Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but i have a friend who works at spurs and he says Sandro is a real character. turns up quite a lot in karate kit (or sometimes just gets changed into it) and goes around the place doing karate. leg end
i'm going to believe it until my last breath. Amazing. Turning up to football training in a karate kit is a phenomenal approach to being a professional footballer. I bet Harry loves that shit........
to give him a nice big contract.
footballers in being silly shocker.
i love that shit. Sandro should be given the captaincy and a 25-year deal. The guy's a hero, and an almighty footballer.
He's better than Parker. Sandro wouldn't have got so mercilessly bummed by our midfield as Parker did.
So glad the Parker>Barry myth was completely debunked that day.
What a fud.
Next England captain you a) like to see and b)expect to see
a) Hart - as he's probably the only nailed on started we have
b) Gerrard - the least passionate sounding man in football
Personally I don't like the idea of a GK being captain. I must be some sort of 'keeper racist.
and we should copy Spain as much as possible, right?
he's not only someone who is nailed onto the team sheet but also looks set to be between the England sticks (barring injury or some ridiculously impressive youngster) for pretty much his entire footballing career
a bit of stability would be good
plus 3 world cup winning teams have won with keepers as their captain and I like the keeper-captain ting
build 'em up, knock 'em down, etc.
But he has no experience of being a captain, and when Kompany's been out, he's hardly stepped up to the role of organising the defence very well.
Mostly I just fear for too much pressure being put on him.
playing in goal he won't be able to have a word in Wazza's ear when he's playing up. Not that it would make much difference but I like it when captains do that.
to be England's youngest ever lionheart captain.
* from the bench.
Can't see Gerrard getting it, too old. I suppose he could be a stopgap so that whoever takes over from Capello doesn't have to 'inherit' a captain though.
maybe they should 'do an RFU' and give it to some talented youngster.
And been playing in the premiership and heineken cup for the better part of seven years.
I think though Lancaster's approach of appointing a captain for a couple of games at a time is a good idea for internationals
but yeah, I think it's an excellent idea. Give everyone a go and then appoint a permanent captain based on how they all do.
and the question was who would you 'like to see' be captain. (Although to be honest, I think he's too young, he's just the only England player I like these days).
b) theo walcott
a) Ashley Cole
b) Scott Parker
I may possess a Scott Parker shirt but I reckon it should go to England's most reliable on-field player of the past decade tbh
DECAPTAINED TWICE! TWICE!!
Couldn't have happened to a more likeable chap.
he's footballing and general attitude are exemplary to the Blatter of the law
reacting to riise's own goal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycbUM53mFk
Some sort of regulation breach. Liverpool go through instead.
The Daily Mail seem to be getting quite excited that City have named him in their updated squad, not sure why, he was in the squad for the first half of the season, is still a senior player and we could possibly give him cause to take us to court if we ommited him from the squad altogether.
Hopefully, he'll fuck off to Russia, but if not we'll just enjoy laughing at him for another few months. Slight possibility that (should he return to England and get match fit) we might have to give him 1-2 more games over the season to guard against him invoking Article 15, but whilst he's on a different continent he's not available to play, so i guess that's that.
Hand on heart, i'd rather we didn't win the league than see him in a City shirt again, though obviously those two things needn't be mutually exclusive.
City throw the title away but Tevez gets a game or two = City fans claiming they wouldn't have wanted to win it anyways. Textbook.
and i think we're rightly favourites to win the league, you bitter, bitter boy.
was it ever proved that he refused to come on as a sub/warm up?
Seems like there's no way back for him which is a shame as he is clearly the best forward at the club and a player I love watching.
but each to their own.
My West Ham supporting mates were getting a bit giddy about him coming back to 'his spiritual home' <cough> on loan last week, before they SNUBBED him and opted for RVT instead.
