ujpest doza

Christ he looks old doesn't he!!!!!

He must be desperate to leave. it was pretty obvious in his performances tbh. Never looked like he fancied it at all. He's never had many performances so I can't see how you can claim he didn't fancy it. He certainly fancied it against Arsenal early doors when Mitro got sent off and he certainly looked like he fancied it in the monsoon against Villa as well.

He's a 29 year old Brazilian, doesn't fit our profile at all????

Good luck to the lad.

That doesn't even make sense. It's difficult to create velocity if a team has core members changed mid-sprint or even mid project. What's difficult to understand? All of it, it's a complete and utter load of shit.

It's a massive 6 pointer ffs.

Be to get captain fistpump some pitchtime tbh.

The quote I saw had saying "was" instead of "were" and sounding like Pardew. I don't think he's very good but will be very happy if he proves me wrong and proves to be our new messiah.

In a vague tweet saying he's enjoyed playing with the under 21's for 3 months.

It's not the same club. I just caught the yellow ticker as I walked passed the tv and never followed it up online or anything.

He was there when they won the title iirc. That is when they had mega money and took the division by storm Obviously I don't know what Blackie is like day-to-day, and it's an unusual role in football, but he's very well respected and people like Jonny Wilkinson rave about him. (It's true they had all the best players) He was awful as best man at my cousins wedding, excrutiating.

Pats went into that game with an 18-0 record. The Giants came in as a wildcard, with a 10-6 record. Oh and no way Eli Manning was/is better than Tom Brady. I have no idea what you're getting at? In what way were they the 'best team?' The best team for that one off game? Yes. Better team and quarterback over the course of 16-20 games? No way. I love the playoff set up for American sports, where you have different conferences and a s*** load of teams. I don't see the need for it in England, when we have league systems that work well, with the current format. The record books show that we won like.

Pats went into that game with an 18-0 record. The Giants came in as a wildcard, with a 10-6 record. Oh and no way Eli Manning was/is better than Tom Brady. I have no idea what you're getting at? In what way were they the 'best team?' The best team for that one off game? Yes. Better team and quarterback over the course of 16-20 games? No way. I love the playoff set up for American sports, where you have different conferences and a s*** load of teams. I don't see the need for it in England, when we have league systems that work well, with the current format. Chortle.

SSNHQ had Ramires signing for them instead at dinnertime.

me anarl.

The goal when Ighalo was offside and when Lascelles was our last man? He looks directly at Ighalo before the ball is played and doesn't make any effort to get near him. Just a lazy step up instead. Well, he had managed to perfectly execute the offside line to catch Ighalo, just the linesman fucked it up. The second goal was more Colo not doing his job properly, he should have been far stronger and closed Cathcarthorse down or even got a foot in to stop it getting to him. What about Mitro just standing watching Cathcart?

I just don't understand what you mean when you say random champions in a derisive way. I mean....the team that wins is the best team. This is where we'll never see eye to eye, I figure. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. Would it produce some really exciting moments? Of course it would, but do you know how dull a #4 Spurs vs. #5 Man Utd. match would be? LVG would be playing for 1-0 or penalties. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way? The Giants were the best team and had the best quarterback to be fair like.

I'm not after watching him today. Looks like he's spent the last six months on a Caribbean beach. Now I can understand why Chelsea might be willing to let him go out on loan. Aye, he looked a bit rusty yesterday mind.

Unlike you to judge a player's ability so soon. What was that about Demba Ba again?! Did you even read what I'd wrote?? I said it was a strange signing for January as he's expected to hit the ground running and change things. If signed in the summer window he has pre season to get to know the players and establish himself. We need a striker who can create chances himself as well as convert them, Loic Remy fits that bill and is what we need.

For your sake I hope you're not as consistently wrong in the rest of your life as you are on here. So he's fantastic every week is he? He's anonymous for the majority of the time.

This is what Boro fans used to moan about every week about him. Every week he would say they were magnificent. We huffed and puffed and had a few half chances but without a top drawer goalscoring centre forward to convert them we aren't gonna win many games.

There's a difference between recognising that Riviere is not as bad as made out to be and actually rating him. He's not a goalscorer, as I've always said, but he's not as bad as others make out. Wijnaldum is fraud, luxury player who 9 times out of 10 isn't worth a shirt.

I've not had a drink all day. I do not like Wijnaldum, he's a passenger in most of our games, completely anonymous.

Unlucky? It's just not good enough. Was low towards the corner and Gomes was going the other way and just got a foot to it?? I don't think he did a lot wrong other than sidefooting it instead of leathering it.

I don't really understand why we've signed this lad and would prefer a match fit Tiote. A strange January signing, summer okay, but January when what you need is players who can hit the ground running and turn your season around?