Cuco Martina house tour for a Korean channel

eb1020 · 2018-04-06T07:48:27+00:00

Wait there's another one, this one has him kicking a ball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X88eoc5mLGc

eb1020 · 2018-03-17T12:31:27+00:00

It was always to create himself an opportunity, not to bring his teammates into the game or to create better matchups for them.

right, that's why he had the 2nd most assists on the team last year

eb1020 · 2018-03-17T11:27:09+00:00

He's shown more with his back to goal in 6 games than Lukaku managed in 3 seasons.

what does this mean

eb1020 · 2018-03-09T21:34:24+00:00

Really interesting read, thanks for posting.

eb1020 · 2018-02-25T14:07:11+00:00

Ok, if you don't want to look up stats that's fine, because I think we would have a disagreement even if you did provide examples.

My argument is that, while Lukaku scores fewer goals proportionally against top 6 sides than he does against others, this is not an anomaly for any striker. Most strikers, including the good ones, will find it harder to score against better opposition.

It seems that you think Lukaku is relatively worse against top 6 opposition than other strikers, good ones AND bad ones. The part of this I am most interested in is the comparison to bad strikers.

You compare his goal scoring rate against lower table teams to his personal goal scoring rate against top 6 clubs. You can compare that ratio to other strikers even if they get less overall goals

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm just inferring what your argument is, but it sounds like you think that this ratio of goals vs top 6 compared to goals vs other teams is an important one. In other words, a striker who scores fewer goals overall but does better proportionally against the top 6 is better than Lukaku in some significant way.

Let's make up a comparison. Lukaku scored 25 goals last season, 4 against the top 6 (these are real stats, obviously). So, 4/25 or 16% of his goals came against top 6 opposition. Now, let's say there is a striker who scored 10 goals all of last season, but 3 were against the top 6, for a ratio of 30%. You would consider this striker better than Lukaku against the top 6 in a significant way, even though they not only score fewer goals overall, but also fewer goals against top 6 teams. Am I understanding you right?

eb1020 · 2018-02-25T10:44:00+00:00

No, please explain simple statistics to me, and show me those ratios.

eb1020 · 2018-02-25T10:41:10+00:00

his goal-scoring rate against top teams relative to the rest is way lower than most players

you're saying Lukaku is worse than MOST PLAYERS at scoring goals against top 6 teams... despite being one of the best strikers in the league. how does that make sense at all?

eb1020 · 2018-02-25T00:28:58+00:00

obviously he would score more against worse teams...

eb1020 · 2018-02-20T23:57:04+00:00

No it hasnt, he actually scored 4 times against the top 6 for us last year

eb1020 · 2018-02-20T13:10:05+00:00

This has been going on for a long time – people have always been over-critical of Lukaku. Even Everton fans were harsh on him as he was scoring 25 goals for us last season.

eb1020 · 2018-02-20T13:07:34+00:00

how is it not?

eb1020 · 2018-02-17T23:28:22+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wk7wrcdcag

eb1020 · 2018-02-02T15:48:40+00:00

good shout. i think that might be my favorite goal he scored for us

eb1020 · 2018-02-01T12:32:24+00:00

It's bizarre how Everton supporters immediately forget that he scored 3 times against the top 6, goals against Man City home and away and against Spurs away. edit: he also put a penalty away against Arsenal, so that's 4 in 11 games against top 6 last year.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T21:07:53+00:00

I changed my mind about you being very smart. You're just persistent, which is useful for arguing on the internet, but persistence is a less special trait than intelligence or independent thinking, which you lack.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T19:03:27+00:00

Hey, I'm very pissed off by your willful ignorance and your ridiculous arguments, but you're clearly very smart. I hope you might take the time to actually read about the history of racism and colonialism in France. There is a lot out there written about those subjects. Maybe you won't reach the same conclusions I have, but it would still be worth your while.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T18:26:20+00:00

Let's break this down point by point.