Vaz Te - Te Vez
Are you confident you'll get automatic promotion? Looking at your squad it should be a no brainer, but every time I hear about your lot it seems to be home defeat this and Ipswich that.
one dimensional football. BFS has bought in some big old lumps that are tried and tested and are doing a job. It's not pretty to watch but it's effective. Despite dropping points they are still top though others beyond Southampton (Birmingham and Cardiff) are making up ground.
You can't legislate for the Ipswich match (best away defensive record in the league then getting drubbed by 5). There's not a lot of pace or creativity in the squad but hopefully the three new signings will help with this.
I'd rather not face the lottery of the play-offs so hope we push on from here to secure an automatic place.
City are the only team who can realistically afford to spend that much money on making an example of a player and it's refreshing to see the screw turned. A situation like this gives a good indication of just how much a player likes to play football, or rather, how much they've drifted away from that mindset.
this for me:
the england captain has a far more important role off the pitch than on it in international tournaments. Scotty(tm) has the best balance of experience, sense and peer respect.
or make him squad team leader or something and hart or wilshere can wear the armband on the pitch after enrolling on the graduate scheme.
so he's worn the armband a few times this season.
Reckoning: for all your Spurs needs.
but none of the other candidates apart from gerrard are club captains either
not sure he's tabloid 'captain material'
in 1957, so that might play in his favour. When was the last time a Spurs player was England captain though? Eurgh.
and he's one of my favourite people in the world ever. Sorry Garry :(
I do it with one my heroes too, Darren Gibson.
Other than that, probably Lineker.
Players who have received the captain's armband during the course of a game are not considered by the Football Association as being official England captains. However, the following players - who have never officially captained England - have worn the captain's armband during the course of a match when the official captain and vice-captain have been sent off or substituted:
are clearly footnotes arent they
when he was at spuds.
Just give it to whoever's got the most caps, as countries much better than us do.
give it to JT already.
All clean as a whistle.
Seriously, who gives a shit who captains England? We need to stop our obsession with it meaning anything. Sure, Bobby Moore was an okay defender, all that, but let's stop living in the past.
He's won titles, cups, has been to numerous international finals, plays for one of the best sides in Europe (until this season anyway), our most experienced player.
He might have been guity of a couple of misdemeanours, but most of them have. If we're saying those guilty of misconduct shouldn't be considered then we'll have to give it to GazBaz.
Gareth "The English Xavi" Barry.
More goals, more assists, in a shitter side.
I am not even joking as I hate Xavi's hair and would rather be bald with a hat.
Don't forget Stevie Ireland single-handedly dismantling Man United in the Champions League fin... hmm, wait a minute...
The role is meaningless, I agree. But I don't think Cole would be very good at the media-y stuff. There are better candidates.
To repeat, he's been our most reliable on-field player for a decade. Give it to him.
Honestly, the captaincy is more of a media role than anything in this country. They should give it to Franco Baldini.
ANOTHER INJURY YESSSS
I predict another mysterious illness, eye test or homework eaten by dog from De Gea this weekend.
All this waffle is papering over the fact that he shouldn't be in the team on form.
I'm not sure on that either way really. He's still a good player, he's definitely declined to the point where all the hassle he brings with him just isn't worth it any more though. He's not good enough to justify all the nonsense.
they should make him play in a dress
His Capello ever made a good decision ever?
It annoys me that people think of Capello as some kind of bumbling idiot. This guy is(was) one of the most respected coaches in football who has a proven record of winning titles wherever he goes.
Swings and roundabouts.
But potentially bad news for Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs/Newcastle, doesn't 'on the ropes' JT always pull it out of the bag?
...if John Terry is cleared of all of this racism malarkey.
An odious figure, no denying. But one entitled to the same innocent until guilty rights as any other.
It's standard protocol to be suspended pending inquiry for this sort of thing isn't it?
Rio was guilty the very second he missed a drugs test. An act with very definable set of parameters, of which is actual guilt was definite. He missed the drugs test, which was unquestionable. The only argument subsequently was to the extent of his guilt and whether or not it warranted a big sexy ban.
