several times on issues which I argued strongly about like AVB, RDM, Torres

Where does Nateevs stand? No one knows and now he is back to clutching at straws

dayokanu:

Oh If this isnt the definition of stupidd I wonder what is.

Jose Mourinho said something, I quoted it Now Nateevs said what Jose said doesnt matter. isnt that insane?

Nateevs made A Mistake 3 days ago, i corrected him last night, Nateevs response "My mistake does not matter"

My guy does anything matter to you? These posts of yours are shallow. We cant start teaching you football if you cant understand simple logic and common sense

Hehehe. You are still hiding. Let's go back to the first question. What percentage of appearances would a player need to qualify as one who plays WEEK IN WEEK OUT?
Jose did not talk about how frequently they played even though he called them untouchables.

Let's analyse your stupidity.

06/07 was the only time those 9 players all played under JM.
In 06/07, Lampard had 36 apps in the league, Essien had 36 apps.
Ashley had 21 apps, Ballack had 23 apps.


Jose knows these stats and will not stoopidly say that his 9 untouchables played WEEK IN WEEK OUT




In-fact, tactically speaking, it was impossible to fit Ballack, Essien, Makalele and Lampard all into JM's 4-3-3. So that immediately flaws your phoolish logic.


The reason Essien had many caps in that season was that he played at RB for a long period. This makes your whole assertion very inconsistent.




So I want you to prove how to came about the fact that Jose had 9 untouchables in his side WEEK WEEK OUT
Simple requirement.

A-40:

Why don't you bring out what he said since the Big Bang?
He called Chelsea's deficiencies and sounded the alarm bells early when some of you ninjas where getting boners about Mazacar and how they would combine with Torres

Everybody body gets things right once in a while dude. Every single fan on here has said at least one thing right.
The fact that you stumble on what Ibime said that came right is no award for best poster.

Ibime is an intelligent guy. Very intelligent poster. I will be the first to admit he gets things right.
There are however, so many things he got and gets very wrong just like anyone.

It doesn't matter when it occurred. There's no justification for what you said.

Trivial point but Jose Mourinho mostly employed diamond formation in 06/07 in order to fit Shevchenko and Ballack. This led to Robben and Duff being sidelined quite a lot that season. Ballack copped a lot of unfair flack for "ending Chelseas winning period" but truth be told it was the formation designed to fit in Shevchenko that failed Chelsea that season as well as Cech and Carvalhos injury in the Christmas period,

nateevs:
Hehehe. You are still hiding. Let's go back to the first question. What percentage of appearances would a player need to qualify as one who plays WEEK IN WEEK OUT?
Jose did not talk about how frequently they played even though he called them untouchables.

Let's analyse your stupidity.

06/07 was the only time those 9 players all played under JM.
In 06/07, Lampard had 36 apps in the league, Essien had 36 apps.
Ashley had 21 apps, Ballack had 23 apps.


Jose knows these stats and will not stoopidly say that his 9 untouchables played WEEK IN WEEK OUT




[size=18pt]In-fact, tactically speaking, it was impossible to fit Ballack, Essien, Makalele and Lampard all into JM's 4-3-3. So that immediately flaws your phoolish logic.[/size]


The reason Essien had many caps in that season was that he played at RB for a long period. This makes your whole assertion very inconsistent.




So I want you to prove how to came about the fact that Jose had 9 untouchables in his side WEEK WEEK OUT
Simple requirement.

I know when it comes to real football analysis you would be found wanting but when it comes to repeating Week in Week out thats where Nateevs analysis starts and end.

Now lets analyze the statement "it was impossible to fit Ballack, Essien, Makalele and Lampard all into JM's 4-3-3."

On 26th November 2006 a few days before mourinho made the "Untouchable comments" Chelsea played Man Utd their biggest title rival to a 1-1 draw. The link is shown above and the Chelsea Lineup was.

Chelsea: Cudicini, Geremi (Robben 46), Carvalho, Terry, Ashley Cole, Essien, Makelele, Ballack (Ferreira 90), Lampard, Shevchenko (Joe Cole 75), Drogba.

Now Nateevs : [size=14pt]Is it possible to fit ballack, Essien Makeleleand Lampard in Jose Mourinhos 4-3-3?[/size]

We are waiting for the spin on it and expectedly Coogar to come to your rescue once again when you fail

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/6161090.stm

Nateevs. Week in Week out is not football analysis. Just verbal gymnastics

[img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy97XqEjW8Nv1bQ-i9sOmheNoSY_i9sRVN2r-fY9-EYjhA3WO7FA[/img]

dayokanu:
I started paying attention to the Chelsea thread like a year ago and found numerous falsehood that nateevs has been pending for years unchallenged. This is someone who cant take a position.

this dude can lie - goddamit!

His views on AVB We saw how that brand of football ended in Cheslea
His views on RDM We saw how RDM went on to win the double with the same players he said was finished
His view on how MAZACAR would improve Torres We now see how that has done so far
His views on torres everyone can see how wrong he has been all these while

all these things are lies - nateevs only opined MAZACAR would improve the way torres play than the dross we saw last season and nateevs has been proven right. torres would score more goals this season.....

My own argument has been consistent and i have been vindicated several times on issues which I argued strongly about like AVB, RDM, Torres
Where does Nateevs stand? No one knows and now he is back to clutching at straws

stop telling porkies.....
your own argument hasn't been consistent.....:your argument was di matteo was untouchable. you told us he won 2 trophies in 2 months and he's the best chelsea manager in the history of football - it turned out you were telling porkies when the italian got sacked for his incompetence to bring the best out of torres and when he went 4 league games without a win!

dayo, you have been found several times on this section - i got tired of counting how many times nateevs have used your face to wipe the toilet seat. looking at things in general, nateevs have gotten it right more than ibime. when you fools were on torres' back, nateevs posted his youtube videos of torres' goals @ liverpool - ibime countered back with chelsea cannot play on the counter....we countered back with how has united been adapting to chicharito's style? no one came up with a reasonable rebuttal!