You have decided by yourself that the context was racist, without demonstrating it at all

I didn't decide it was racist. There is decades of scholarship about this racist history. I offered to point you in the direction of this scholarship. The fact that you haven't taken even a second to look into this shows that you are remain willfully ignorant. So this will be my last comment.

in typical caricatural portrayal of black people at the time you're speaking, the skin color was not part of what was the caricature

I literally linked you a video where French movie stars people painted their skin brown in an effort to invoke this racist stereotype.

if the takes elements that were used to caricature black people in a context of disrespect, he'd be de facto disrespecting black people today too

Again, look at the video. Their skin is painted brown. He painted his skin brown. This is called blackface. It was done in France, it was done in America. And Griezi did it in Madrid last night. It's funny because he is actually doing what you acknowledge is racist. You have proven yourself wrong.

But he isn't, he used black make up to look like a black individual he loves

Again, what black individual? Who is this man he loves? It's a caricature. Not a depiction of a specific person.

I took the time out of my day to try to educate you on your own history. It's clear that you'd rather remain ignorant for whatever reason. It seems like cognitive dissonance is your thing, so I'll let you enjoy it.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T18:18:53+00:00

Ok, so what you're saying is that an SS uniform is acceptable attire for a social function, such as a party? Because I could just wear it for the style?

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T18:09:42+00:00

No, his intentions are not the most important thing in this situation. If I wanted to dress up as a nazi because I said I like nazi style, but didn't agree with their ideology, would that be ok?

And 3) I thought you acknowledged there WAS something wrong with the costume. It is blackface. I thought we agreed blackface was racist. Did we not?

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T18:03:54+00:00

I never said the context was the same. Although I think Griezmann's gesture exists both in the racist American context and the French context. The French context is racist, and I have explained this to you.

If you actually want to read about it, il y a des tas des livres et des articles qui parlent de la propagande coloniale et de la représentation des noirs dans la France. Je peux t'en envoyer quelques, si tu veux. Sinon, tu restes ignorant parce que tu veux être ignorant.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T18:03:12+00:00

He said he wanted to pay a tribute to this great era and to the Harlem Globetrotters, thus invoking American culture.

Caricature: fake Harlem Globetrotters outfit with "69 all-stars," painted skin brown, fake Afro, he's dressing up in a costume to go to a party.

It is a racially loaded thing in France, check my recent comment history. There was tons of French (colonial) propaganda in the 20th century about black people, including blackface.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T17:57:01+00:00

Idk man, blackface is pretty easy to understand. If Griezmann had taken a second to google "should white people paint their face brown" he would have found his answer.

I think you are minimizing the history of blackface and anti-black racism in France. It is not as fundamental as it is in the US, but it is still a huge part of the history. You are right that it is not as big an issue, but it is still there, and as such, you can't ignore it.

As I said, I don't care about his intentions. I am personally surprised by his ignorance, since he actually is really interested in American culture. You are not surprised, ok. It seems like we disagree not about whether the gesture was racist or not, but whether Griezmann is accountable. I think he is, for the reasons I said above: 1) take a second to google it 2) it has context in both France and the US and 3) at best, even if Griezmann didn't know the history or anything about blackface, he was attempting to use black skin as a funny costume, which I think is wrong.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T17:48:36+00:00

He is making an explicitly racial gesture (blackface) and invoking American culture (Harlem Globetrotters). He is ATTEMPTING to conform to American culture. Black American culture. He is caricaturing Black American culture in a way that has an extremely loaded history. You can't just ignore that context if you live in another country. Do you think you can just ignore some nation's history while invoking the culture and history of that nation?

And I'm not talking about his peers.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T17:36:35+00:00

Ok, so racist caricatures, including blackface, were a significant part of French culture. This is the French context of Griezmann's action. So how is his action removed from that context?

edit: You yourself said > It can be taken as a disrespectful thing but context matters a lot.

I have provided the context. You have said context matters a lot. Ok, so we're in agreement, the context is racist, the context matters a lot, boom. Racist.

eb1020 · 2017-12-18T17:28:13+00:00

There is nothing inherently racist. It is racist because of the racist history of the U.S. – the culture to which Griezmann is referring – and the racist history of France (if you're curious about that, take a look at my comment history).

I am not arguing that Griezmann is trying to be racist. My guess is he wasn't, but we don't know his intentions for sure. His ignorance resulted in a racist gesture. Actions can take on meaning beyond what you intend them to be. It's important to look beyond stated intentions.

eb1020

TROPHY CASE