Raconteur

Gary Caldwell's Wigan career's going well: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=756070&sec=england&root=england&cc=3436 (NB For those who click that link, feel free to go apoplectic at the last paragraph of the "Wonder of Roo" story...)

A story does make one stop and think - I can think of two particular cases during my "playing" days when I was guilty of tackles that might be described as wanton. One in particular saw a striker say "I teach you something" before going around me like I was a training cone. I spun around and scythed him down - it was purely retaliatory violence. At the time I felt great about it (the cunt wasn't laughing as they carried him off) but having read a story like the one above I do feel some guilt, "That could so easily have been me"...

Scholes > Beckham > Lampard = Gerrard That's over the timeframe described. I've always thought Scholes was phenomenal (btw was it Keegan who described Scholes as someone who drops "hand grenades in the box"?) Genuine class - even if he is a butcher of a tackler! I always thought Beckham was overrated because of his pretty face and sweet right foot, but there's so much more to his game. His engine, his example to others, his professionalism and dedication to his craft. There's a reason Milan signed him twice on loan, even at his age... Lampard and Gerrard I couldn't split - both have their claims but I just can't decide. Lampard is as regular as a metronome when it comes to scoring, and as has been said before Gerrard has carried his team for a decade. Until Torres signed they were a one-man-band. But he's an odious wanker, and a serial diver to boot. I also notice that there are precious few "others" I wracked my brain and the only two suggestions I could think of were Ince and Mcmanamann. Neither of whom could match even Lampard or Gerrard, but might be "best of the rest"...?

See, this is what really gets my goat - and why I struggle to understand why any NUFC fan would have a shred of sympathy for Pompey's plight. Allow me to explain: If Pompey hadn't spent so recklessly, and instead managed their affairs responsibly, wouldn't it be possible that they might not have been so competitive last season? It might be drawing a long bow, but it stands to reason that their spend-spend-spend policy played a part in us going down? I'm not saying that it was wholly responsible for our relegation, but remember how tight it was, and yes Pompey finished seven points above us. But it stands to reason that those seven points were accrued by players that Pompey simply couldn't afford. Which is just another reason why I say "Fuck Portsmouth"

Salary Caps = illegal, easily circumvented and ridiculous if not universal Reduced transfer fees = contravening basic laws of capitalism ie supply and demand, willing buyer and reluctant seller Home-based players = illegal, counterproductive How about chairman be forced to undergo a basic economics class? Hell, even a sixth-grade maths test would stump some of these idiots...

As if the EU would stand for any of these proposals. And how long would it take for a new "Bosman" to challenge the illegal nature of many of them? Football is one of the most cutthroat free-market businesses there is, with owners (and players) being free to make like bandits or go bankrupt trying. Fuck Pompey, let them go to the wall. They've got no one to blame but themselves, and while my heart goes out to the two or three fans they have, they're in the same boat as customers of failed businesses...

I'm pretty sure I read that Lampard used to smoke (at least during his younger days). And we all know Joey Barton likes a cigar

I would have thought any "Top 10 crazy football club owners" list would include Jesus Gil...? And any number of Brazilian owners... Oh, wait - they forgot to put the word British in the title

I'm very much an outsider in that I've been observing this story from half a world away, but it seems to me that the people who think this is no big deal aren't looking at the situation from a personal level: If you've been dating a girl for however many years and have a kid with her, you're going to be pissed off if your best mate knocks boots with her, whether it's before or after you break up. There's a man's code, and that's bro's before ho's (or the more PC mates before dates). Think about it in that perspective, put yourself in Bridge's position, and tell me you wouldn't feel betrayed. Sure, there's resentment for the girl too, but if they've broken up then there's probably a lot of ill feeling there anyway. Surely all the people sticking up for Terry aren't teenaged virgins? Think about you, your bird and your best mate, and then tell me it's no big deal... What I've been curious about is: has there been any outcry from the UK "Pro-life" crowd? (Is there any such crowd?) Pulpit thumpers decrying the England captain's procurement of a termination - and the alleged 20k "cheering up" money? Because as deplorable as Terry's treatment of Bridge was, this aspect struck me as particularly grubby.

