Rico Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Aren't we the comedian.. Tottenham being bottom is everything that I expected it to be, fan-fucking-tastic. Especially considering how the deluded swamp dwellers get into their pre-season hype of finish above us.. Don't get me wrong, it is great I just do feel some degree of sympathy towards them, considerin they're worse off than a triangle (or Derby) so far this season.
Ellmeister Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 So theres a story about Mikel Obi that I've just read, Chelsea do seem to be demanding a lot of court actions these days.
Daft Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 I don't get why people are booing. England are playing pretty well. So theres a story about Mikel Obi that I've just read, Chelsea do seem to be demanding a lot of court actions these days. Credit crunch. We want moneys. The reason is we payed £16 million compensation based on something that wasn't true. Fair enough if you ask me.
Platty Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 0-0 at half time, we're playing okay but should really be all over them to be honest. Cant see us not winning so we'll just have to see. Charlton maybe being taken over be a Dubai group ala Man City. Damn that would be interesting.
Rowan Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Ashley Cole had one bad moment, it happens to every player at some stage. Good 2nd half overall. Another 3 Points
Ramar Posted October 11, 2008 Author Posted October 11, 2008 Charlton maybe being taken over be a Dubai group ala Man City. Damn that would be interesting. It really wouldn't, football needs to stop being pointless toys to foreign investors. They don't understand the sport and just want easy profit.
MadDog Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Ashley Cole had one bad moment, it happens to every player at some stage. Good 2nd half overall. Another 3 Points He has been great this season but that was really bad No matter though! 3 more points
Gizmo Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7665985.stm Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram. What a muppet.
Jon Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7665985.stm Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram. What a muppet. I agree with him. I mean, goal for goal he our best striker (i'm a celtic fan, so it pains me deeply to say that), we need a goal urgently, who does Burley send on? Iwelumo. Great decision George that really worked out. He's played something like 20 mins in the last 6 games under Burley. The fact that Boyd isn't the first player to stop under Burley makes me believe all is not well behind the scene.
Jim Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 It really wouldn't, football needs to stop being pointless toys to foreign investors. They don't understand the sport and just want easy profit. The whole arguement is that these guys arent interested in making a profit at all...?
Ramar Posted October 13, 2008 Author Posted October 13, 2008 The whole arguement is that these guys arent interested in making a profit at all...? Of course the boards of all football clubs intend to make profit. But not all intend to draw all the money from clubs into their own pockets for their own devices. Football boads use to be made up of people who knew the game, people who had made it their lives. Now its all business men trying to make quick money for themselves. Not for the club. Take a look at Arsenal the Hill-wood family have been in charge since 1929, three generations of men, who have the club at heart. How much do you think Abramovich or the yanks at Man Utd and Liverpool care about their club? Even small clubs like QPR are now selling out. When does it end?
Jim Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Im aware that arsenal are very focused on the business aspect of the club, and that there are still a few clubs who are very focused on staying in the black My point was that aren't most of these foreign investors (ie, chelsea/man city) just in it for shits and giggles, a money sink if nothing else? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ramar Posted October 13, 2008 Author Posted October 13, 2008 Im aware that arsenal are very focused on the business aspect of the club, and that there are still a few clubs who are very focused on staying in the black My point was that aren't most of these foreign investors (ie, chelsea/man city) just in it for shits and giggles, a money sink if nothing else? Correct me if I'm wrong. That is probably true to some extent, but I would assume their real intentions are to create a huge brand (hate using that term) and make crap loads of money in the long run. But the short term is far too expensive for most and so they lose lots of money.
Gizmo Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 I agree with him. I mean, goal for goal he our best striker (i'm a celtic fan, so it pains me deeply to say that), we need a goal urgently, who does Burley send on? Iwelumo. Great decision George that really worked out. He's played something like 20 mins in the last 6 games under Burley. The fact that Boyd isn't the first player to stop under Burley makes me believe all is not well behind the scene. Whether or not the decision Burley made was right, Boyd is just being a whiney twat by refusing to play under Burley in future over it.
gmac Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Boyd hardly ever turns up when the pressure is on, and put it this way, why is George Burley getting stick for not picking him when Walter Smith doesn't either and didn't when he was international manager?