JT's case is a bit different because it has not yet been proved he actually did the thing (in this case call Anton Ferdinand a whatever-he-called-him) he is awaiting trial for. Rio had done it. That's the difference.
The fact remains that the FA have got a history of suspending players who have not yet received a verdict though and as I said, in any other walk of life *suspended pending inquiry* is the standard thing to happen so he's got off lightly so far frankly.
were both suspended from international duty pending trial. Think of it like somebody being put on indefinite garden leave at work pending a serious disciplinary hearing.
Let me just clarify what I meant. In discourse, and behaviour, amongst many people with the John Terry case (ranging from your man on the street, your man on an internet message board, your man in the crowd and the FA) there has been a long and sustained assumption (well, to my eyes anyway, happy to be proved wrong on it) that a) he is guilty of what he is accused of and b) he deserves to be abused and punished for it.
What I was saying above was more of a cautionary aside about how many people are leaping two-footed into the SHE'S A WITCH BURN HER kind of a) logic and b) rhetoric in lieu of any proof. If he doesn't get found guilty of it, as a result of this, then a lot of people are going to look very silly. I stand by that point.
I doubt my opinion will have any impact on anyone elses, but just fancied getting it out in the open because the whole shebang is starting to get on my wick.
It's not as if he's suddenly become a hate figure post-racism row and everyone will change their mind about him if he wins his case. The racism stuff is just a good excuse to go for him. Personally I'd have sacked him from the England team the moment he first publically referred to Frank Lampard as 'Lamps'.
He's a great big cunt and always will be.
He might have only been pissing around and it all got out of hand then but I'll take any chance to get onboard a hate-mob for someone so reprehensible.
He is a great big cunt, and you make a fair point that he'll always be hated. But I do think there's value in being robust and accurate about what he's hated FOR...
In January 2002 Terry, Chelsea team mate Jody Morris and Des Byrne of Wimbledon were charged with assault and affray after a confrontation with a nightclub bouncer. Terry was banned from selection for the England team for the duration of the case, though he was ultimately cleared of all charges.
...John Terry broke down sobbing in court giving evidence a number of times.
Again, that's HARD MAN John Terry.
was written into our constitution.
But if it's used as the sole reason to invoke some kind of punishment on someone, in lieu/in advance of any concrete proof, then it kind of makes you liable to looking like a buffoon if said thing turns out not to be true. That's all I was saying.
I would be suspended pending the outcome of the trial.
Reputational risk innit
...although it doesn't add up in this instance. The FA hasn't suspended him (i.e. banned him from playing), they've made a gesture akin to punishment but one that isn't in line with any formal disciplinary action for .'this kind of thing'. They've gone for this weird halfway house action which is pretty nuts, and one which will make them look pretty daft if he's cleared.
But, yes, I understand what you're saying and you're right. It's not what the FA have done though...
They must have been so relieved when the CPS said that he'd stand trial just so they didn't have to do anything themselves.
You realise, if he's found not to be guilty, that won't mean it's "true" he didn't do anything wrong, right? It just means a jury will have concluded he didn't do anything wrong. They don't have time machines, granting them access to first-hand experience of the event. It's just opinion, considered to be the truth in the eyes of the law; the FA can consider the truth to be whatever they want (unless Terry is found not to be guilty and successfully sues them). Although that's all beside the point, because Terry hasn't been stripped of the captaincy as "some kind of punishment". According to the FA's statement, "This decision has been taken due to the higher profile nature of the England captaincy, on and off the pitch, and the additional demands and requirements expected of the captain leading into and during a tournament ... This decision in no way infers any suggestion of guilt in relation to the charge made against John Terry." It may have the same impact as a punishment, but you know... so does working for a living.
If a jury finds him guilty, it will have found him guilty of racially aggravated assault, which is the charge against him; if it doesn't, it won't mean he's cleared of doing anything "wrong". The FA will still be entitled to conclude that he's done enough to no longer warrant the England captaincy. Again though, that's probably moot.
