[Danny]

Think this whole topic should be added to the Pato-thread.

Yeah well I kinda feel the entire structure of the forum should be changed.

I don't mean that in a narky way, I just feel, as others do, the current structure is absolutely crap - and not worth abiding by.

I mean what in God's name is the point of telling posters where they can and can't post threads? There should not be dedicated threads which limit subject detail; nor should anyone need permission to post a new thread.

Ok, way off topic here.

Carry on.

[Fillipo Simone]

Did I tell you what to do or not? It's just that it's way easier to follow up all these discussions in the basic threads. I almost missed this one out, sheer luck helped me to find it. But do it your, way...it was only meant as a suggestion.

[Danny]

Did I tell you what to do or not?

No, but by implication the structure of the forum did.

It's just that it's way easier to follow up all these discussions in the basic threads. I almost missed this one out, sheer luck helped me to find it. But do it your, way...it was only meant as a suggestion.

It's not easier at all. If I want to talk about something specific, I have to find a 'general' thread about things in that vague category.

Which, frankly, is rubbish.

By your/the forum's logic Jack's FFP thread didn't belong in here either.

I'm not having a go at you, just consistently irritated by the format of the board, which no one has any power to alter.

[Fillipo Simone]

Well, one person has the power to alter it.

Anyway, I get partially where you're coming from, but still believe this talk belongs to the Pato thread.

[Jack Sparrow]

@Danny:

The trouble is not in a piece like yours entirely. Which is almost an op-ed in newspaper speak.

It's coz eventually this goes off topic, and people start discussing other matters, resulting in information being all over the place.

For eg. this could go into Pato's relationship with Barbara. Then Barbara's own management. Then from there to possible transfer targets. And so on...

That being said, most of our members are indeed quick to cross post so as to get the discussion in the right thread.

So I don't think you got much to worry about for the moment.

But when you say you wish to change the 'structure' of the forum. What do you mean exactly?

[Danny]

Well, one person has the power to alter it.

Anyway, I get partially where you're coming from, but still believe this talk belongs to the Pato thread.

If you get where I'm coming from, you'll understand my disinterest in the last part of your comment.

[Danny]

Jackie boy.

Ah you Indians are so adorable.

Ok, in a nutshell...

I wanted to discuss the issue of Pato and it constantly being a cliche that it's 'his' year. I didn't want to add it as a single post in a 'Pato' thread because it may well get lost in among conversation about other things, as often happens.

Hence I felt it justified to start a thread of its own.

What I am trying to say is the current layout of the forum dictates that there's a finite range of discussion matter - that if you want to chat about Computers, you go into the computing thread. What if you want to discuss general technology, or an iPhone, or bananas? There is no thread which covers these. Or if there is, they get easily lost.

Off Topic is a key example; you don't need 'the official xxx thread' - it should be open ended so people can just start a thread on anything they like rather than feeling obliged to restrict themselves to existing topics, in the hope that the subject they wish to matter is covered by an existing thread.

Then there's the issue of permission to post threads in certain boards. That it's restricted to ranked members is slightly absurd.

I'd accept post count, if someone earned the right to start a thread after maybe having made 20 posts, but that certain people cannot start threads is a bit backwards.

Thing is, I feel like this post will fall on deaf ears in your case because I am under the impression you either aided or supported the current structure during its conception.

But plenty of others really aren't thrilled with this, but why the hell am I on about it again when the only person who can change it is never on or willing to do anything?

I'm stopping now, because I've gone on about this enough times in the past.

Like urinating into a monsoon.

[Jack Sparrow]

Jackie boy.

Ah you Indians are so adorable.

Ok, in a nutshell...

I wanted to discuss the issue of Pato and it constantly being a cliche that it's 'his' year. I didn't want to add it as a single post in a 'Pato' thread because it may well get lost in among conversation about other things, as often happens.

Hence I felt it justified to start a thread of its own.

What I am trying to say is the current layout of the forum dictates that there's a finite range of discussion matter - that if you want to chat about Computers, you go into the computing thread. What if you want to discuss general technology, or an iPhone, or bananas? There is no thread which covers these. Or if there is, they get easily lost.

Off Topic is a key example; you don't need 'the official xxx thread' - it should be open ended so people can just start a thread on anything they like rather than feeling obliged to restrict themselves to existing topics, in the hope that the subject they wish to matter is covered by an existing thread.

Then there's the issue of permission to post threads in certain boards. That it's restricted to ranked members is slightly absurd.

I'd accept post count, if someone earned the right to start a thread after maybe having made 20 posts, but that certain people cannot start threads is a bit backwards.

Thing is, I feel like this post will fall on deaf ears in your case because I am under the impression you either aided or supported the current structure during its conception.

But plenty of others really aren't thrilled with this, but why the hell am I on about it again when the only person who can change it is never on or willing to do anything?

I'm stopping now, because I've gone on about this enough times in the past.

Like urinating into a monsoon.

Well, I completely have no problem with your discussion in this case. What I meant about the op-ed thing.

The problem is I see the risk of this thread slowly forking for another thread into Pato information. For eg. Pato gets a contract extension. Or Pato linked to another club. Or something else. It's just gonna come into this discussion.

In such a situation, it just becomes a deluge of forked information. Making it harder to consolidate.

Sure, at some such state, a mod could just merge threads. Which is what we're doing at the moment.

I maintain once again, you're free to open up whatever you like.

Most of the post count limits were coz it was the only way we could keep bots out.

As for the current structure...it was in place a long time ago. The only changes, you see the current crop of members take part in was the pinned, new guidelines thing. That was when we almost had civil war here. Long story.

[han2503]

Strong AM being Boateng. But end of the day, it all means squat if Pato cannot hit the ground running and remain at sprint level.

Boateng is not an AM though. This silly tactic might have worked with a creative force like Ibra upfront but now we'll struggle big time with it.

[X-Offender]

Allegri's obsession of playing Prince behind the strikers is absurd. Even more now that the guy wears the #10 on his shoulders, he feels like a trequartista more than ever, which he's not!

[Fillipo Simone]

Allegri's obsession of playing Prince behind the strikers is absurd. Even more now that the guy wears the #10 on his shoulders, he feels like a trequartista more than ever, which he's not!

+1

[Danny]

He's not a treq, I agree, but he surely is an AM? What else is he? You guys aren't going to call him a CM or a striker are you?

[X-Offender]

He's not a treq, I agree, but he surely is an AM? What else is he? You guys aren't going to call him a CM or a striker are you?

Box-to-box mifielder would be the accurate name.

[han2503]

He's not a treq, I agree, but he surely is an AM? What else is he? You guys aren't going to call him a CM or a striker are you?

An AM and a trequartista are the same to me. You cannot play behind the strikers if you do not have the qualities of a trequartista, which first and foremost are creativity, vision, touch and great passing technique. Boateng has none of those qualities.

As x-off appropriately called him, he's a box-to-box guy. He's got the energy, pace, shot, eye for goal that would make him a perfect box-to-box solution for us. Instead we use Nocerino to fill that role

[kurtsimonw]

An AM and a trequartista are the same to me.

I always felt that a treq was more what you said and an AM was just a more advanced box-to-box player. I wouldn't call Lampard a treq, but he can definitely play as an AM. His passing is fine, just not maybe the same as a Sneijder.