Joe Hart | Page 2 | Vital Football

Joe Hart

Sincilbanks said:
For a period of a season or two he was absolutely brilliant, but only for that season or two
Click to expand...

He has been pretty good this season - know it's the SPL, but a big upgrade on what Celtic had before with Barkas. Think finding his confidence again, seen a few really good saves.
 
There are 2 sides to this though. Clubs (invest) and pay millions for and to players so it is in their interests that off field activities don;t affect form. Social media especially where players speaking their own minds could end up causing media storms if they they have views/opinions the public might not go along with.

Its a cynical thing really. More to protect the investment than the person.

Imagine Michael Vaughan had let a media team run his media accounts. It would have hidden how he really is. We would've never known and he would still be earning plenty of wonga while soaking up the worship of ashes fans for his captaining days.

I suspect even with "the good guys" like Marcus Rashford that his media accounts have some level of monitoring or admin.
 
Hart is probably one of the last old school 'keepers. Stop it with your face if you have to and 'what's this thing about playing out from the the back gaffer'.

During his good spell he was quite a bit like Schmeichel Snr., using the 'starfish' to excellent effect on many occasions.

He had a bad spell and lost his place at Man. City as soon as Guardiola entered the building. That of course coincided with ball playing keepers becoming the norm and he never really got going after that and a reportedly meh season with Torino? in Italy.
 
GreenNeedle said:
There are 2 sides to this though. Clubs (invest) and pay millions for and to players so it is in their interests that off field activities don;t affect form. Social media especially where players speaking their own minds could end up causing media storms if they they have views/opinions the public might not go along with.

Its a cynical thing really. More to protect the investment than the person.

Imagine Michael Vaughan had let a media team run his media accounts. It would have hidden how he really is. We would've never known and he would still be earning plenty of wonga while soaking up the worship of ashes fans for his captaining days.

I suspect even with "the good guys" like Marcus Rashford that his media accounts have some level of monitoring or admin.
Click to expand...
What did Vaughan say/do on his media account? I'm aware of what he is alleged to have said at Yorkshire about 'too many of your lot', or words to that effect.
 
hulloutpost said:
What did Vaughan say/do on his media account? I'm aware of what he is alleged to have said at Yorkshire about 'too many of your lot', or words to that effect.
Click to expand...
He basically got called out on some very "dubious" comments r.e. racism. Mostly what some people would suggest is "casual racism" but the reality was that it was racism. This was after denying saying these things since the accusation and then when he agreed to do an interview with the BBC he came across as solely concerned with saving his earnings/career. The most insincerest of non apologies with a "The people who know me know that is not me" BS which basically shows that he doesn't care what the world thinks, just those in his inner circle.

My point was more to do with most other (high profile) sports personalities' social media is entirely administered and vetted by media teams. What we see on the internet is not at all a window in to how these players are as people. It is what their media team want to present them as. Vaughan - we know where he stands and he got called out on it. All of these others - we have no idea. They could be raving right wing extremist (thinking not doing) loonies yet their media posts are all peace love and understanding.

"They" might post that they support Aston Villa because its the in thing (at the time) to support HRH William's team and forget when interviewed saying West Ham instead!!
 
Last edited:
GreenNeedle said:
He basically got called out on some very "dubious" comments r.e. racism. Mostly what some people would suggest is "casual racism" but the reality was that it was racism. This was after denying saying these things since the accusation and then when he agreed to do an interview with the BBC he came across as solely concerned with saving his earnings/career. The most insincerest ofnon apologies with a "The people who know me know that is not me" BS which basically shows that he doesn't care what the world thinks, just those in his inner circle.

My point was more to do with most other (high profile) sports personalities' social media is entirely administered and vetted by media teams. What we see on the internet is not at all a window in to how these players are as people. It is what their media team want to present them as. Vaughan - we know where he stands and he got called out on it. All of these others - we have no idea. They could be raving right wing extremist (thinking not doing) loonies yet their media posts are all peace love and understanding.

"They" might post that they support Aston Villa because its the in thing (at the time) to support HRH William's team and forget when interviewed saying West Ham instead!!
Click to expand...

This is in the dreaded Guardian I’m afraid, but if you can see past the far left Communist propaganda there’s a good article on Vaughan by Jonathan Liew here;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...-vaughan-azeem-rafiq-yorkshire-cricket-racism

Vaughan has always come across to me as a bit of a ‘ladzbantz’ try hard. Easy to see how he’d happily just run with the crowd and not speak up on an issue like this. Which is unfortunate given his privileged position.
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
This is in the dreaded Guardian I’m afraid, but if you can see past the far left Communist propaganda there’s a good article on Vaughan by Jonathan Liew here;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...-vaughan-azeem-rafiq-yorkshire-cricket-racism

Vaughan has always come across to me as a bit of a ‘ladzbantz’ try hard. Easy to see how he’d happily just run with the crowd and not speak up on an issue like this. Which is unfortunate given his privileged position.
Click to expand...

From the posts I have seen I would guess he gets a bit carried away after a couple of sherries.........and unfortunately (for his career) the self censure then gets turned off leading to his true self coming out.
 
GreenNeedle said:
From the posts I have seen I would guess he gets a bit carried away after a couple of sherries.........and unfortunately (for his career) the self censure then gets turned off leading to his true self coming out.
Click to expand...

