Taylor Swift

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=407251&cc=5739

He has been ordinary if you measure him against the expectations of people like you. 10 goals in the Premiership IIRC, FIVE less than his teammate. Plus, how long was that drought of his? 8 games or something? And he had a significant drought in the Champions League as well. That's ordinary from a player that many people would like to build their team around. Yea, you did say 'this season', and in 'this season' Samuel Eto'o has been injured for a significant portion, Ronaldinho has scored 13 league goals and Barcelona lead the Primera Liga. Of course Barcelona build a team around Ronaldinho, why wouldn't they build a team around the two-time World Player of the Year? And I'm pretty sure they're going to continue with this policy with them winning quite a few trophies in the past couple of years, are you suggesting they change this philosophy? There's a fallacy in your argument, because 'building around' does not = over reliance. And that off balance shite is just that, shite. So what if your best player floats around and has no real position? Are you saying Arsenal are off balance because Henry plays on the left and he's their best player? That doesn't equal to a team being 'off-balance' if the planned 'balance' of the team is so that they attack from their strongest side, which in Barca's case, is the left. Would you rather let them be more 'balanced' and try attacking from another side? You go through your best players and maximize their time on the ball because they are your BEST players. That's a rule in every sport tbh. Barca do this and that's why they're the best in Europe, and that's why I rate Ronaldinho so highly. Ronaldinho is underrated (evidence is shown here tbh, ONLY 15% have voted for him) because he plays in a league that is not watched as much as the Premiership is. Lampard is DEFINITELY overrated, I'm surprised you even included him. Gerrard received exposure because of his play in important games such as the FA Cup and the Champions League. With Ronaldo? He's obviously not being hyped up as much as Fabregas is, and thus, is irrelevant. Plus, if he was hyped up, I'd say he's living up to the hype with being the best player in the team that is actually leading the Premiership. Chastising him for one tournament? How about the tournament that he actually won?? And what has Fabregas done for Spain? He wasn't even a starter in the WC! Because I wanted to see what the Rooney backers would say when I mentioned the fact that Ronaldo has been much more impressive than Rooney this season. Does he NEED to improve? Tell you what, Fabregas is immense and if it wasn't for Gerrard and Ronaldinho, he'd be my pick. But he hasn't won anything and hasn't shown that winning personality. Of course he has time and all that but building a team based on the 'potential' of one player isn't the best philosophy if you can build another team with a player who is used to winning and will probably make you a winner. And that's the point I've been trying to make. I'm not the type to wait and hope Fabregas develops so the team can win a few titles when I know Ronaldinho will win me probably a few as well. He's had 8 international caps, don't talk about him 'doing well' The second statement illustrates how good Ronaldinho is now. Before, he was a flashy player who came in and out of games. Ineffective for the most part with moments of brilliants in between. Now? He's a much different player. Look at how every team shapes up when they play Barcelona, the right wing hardly exists because it's sacrificed to protect the RB position, yet Barca keep winning. Even with all the injuries (Gudjohnsen, Eto'o, Xavi etc.), they're still top of their respective league. This leads me to this So are Arsenal successful in your opinion? Are they going to win trophies this season? Are they leading the league?

Hah? Rooney being ordinary this season !!? What's the shame of not outshining Paul Scholes - currently the very best quarter back and attacking midfielder rolled into 1 in premiership (also alledgely favoured by Henry and Fabregas as player of the year), and Nemanja Vidic - who has been absolutely colossal for Manchester United? If anything, Ronaldinho has been pretty low key this season, even annoying his own fans. Rumour also has that Barcelona is not going to renew his contract. You must be fucking joking man Ronaldinho low-key? Does low-key by any chance mean 13 league goals this season? Leading his club, the defending Champions League champs and leader of the Primera Liga, in the goalscoring department? Is that what you mean by low-key? Fucks sake, just because you don't watch him doesn't mean he's shite. He carried Barca into the Champions League final last year, has been inspirational this year with Barca missing Samuel Eto'o and you say he's been 'low-key' So are you saying Barca's team is off-balance then? Are you saying the defending champs of Europe have an off-balanced team? Balance or no balance, I'd take the team that consistently plays the most entertaining football in Europe, AND is successful because of one key player, the two-time world player of the year. The real mind-boggling fact is how underrated Ronaldinho actually is, especially by people who don't see enough of him/Barca to realize his effectiveness (even when he barely seems to be involved). Personally, I think Fabregas is overrated. Not massively overrated but his reputation has certainly been helped by playing for a team in the Premiership, a league watched all over the world. He's also playing in a system that suits him to perfection. Stick him in our team, and he wouldn't be half as effective. That's not the type of player I'd want to build my team around. I wonder what will happen when he eventually leaves Arsenal, his passing and vision is sublime, I give you that, but his lack of pace means that he rarely finishes off anything. Ronaldinho, on the other hand, creates countless goals through his creativity and flair, and like the statistics show, he can finish 'em off as well. Furthermore, he's actually done it all. Won the World Cup, won the Champions League and winning arguably the best league in Europe twice in a row. I understand the picks for Gerrard because he's actually done most of it, and for a shite team in comparison to Barca, but why Rooney and Fabregas? Rooney isn't the best player in his team, that's Cristiano Ronaldo. Sure he has potential but he's not shown that he's improved at all in the past couple of years. His temper is still evident, his form is erratic and he doesn't even have a set role in his own team. Fabregas? I've talked enough about him. IMO, if he wasn't playing in Wenger's team, he wouldn't be the player he is and we'll find this out when he leaves. If being a dirty cunt with little or no tackling ability makes you a defensive player in your book, then Fabregas is a better defensive player than Rooney.

I'm surprised at all the Rooney picks tbh, he's done nothing out of the ordinary this season, he's not even the best player on his own team for Christ's sake. Hasn't done it in the Champions League either. I'm even more surprised by the lack of votes for Ronaldinho, who changes the way any team plays against Barcelona more than anyone realizes.

Dammit, down by 6 pts. 55-61. Still alright, will win the away leg

The scene is set, you have the first pick of your fantasy football. You can pick any player, from any club, any country, anywhere really. Pick one player that you think is ideal to build a team around. The one player that you think is the most valuable, the best, the most gifted, the one that you believe is worthy of being picked 'first', the most influential in all of football.. Any player in the world. Pick ONE.. Considering everything, his skill, the position he plays in, his age, his potential for improvement, his leadership, his 'clutchness' if you like.. Consider all those variables, and pick one player. State why you've chosen your player as well

See what I said about Roeder talking too much? Just shut the fuck up and say nothing until it's confirmed, it stops the building up of anticipation then the frustration that comes afterwards when it doesn't happen. Sir Bob was much better at this than Roeder is, he never said a thing until everything was confirmed.

If they're about to sign Bale, I reckon Heinze would be available, and the fact that teams like Spurs are willing to only offer 5m it makes sense for us to offer say 7m but only after a loan deal, and it'd make sense for Manyoo to accept this offer.

is she fit? ;-) lol You tell me. http://photos-945.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v61/155/75/503245758/n503245758_15945_1516.jpg cautious as to comment as il probably get told thats a bloke or something..... but marks out of ten, id give her one! lol Extremely harsh! either u was offended about the first bit or didnt get the second bit! lol Didn't need the "marks out of 10" bit tbh, confused me for a minute bluebigrazz.gif tee hee! wouldnt really have worked without it! I don't get it bluesigh.gif

One of his picture comments: From a white kid called Badman P. It clearly isn't him like. Anyone can comment on the picture though.

Obviously fake but nonetheless funny. From Igor Biscan's myspace page.

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.