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 A pretty good result for England on Saturday. I'm not entirely sure why the fans were booing. It was only half-time, and Capello re-organised the team in the second half, and as a result the team put 5 past the opposition. Football is a game of two halves, and if you don't get it right in the first half, there's always the seconds. England fans are so fucking fickle, and want instant success.
Ramar Posted October 14, 2008 Author Posted October 14, 2008 A pretty good result for England on Saturday. I'm not entirely sure why the fans were booing. It was only half-time, and Capello re-organised the team in the second half, and as a result the team put 5 past the opposition. Football is a game of two halves, and if you don't get it right in the first half, there's always the seconds. England fans are so fucking fickle, and want instant success. I'll tell you why they were booing, because most of them had paid £50-£60 and for one half a bunch of shephards were holding us to a nil nil draw. The Khazakstan team were in SportsWorld in St Albans buying boots the day before our game, and our boys a bunch of over paid twits took over 45 minutes to score against them. Seriously its not about success, its about the players being as far from the average working man as possible and slacking off like all they need to do is turn up.
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 I'll tell you why they were booing, because most of them had paid £50-£60 and for one half a bunch of shephards were holding us to a nil nil draw. The Khazakstan team were in SportsWorld in St Albans buying boots the day before our game, and our boys a bunch of over paid twits took over 45 minutes to score against them. Seriously its not about success, its about the players being as far from the average working man as possible and slacking off like all they need to do is turn up. But surely they paid to see a match. If they paid purely to see the team thump "a bunch of shepherds" 18-nil, then wouldn't they have moaned "oh, it was too easy" anyway? Sure, the game wasn't of a brilliant quality. But, would the fans have paid 50 or 60 quid to see England dominate the game with a masterclass performance, and score only one goal? Football isn't simple. And, at its simplest form, its 11 men versus another 11 men. The fact is, the team needed a lift at half time, and the lift came from the manager...not the fans. Would you be pleased if the Arsenal fanbase went to every match and booed at the negatives, instead of praising the positives? What about the fact that Rooney has found his hunger and is now scoring? What about that Walcott is looking sharp and dangerous, and a menace to the opposition? What about that both Gerrard and Lampard were playing in the same midfield, and that both players have openly stated that they want to improve for their country? I just don't see how booing or being negative all the time will have any positive impact, at all.
Ramar Posted October 14, 2008 Author Posted October 14, 2008 But surely they paid to see a match. If they paid purely to see the team thump "a bunch of shepherds" 18-nil, then wouldn't they have moaned "oh, it was too easy" anyway? Whilst the score is important it wasn't about thrashing them, its about starting well, making a good impression, and battling for it. The first half was sloppy, lazy and care free. Like all they had to do was show their faces. Sure, the game wasn't of a brilliant quality. But, would the fans have paid 50 or 60 quid to see England dominate the game with a masterclass performance, and score only one goal? Football isn't simple. And, at its simplest form, its 11 men versus another 11 men. If the attitude was right the fans would have been happy, but you can't please everyone, people probably would have booed if we only won 1-0. But that's partly because people see the players we have and expect too much. The fact is, the team needed a lift at half time, and the lift came from the manager...not the fans. Would you be pleased if the Arsenal fanbase went to every match and booed at the negatives, instead of praising the positives? What about the fact that Rooney has found his hunger and is now scoring? What about that Walcott is looking sharp and dangerous, and a menace to the opposition? What about that both Gerrard and Lampard were playing in the same midfield, and that both players have openly stated that they want to improve for their country? I wouldn't stop anyone from having their voice heard, I know when we drew with Birmingham last year there was boos around the stadium. But at Arsenal it is very different from the England set up, but thats generally down to a different fan base not hyped up on The Sun's media spin. But that doesn't mean we don't have negative displays, because the players knew after the Hull match the performance wasn't good enough. I just don't see how booing or being negative all the time will have any positive impact, at all. Who's being negative all the time? I thought the country got a full on woody from the performance in Croatia? England players need to realise they aren't immortal and need to be brought down to earth. Modern players are so out of touch with fans its unreal.