I think we can certainly see the dangers of late night drunken ramblings on social media evidenced on this forum! Anyway, I’m sure we’re only a few weeks away from him building up some self-pitying narrative about him being ‘cancelled’ by woke do-gooders, which he’ll probably make a more than decent living out of.
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
This is in the dreaded Guardian I’m afraid, but if you can see past the far left Communist propaganda there’s a good article on Vaughan by Jonathan Liew here;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...-vaughan-azeem-rafiq-yorkshire-cricket-racism

Vaughan has always come across to me as a bit of a ‘ladzbantz’ try hard. Easy to see how he’d happily just run with the crowd and not speak up on an issue like this. Which is unfortunate given his privileged position.
Click to expand...

I have no problem reading the Guardian just as I have no problem reading anything. Most people not fanatically left or right do tend to be able to sift out the actual story from within the propoganda. My mentioning of the Guardian in other posts is more of a "poke the dog" reposte to Notty who only ever links to the Guardian and seems to treat it as Gospel......Sifter disabled.
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
I think we can certainly see the dangers of late night drunken ramblings on social media evidenced on this forum! Anyway, I’m sure we’re only a few weeks away from him building up some self-pitying narrative about him being ‘cancelled’ by woke do-gooders, which he’ll probably make a more than decent living out of.
Click to expand...

Putting my "sifter" hat on within the Guardian article you linked to, and links to your post here. The point on cancel culture in the article was to try and dismiss the phrase as a non existent thing. I won't suggest that is what you mean but it might be.

The reality is that just because some people use trigger comments/buzzwords as shields does not mean that it doesn't exist. It means that in that case (and many others) it isn't cancel culture and the tribe trying to say so are just utilising the buzzword. Cancel culture does exist though. As with everything else though once people (from either side) start shouting these words at anything they lose their meaning.

There is a bad habit at the moment to try and have a one size fits all narrative which means you can shout "fascist, racist, Nazi, Tory scum" at anybody who is not left wing or "communist, Snowflake, Woke" at anybody who is not right wing.

There are some that fit these terms but the "if you don't vote the way I do then you are in the other group" way of thinking demeans the use of these words.

The Guardian article is trying to suggest cancel culture does not exist rather than it being an excuse in this case.

At the end of the day the single part of the interview with Vaughan that stood out, and that the Guardian writer seems to have glossed over, is that Vaughan's non apology contained a poor attempt at excusing his words as "times have changed" when faced with posts that were as recent as 2017. In that one phrase it unravelled his grovelling apology as nothing more than him trying to excuse himself rather than holding his hands up and owning up "I did say these things. I didn't really think about how they might be viewed. I realise now how they hurt people." Instead we got "It was alright in the 70s" for posts as recent as 4 years ago and "I don't remember saying any of these things..........but I'm sorry if people got offended."
 
GreenNeedle said:
I have no problem reading the Guardian just as I have no problem reading anything. Most people not fanatically left or right do tend to be able to sift out the actual story from within the propoganda. My mentioning of the Guardian in other posts is more of a "poke the dog" reposte to Notty who only ever links to the Guardian and seems to treat it as Gospel......Sifter disabled.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I read The Times when I can get a print copy - not prepared to do the pay-wall thing.

I also read the right-wing AOL news. 😉

I even read the Telgraph occasionally for a laugh.

I draw the line at the tabloids, including the Mirror.

Morning Star is worth a look, though. 😆
 
GreenNeedle said:
Putting my "sifter" hat on within the Guardian article you linked to, and links to your post here. The point on cancel culture in the article was to try and dismiss the phrase as a non existent thing. I won't suggest that is what you mean but it might be.

The reality is that just because some people use trigger comments/buzzwords as shields does not mean that it doesn't exist. It means that in that case (and many others) it isn't cancel culture and the tribe trying to say so are just utilising the buzzword. Cancel culture does exist though. As with everything else though once people (from either side) start shouting these words at anything they lose their meaning.

There is a bad habit at the moment to try and have a one size fits all narrative which means you can shout "fascist, racist, Nazi, Tory scum" at anybody who is not left wing or "communist, Snowflake, Woke" at anybody who is not right wing.

There are some that fit these terms but the "if you don't vote the way I do then you are in the other group" way of thinking demeans the use of these words.

The Guardian article is trying to suggest cancel culture does not exist rather than it being an excuse in this case.

At the end of the day the single part of the interview with Vaughan that stood out, and that the Guardian writer seems to have glossed over, is that Vaughan's non apology contained a poor attempt at excusing his words as "times have changed" when faced with posts that were as recent as 2017. In that one phrase it unravelled his grovelling apology as nothing more than him trying to excuse himself rather than holding his hands up and owning up "I did say these things. I didn't really think about how they might be viewed. I realise now how they hurt people." Instead we got "It was alright in the 70s" for posts as recent as 4 years ago and "I don't remember saying any of these things..........but I'm sorry if people got offended."
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly think our problems start with an overt obsession with what someone says on Twitter. And the main stream media (when they aren’t pushing their left wing woke agenda of course) are complicit in this - journalism these days seems to consist largely of stitching together an article by copying and pasting from social media.

Cancel culture? My own view is that it’s an artificial construct from over-grown babies who can’t bear to have their opinions challenged. And of course the best way to ensure you don’t get ‘cancelled’ is to not be an arsehole. To be honest though it all gets overcooked in the prism of online ‘debate’. Most normal people rub along just fine in real life.

Completely agree on the non-apology apology. ‘I’m sorry if I caused any offense’ to me basically implies that they think what they said is fine and if someone is offended then that’s their problem.
 
Real, investigative journalism is the exception rather than the rule in the UK. Probably comes from the owners, that.
 
NottyImp said:
I don't know the Canary but not sure I'd trust Spiked for a balanced view on a set of kitchen scales, tbh. But perhaps you were being ironic.
Click to expand...

I do read Spiked. it has some<----good articles and they are well thought out well written pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.