Taylor Swift

I love the fact that most of them list their income as $250000+

Too lazy to type 'em up bluebigrazz.gif You can also view other profiles that aren't listed btw. The comments on Lampard's one is hilarious. Some random girl said

Some myspace sites available for your own perusing Steven Taylor - /steventaylor27 (note - obviously put in www.myspace.com before the /) Bob Zamora - /bobbyzman Dawson - /michaeldawson20 Wes Brown - /bigbadwes - K Dyer - /kdyer8 Ian Wright - /ianwrightwrightwright Momo Sissoko - /sissoko Got 'em from the latest issue of Four Four Two. Enjoy!

Don't think they were feeling too good about themselves after losing the goal right before the game ended. If I were playing, I wouldn't be feeling happy as well and my thoughts would be regarding the goal, not the fans. I'm sure if they scored earlier, the feelings of the fans and the players wouldn't be so bad. Gutted we didn't win, especially losing a goal right at the death.

Vicky, Try as much as you like but you'll never manage to compete against someone to whom it comes naturally. He wasn't trying to compete with you, you're safe.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid. Is that your reply? Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault? On what evidence did he make that appointment? He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence! Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football? What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn? I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time. So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't? So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough :lol: Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right? so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period? The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement. We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened. He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on. As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend. :winking: Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ? No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record. Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'. I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet? so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ? What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ? Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time. Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet? why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD. is it sinking in yet ? And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ? Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)? NE5? No response? hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ? Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ? A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment? If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record? Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job? Just quoting this 'cos it's the longest quote I've seen

How is Hargreaves scum for saying he's Canadian because he was born and raised in Canada? It's called pride. Perhaps it's because he's so proud of being Canadian that he plays for England? Not that you can blame the lad really. Perhaps it's because playing for England would get him more exposure than playing for Canada? The choice to play for England may not actually be anything related to pride, but more to do with his ambition and drive to succeed. If he were playing for Canada, he probably wouldn't have impressed so many England supporters this past summer, he wouldn't be attracting the interest of clubs such as Man United and wouldn't be one of the most important players in the one of the top leagues in the world. You're right of course, just like no one's heard of players like Ryan Giggs or George Best. Look, I don't blame the lad for not wanting to waste his international career, but if I was Canadian I might be a bit pissed off that he'd rather play for another country than help his own national team. It's called pride. Have I been owned? Look, personally, I'm proud to call myself Thai but realize that I'm actually Indian. If I were to represent Thailand in any sport, I'd be happy to do so but I'm also proud that I'm Indian btw. I realize this is not exactly the same as the situation with Hargreaves, but it's not a black and white thing when it comes to nationality and national pride.

Cech is prone to howlers and Van der Sar is shit at long shots (ask Manyoo fans or just remember Mendieta's goal last season). Although Given doesn't organize the back four real well, I don't think it's a necessary thing for goalkeepers to do. Buffon rarely does, same with Casillas. It's an added bonus thing that some keepers bring, such as Schmeichel but it's not a pre-requisite for being a fantastic keeper, which Shay certainly is btw. And so what if his command of the box isn't the best? We rarely lose goals from corners and free-kicks btw, and when we do, it's down to shit marking, something that Given isn't and shouldn't be responsible for. With regards to penalties, it's another rare quality for a keeper to have. Cech doesn't possess this quality, neither does Casillas btw. PS. I'd rather have a keeper that can win us points than a keeper that can kick straight. Shay's not perfect, but he's arguably been the most consistent footballer in the Premiership in the past couple of seasons, and combined with his ability to not get injured, he's one of the best out there. I won't be surprised at how many problems people will have with our next goalkeeper because we've been extremely fortunate that Shay has set his and our's standards amazingly high, and his boots will be hard to fill.

You rate Carr and think Milner's shite Says a lot about you tbh.

How is Hargreaves scum for saying he's Canadian because he was born and raised in Canada? It's called pride. Perhaps it's because he's so proud of being Canadian that he plays for England? Not that you can blame the lad really. Perhaps it's because playing for England would get him more exposure than playing for Canada? The choice to play for England may not actually be anything related to pride, but more to do with his ambition and drive to succeed. If he were playing for Canada, he probably wouldn't have impressed so many England supporters this past summer, he wouldn't be attracting the interest of clubs such as Man United and wouldn't be one of the most important players in the one of the top leagues in the world.

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position. That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better. PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter. Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off.... I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture. What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile? Yea, the season where we were headed towards relegation, couldn't score goals and played the worst football this club has seen since the Dalglish era. That must be the season you're talking about, right? It surely can't be the second half of the season where we went on a run because Parker had glandular fever and our central midfield pairing was Emre/Faye/Bowyer/Dyer (for a couple of games). Mate, I was a Parker fan. I lauded his contributions and thought he was the only player consistently showing heart. I've always thought this of him and thought that if we were to lose him, we'd be in big trouble. However, during the times that we did lose him (like the end of last season and the recent run we had), we played better football, scored more goals and last season, sneaked into Europe. Now I'm not saying Parker's shite because all that harrying and hustling is a good quality however, it's just not a positive for the team, and the only thing we should all really care about is the team. Our central midfield lose shape because of Parker's lack of discipline, and because of the incompatibility between Emre and Parker, the attack is not supported with quality or consistency from the central midfield spots. His passing is also below average, which is why you rarely see a forward pass from him - he also doesn't have the vision needed. Emre does, but the opportunities to utilize this vision is limited because he has defensive duties, something which an attacking midfielder shouldn't have much of. Since last season, I've seen more and more evidence that we are better off without Parker in the center of midfield and recent results have supported this theory.

How is Hargreaves scum for saying he's Canadian because he was born and raised in Canada? It's called pride.