There isn't going to be a jury. GOD, WHY ARE YOU STUPID!!11
I thought he was going away for life :(
."You realise, if he's found not to be guilty, that won't mean it's "true" he didn't do anything wrong, right? It just means a jury will have concluded he didn't do anything wrong. They don't have time machines, granting them access to first-hand experience of the event.".
Is one which I have no interest in discussing. Sorry. You're basically saying ."yeah but even if he gets found not guilty that doesn't mean that he didn't do it". which is a farcical way of looking at it. Under that logic anyone who's ever stood trial FOR ANYTHING can never really be cleared.
Because if you're found guilty, it means you did it! Indisputable! Don't even bother appealing, it's the truth now!
And he won? What would be the truth in that instance?
...but I will comment on that if and when it happens. Not now.
You're asking for my opinion on a hypothetical situation which is AT BEST incredibly unlikely to happen. Why should I engage with it?
But still, if you care about winning so much - have it.
to a hypothetical situation, i.e. I'm asking your opinion on what should be considered the 'truth' when civil and criminal courts offer contradictory verdicts. If the hypothetical nature of the question has thrown you, I'd be happy to rephrase to make it something more concrete but essentially identical.
I was talking about John Terry. You wandered into a daft philosophical/legal/ontological cul-de-sac about ."yes, but... what is guilt exactly?"., I said I can't be arsed engaging with it and yet you persist.
Basically, if I may be so brazen about my opinion - you want John Terry to be a racist. You probably are quite sure he is one. That's fine. Don't try and dress it up in some kind of legal debate about what the truth is though, it makes us both look silly.
The burden of proof in a criminal case that guilt only exists "beyond reasonable doubt" whereas civil lawsuits have a burden of proof that the weight of probability suggests they're guilty.
So it'd be much easier for a civil court to find him guilty than a criminal one. So if that happened the truth would be that most of the evidence suggested he'd done it but nonetheless, in the eyes of the law he would be innocent and should be treated as such.
Ferdinand almost certainly could not bring a civil case, let alone a successful one, against Terry in the event of the criminal case coming to a not guilty verdict for one very simple reason- he's publically on record as saying he didn't hear anything.
doesn't, and shouldn't be expected to, revolve around "innocent until proven guilty".
Raises an interesting point - why does someone have to be appointed England captain in such formal fashion? As if it's a separate job? Why can't the manager just pick the captain on a match-by-match basis? Would probably stop complacency amongst the big boys and, also, would certainly stop things like THIS happening...
It's one of those assumed things that no-one really challenges isn't it?
Is there a need for a captain in modern football? Interesting!
It's just nowhere near as important as it once was. But you need some vague hierarchy in a football team because there are lots of instant tactical decisions that have to be made without the manager - most of which can be made pretty easily but you need a nominated person who has the ultimate authority to say what's what. But it can be anyone nowadays, just a random senior squad member, don't even think they should have to be captain of club to be captain of country, although I guess that it helps..
think England might not even make it out of their group at the Euros?
France and Sweden (without Rooney), Ukraine (in Ukraine).
Could easily happen, in my opinion, which is why i'm against Gareth Barry inheriting the captaincy, even though due to several factors he's becoming the obvious choice. Same goes for Hart. Jonesy's yer man...or even Parker, it'd be quite funny seeing the tabloid press turn on him en masse.
makes enjoying the rest of the tournament a bit easier
There's a reason for this of course, England are not a very good football team and haven't been for a very, very long time.
He won't start ahead of Parker and/or Wilshere if they're fit.
that he's started every competative game he's been available for under Capello bar one.
..and Wilshere won't be fit anyway.
Whoever's fit, Barry will start. Parker might play alongside him, but certainly not instead of. Let's not be silly now.
until recently Parker had been overlooked by Capello. Wilshere will start ahead of Barry IF fit.
Barry will go as first choice, and possibly even as captain.
You play the players who've been in form for the best teams. City have been the best team in the country all season up 'til this point, and he's been one of their standout players. He's a better all-round player than Parker and has more experience.