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Whilst the score is important it wasn't about thrashing them, its about starting well, making a good impression, and battling for it. The first half was sloppy, lazy and care free. Like all they had to do was show their faces. But then, would you have preferred if the second half display was poor in place of the first? They were much better in the second half, after the manager changed a few things. Surely, on that basis, it's a good display? McClaren wouldn't have made the right changes, but Capello is more than happy to have a tweak, or keep things the same if they're working. I don't think its a coincidence that England started scoring after he had changed things. If the attitude was right the fans would have been happy, but you can't please everyone, people probably would have booed if we only won 1-0. But that's partly because people see the players we have and expect too much. I think the players themselves want to do well, but its all down to self belief. That's why I don't think its such a great thing to get down on the player's back, because a lot of the squad are still very, very young and will constantly be improving. I wouldn't stop anyone from having their voice heard, I know when we drew with Birmingham last year there was boos around the stadium. But at Arsenal it is very different from the England set up, but thats generally down to a different fan base not hyped up on The Sun's media spin. But that doesn't mean we don't have negative displays, because the players knew after the Hull match the performance wasn't good enough. So, you're agreeing that things are very different at Arsenal, correct? It's not very often you hear Manchester United, or Liverpool or other clubs of that stature being booed. And no team is perfect, every team will have a bad day, or a horrendous day. The reason fans still trust Arsene is because they have faith in him. They know the squad is young, and will improve, and that its the small steps that he's making that will improve things for the future. Isn't Capello doing the same? I just find it a shame that the manager isn't getting slack, as its ultimately Capello who will lose his job if England fail to perform. Who's being negative all the time? I thought the country got a full on woody from the performance in Croatia? England players need to realise they aren't immortal and need to be brought down to earth. Modern players are so out of touch with fans its unreal. The fans, the press, media, so forth. The country did get a hard-on from that performance, but its been days after the win against Kazakhstan, and the only thing that I read or hear about is the "Ashley Cole mistake." The manager isn't afraid to leave out players, for whatever reason. But, again, isn't the "players are out of touch" aspect just down to the media, again?
Platty Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 To be honest I think the fans have a right to boo Cole for the mistake. Why cant we voice our opinion? yes he probably got booed more due to being cole. Rio or Terry wouldnt have been booed for a similar mistake to be fair. BUT Cole and a lot of other players are straight down the refs throat when the refs make a mistake. Shouting their heads off, swearing at them, showing their disgust in their decision makings etc. So why cant the fans boo Cole for a mistake, his poor decision to play a dodgy ball? same difference. Dont give out what you can't take back cashley. But yeah to completely contradict myself, I do not agree with booing in general but can understand that people pay a lot of money to see the national team (me included, wasnt there on sat though) but if the team are not playing well they need supporting and cheering on not booing. But meh.
Jim Posted October 15, 2008 Posted October 15, 2008 Boo him when it happened, not everytime he gets the ball ~_~ you damned english are so hard on ur players, and totally not supporting! It's no wonder they all fail so epically when it comes to world cups/euro cups
Platty Posted October 15, 2008 Posted October 15, 2008 Couldn't be arsed to go down the pub to watch the match. Have managed to get Setanta streaming off the net, pretty good. As for the game, hmmmm Belarus look pretty good, we have been very sloppy. Heskey and Rooney have worked hard but everyone else has gone missing.
killthenet Posted October 15, 2008 Posted October 15, 2008 Didn't seem too bad. I think we're headed in the right direction, but Capello needs to get his ass into gear and do the work before the game, rather than cramming everything in at half time.
Recommended Posts