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any fucking clue about playing in position. That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better. To play as a DM you need discipline though. I don't mind Dyer running around because he is suppose to be 'floating around'. I also don't mind it when he's playing in the AM position because it shouldn't affect the way we defend that much if the rest of our midfielders are disciplined (which they clearly aren't btw - Emre can't even stay on the left when he's supposed to, Parker doesn't understand the word 'controlled aggression' etc.).

Sorry, but jumping on some comments made about Parker being to blame for a goal is too simplistic. When I talk about Parker I'm talking about his contribution over the entire time he's been at the club. During that time it's clear his passing isn't up to the role of anchorman, he is nowhere near as good as Butt in this role and never will be because he doesn't have the range of pass, he doesn't have the ability to read the game as well and see the pass before he's even received the ball. This is what really good anchormen do. Butt does this and also like really good anchormen he does it in an unspectacular style that goes largely unnoticed. Meanwhile, Parker dives into last ditch challenges, wonderful 100% blood and thunder stuff, but he twirls as though he's drilling for oil and passes the ball backwards 90% of the time, slowing down our attacks in a ridiculous fashion. All in my opinion of course. I can only think of one midfielder who could hold their head up high on that point, and evan THAT'S a tenuous one. Rob Lee, Ginola, Solano, Gary Speed... That took me barely 10 seconds to think of. You might also be able to add Robert and maybe some of the underrated ones such as Acuna in as well.

VDS has a lot a lot more experience than Ben Foster. While Foster is doing great and learning fast in Watford, VDS is doing well in Manchester United. If the current keeper is an integral part to the best defense in premiership, why replace him with a "potentially" better keeper? Foster has not had the authority of VDS earned through experience and medals. I doubt the likes of Ferdinand, Brown, Silvestre, Neville will listen to the commands of Foster. You have some sort of fetish with Man United players, especially the young ones!

In the end, it's all coaching. It's why Arsenal's style of football hasn't really changed in 10 years, even with the massive turnover in players. Losing arguably one of the finest midfielders to have graced the Premiership (Vieira), they're still playing flowing football and have seemingly replaced him with a different but arguably more effective player (Fabregas). Coaching is also why Manyoo's style of football hasn't changed as well. And it's why both of these teams have been successful and why they will still be successful if their respective managers and coaches remain, even if they continue to change their players. The system works, and that's the key.

I don't remember seeing one good forward pass from Parker in the game at all. Most of the passes he makes are just layoffs back to the defender who actually fucking passed the ball to him. He just runs towards the defender from the center of the pitch, then taps the ball that is passed to him back to the original passer. The ball then gets hoofed up bluesigh.gif He doesn't even turn to face their goal often enough and pass the ball forward and it contributes to why we lose possession so much and why we're usually under the cosh when he plays. When he does, the passes usually don't find their man (take notice of this in the next game - his forward passing in the Bolton and Everton game was atrocious). Parker was good when the team was shite, remember that. We always played shite football under Souness, always under the cosh, could never string more than 5 passes together yet during that time, Parker shown through because he excels when a team is under pressure, he excels when he's having opportunities to make last-ditch tackles. That's not a bad thing on his part, but it is a negative when in consideration with the type of football we would like to play and how we should be attacking other teams, not vice versa. We never really onced played a team off the park during the Souness era, we might have hustled them off the park (ie. against Arsenal at home) but it was a rarity that we won the game because of the way we passed the ball. In this season alone, we have already played Portsmouth off the park and in the other games [when Parker was injured], our attacking play has been much improved, showed in the increase of goals during the 'run'.

A healthy 38 points lead after the first leg

10m on two fullbacks. Forget about the strikers for now man, we're not going to do much in the league anyways. We have to stay lucky with injuries (which probably won't happen) if we're to have any chance of making a big run and move up the table. I say just let's start over and consider this season a one of transition, one that we can use to sort out the defence for the next few years. Then the summer will arrive where we can evaluate Shola's and Owen's respective physical conditions, then proceed on from there knowing we'll still have Martins who is quality. Much better than spending 5m+ on someone who'll have to sit on the bench when Mickey comes back. Our potential striking partnership has costed us 27m to assemble, no need to spend more money. Just start over. Obviously some people might point out the fact that we're one injury away from being plunged into the relegation dogfight, well, you know what, buying a shit striker for 2m isn't the answer. We need to spend big on a striker if we're to spend because we need goals, and I don't think it's a good idea to spend 10m on a striker who'll have to sit on the bench. PS. 'You can't lose if you don't concede' 'Defence wins championships' etc. etc. Defenders people, defenders!

We were missing a certain someone who I believe could have done this I think you know him very well. Woodgate doesn't play for us anymore Ramage still does

We were missing a certain someone who I believe could have done this I think you know him very well.

Not really a positive at all. He did work hard today though and we got a point that none of us could have really expected before the game so credit to the whole team, including Parker of course. I thought you would know what I meant but I shall elaborate. He popped up all over the field, worked his socks off like the parker we know. Unlike a certain Emre who, despite being a quality quality player, is very fragile it seems. Mate, I did understand your original point but I feel that's actually a negative. When Butt plays, he's never 'all over the place', he sticks in his position and is disciplined. Parker just seems to float around for a bit then suddenly gravitate towards the ball, and with Emre not having the best closing down skills, that's why Manyoo had so much time and space on the ball right in front of penalty area. I thought that if Parker spent his time actually guarding his position and staying in a designated 'zone', we wouldn't have allowed their central midfielders all the time and space in front of our area and wouldn't have allowed them to dictate the game as much as they did.

Are you thinking about adamsforthetoon.com??

We don't really get the chance to get carried away too often with our defenders so why not take advantage of the opportunity when it comes along?

Think John Terry you should feel better now And it's not like Rio is a shite defender as well!!