I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is on this one.
you are kidding man. you chumps have been in freefall for 5 weeks now. Spurs baby
Agree on a Barry tip tho, he is a better footballer than Parker. Needs a fit pup in the middle to help tho...he is fackin SLOW
The best team in any league is the one that's top, simple as that. When we're not top, United will be the best team in the league, and whoever is there after 38 games will have been the better side, that's just how it works.
Spurs have never, at any stage, been either the best team in the country or the side which played the most attractive football.
However, Barca are a good example of a team that clearly plays the best football but aint at the top.
Arsenal 1 Blackburn 0
Norwich 0 Bolton 0
QPR 1 Wolves 2
Stoke 1 Sunderland 1
West Brom 0 Swansea 2
Wigan 1 Everton 3
Man City 1 Fulham 2
Newcastle 2 Aston Villa 0
Chelsea 1 Man Utd 0
Liverpool 2 Tottenham 2
Arsenal 1 Blackburn 3
Norwich 5 Bolton 4
QPR 6 Wolves 1
Stoke 0 Sunderland 4
West Brom 8 Swansea 2
Wigan 7 Everton 3
Man City 0 Fulham 15
Newcastle 2 Aston Villa 9
Chelsea 1 Man Utd 40
Liverpool 2 Tottenham 25
I wouldn't put your mum on it though.
let's milk this shit FOREVER
you pity the fool or something?
although I suspect we're talking about different people.
it's not your fault, you're new.
bottom line - I'm gonna milk this Croatian mate shit til my eyes fall out/off
where Thatcher loses it in front of the whole cabinet.
by which we should pick the new captain.
imagine Johnny Vaughan circa The Big Breakfast saying the potential captain's name in a chummy fashion, slapping his knee with a rolled-up copy of The Sun, and calling him 'a proper Englishman' with /emphasis/.
Scotty Parker. *slaps knee* a /proper/ Englishman.
*production team cheers/applauds*
you /know/ it makes sense. something about hunting tigers with an old Enfield rifle.
I thought I heard that. Strange decision if that's the case.
to avoid disruption if/when other first teamers would need to give evidence. Back-fired a bit as far as Terry's concerned it would seem.
Steve Morgan went into the dressing room after the game against Liverpool on Tuesday and ranted at the players, and Mick McCarthy, apparently. Not sure that's ever happened before, and it's a pretty shocking crack in the united front Mick and Morgan had been putting on all this time.
And in the pre-match press conference McCarthy hosted today, he did a pretty bad job of making it sound like their relationship had broken down.
For the first time since he's arrived I think he's actually at risk of losing his job.
If there are ten games, each with three possible outcomes (home, draw, away), how many possible combinations of 10-team accumalators are there?
But it depends if I can remember how to calculate probability.
I think there's 820 if you count matches being abandoned/otherwise not completed.
Fri - Nuremburg / Dortmund
Sat - West Ham / Milwall
Sat - Zambia / Sudan
Sat - Birmingham / Southampton
Sat - Man City / Fulham
Sat - Ivory Coast / Eq Guinea
Sat - Getafe / Real Madrid
Sat - Roma / Inter
Sat - Barcelona / Sociedad
Sun - Genoa / Lazio
Sun - Rangers / Dundee
Sun - Derby / Notts Forest
Sun - Newcastle / Villa
Sun - AC Milan / Napoli
Sun - Hearts / St Johnstone
Sun - Chelsea / Man Utd
Sun - Gabon / Mali
Sun - Kaiserslauten / Cologne
Sun - Ghana / Tunisia
Sun - Zaragoza / Vallecano
Sun - Atletico Madrid / Valencia
- No pubs/shops selling alcohol in a 6 mile radius before 2:30PM.
- Players kindly asked not to over-celebrate.
- One ticket per person and must have a previous history buying a ticket.
- No tickets being sold on the day.
- Milwall have been given the whole Upper Trevor Brooking Stand to themselves with the lower section being closed.
- Increased police presence. Considering there was a stupidly low 350 plod for that C.Cup night game with the trouble after having 800 the previous game when it was last handled with little mess. So 600+ this time?
- Both sending out threats of season ticket cancellation without refund and lifetime club/football bans for trouble makers.
They do all that then put Mike Jones in charge who had one of the worst overall refereeing displays i've ever seen in our FA Cup defeat to Stoke last season...
is that disclosure laws mean his team will already know what evidence the prosecution has against him, and will have known before he entered a plea. And, if similar cases are anything to go by, either audio or a reliable first-hand witness are the only things that could (and almost certainly would) really do him. So they've either got nothing and he's going to humiliate them in court or he's stupider beyond the comprehension of even his most ardent, hateful critics.
Doesn't that make things a bit less clearcut?
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the irony here is that if he'd just denied having said it at all there wouldn't be a case to answer...
Good PR (or damage limitation, as it usually is with all things Chelsea) usually involves keeping schtum. It's usually something to Chelsea are very good at, too.
It's an usual case in more or less every sense- this case almost certainly would not have gone to court if it did not involve footballers.
He'd probably fetch a tenth of that now.
Terry has his knockers, but other than his chronic lack of pace, he is still one of the best CB's out there. The kid can defend.
Needs a pacy, skillful CB partner to truly shine. aaah, Rio
I mean, take Savic for instance....not sure what you paid for him? But he's obviously shite. Shite's too complimentary really.
Never mind......Kompany's back this weekend isn't he?
for a kid who may or may not turn out to be a decent centre back. Kompany didn't look amazing when we picked him up either. Neither did Silva. Neither did Richards or Lescott when Hughes was in charge. Start deciding he's "obviously shite" when he's grown up a bit. Cheers.
Cahill's not a standout player, in my opinion. Why do you think none of the other clubs bit?
If you think he's the pacy centre-half needed to prop Terry up you're quite mistaken.
You're fucked without Kompany. Fucked.
Record without Kompany - played 4, won 2, drew 1, lost 1 (score: 0-1)
Kompany played when we lost against Everton, Sunderland, Chelsea, Bayern, Napoli.
If you're going to troll, at least put a bit of effort into it.
Sunderland - wasn't it O'Neil's first game, and the goals was offside as well.
I thought that his first game back was this weekend.
I didn't watch the Everton game, just kept an eye on the score..
He cost £5m upfront, with £1m in potential add-ons.
He has all the raw attributes to be a very good centre-half, but he's made a huge step up, from the Serbian league to one of the strongest leagues in the world. He has good games, he at times looks like an absolute beast, he's extremely commanding in the air, but he's quite nervous, and once he makes one mistake in a game he's liable to make others. Spurs at home was a good example - amongst the best players on the park until his error for their first goal, a wreck afterwards.
Most young centre-halves are like this, though. Skrtel was, Dawson was, for example, Jones is, most of Arsenal's centre-halves are. That'll iron out of his game over time. Rather than look at a young player and give it the "LOL he's shite" stuff, i think it's probably better to look at what his actual attributes are, but each to their own.
Kompany's not been great this season. He's out captain, oraganiser, a great reader of the game, but Lescott's been more consistant. What looked like a crazy fee at the time's proven quite a good signing over time.
Have to disagree about the money-to-quality ratio. In fact, you're just wrong there, bar Kolarov, possibly Toure. Our first choice back four - Richards, Kompany, Lescott, Clichy, cost us about £34m combined; marginally more than Rio Ferdinand, and it's still the best in the country.
£34.5m for the best back five in the country, or one Andy Carroll (or two thirds of a Fernando Torres).
Credit where credit's due.
happened, but I'm pretty sure that Savic was responsible for both Spurs goals.
You're right though, I'm being hard - I can only hope that Luiz ends up maturing as well. He's only a year older than Savic and has had 1st team action pretty much the whole season.
- Luiz turns 25 soon.
- He's the 6th most expensive defender in the history of football.