Exactly what I was thinking - the parents and grandparents rule won England the Ashes That said, it doesn't always work out that shite players turn out for second rate nations - sometimes second rate nations lose players to "better" countries thanks to this rule. In the 2006 World Cup, the Croatian team that played Australia contained three Australian-born players (Simunic, Seric and Didiluca) who turned their backs on the country on the land of their birth to play for the "better" nation of their forefathers. Which made kicking them out of the tournament that much sweeter...

I would have thought that both Bellamy and Speed, for instance, were both outstanding while here - hardly falling into the category of players who thrive after leaving. And at a stretch you could say the same for Zog and Milner - while their careers have gone in an upward trajectory, one must consider their age and the fact that they did both improve and play at a good standard while here...

What he said

For me there is a difference between "diving" and "simulation". The latter describes what Vialli (and "float one in") is talking about - if a defender sticks his leg out and the attacker falls over it, then there is a degree of culpability by the defender. For example, in the 2006 World Cup Fabio Grosso fell over Lucas Neill's leg, sending Australia home - an event that saw most Aussies foam at the mouth with outrage. But from where I'm sitting, Neill was a bloody fool for having his leg there. "Diving", for me, describes where an attacker goes to ground without any contact from a defender (as well as the rolling and screaming attendant to it). In this case, the defender is totally blameless - he is within the laws of the game yet is being punished by the outright cheating of his opponent. Simulation is bad but excusable but diving is cheating and always wrong. However, there is a grey area - think of our own Jonas who goes down rather easily. Just last season the likes of Owen and Duff also fell over more often that force and gravity should have dictated. Were they diving or simulating...? In the context of English diving v foreign diving, it has alway annoyed me that English players get a free ride from English commentators. Gerrard must be the worst diver in England but is rarely called on it (though karma meant he didn't win a pen on Sunday!). The likes of Owen, Joe Cole and Rooney are consistently trying to cheat the refs - and as the bigfella says, it's not as though diving is a recent phenomenon nor necessarily a foreign one - it wasn't imported by Jurgen Klinsmann!

See, here I was trying to be positive and think "Hey, we're playing shite and still top of the league. Just imagine if we started playing to our potential (or even just to the level we know we can play at)" So things are shite off the pitch, so we've got a nuffy managing the team and an utter wanker owning us, so if this squad went up we'd be battered weekly. The fact remains that we are top of the league and have it within our hands to absolutely stroll to the title. Let's take some enjoyment from it...? Or maybe I'm just wearing black- and white-tinted glasses...?

No, he hasn't signed for anyone, and isn't likely to either... EDIT: Also, Bridges has played here before, having been on Sydney FC's books the season before last.

Well, I have to admit that being a fence-sitter at the time of Keegan's dismissal, leaning in the Ashley/Wise direction, there is now no doubt that I was one of thousands hoodwinked by the PR shenanigans highlighted in the arbiters findings. All those months of saying "What did Wise do that caused him to be the target of such hate" - well, I feel a right goose now! I guess what really annoys me is that the "continental system" has real potential - but only if it is the one the club claimed they had, not the horrible reality they actually created. The system will work if the owner is progressive, and if the manager and director of football work closely together and yet there is a clear demarcation of responsibility. The Wise/Vetere/Jiminez/Keegan team had none of that - and could not have been exemplified better with the "YouTube" remark, which is a clear slap in the face to Keegan. There are a few questions that remain unanswered, but the one I want answered is "Exactly how injured was Gonzalez for the 2008-09 season?" Was it all just another lie to keep him out of the limelight?

For me, working out who I detest more comes down to what I wish for that player: Given - I hope he ends up trophyless after a few years of being a nearly-man until finally replaced by a superstar keeper City can clearly afford. Owen - I hope he breaks both legs, and then after coming back from that does an ACL. So clearly I detest Owen more

Fair play that you're mates with Scotty Mac - and I was very excited when he was coming through because our lack of strikers after Viduka has been very worrying for a long time. Truth be told I hope Verbeek stays with the 4-2-3-1 formation with Kennedy up top and supported by Kewell-Cahill-Bresciano with Culina and Grella behind them. And in that formation Viduka would be perfect, as all three attacking midfielders would run off him all day and score bags of goals. You're also right to say that Verbeek has always left the door open for the V-bomber. But if he really wanted to play, he would have by now. (In classic "ITK, friend of a friend" mode) I've heard that Viduka's heart just isn't in it - the idea of a "last hurrah" is far removed from what I've been told...

Viduka has little interest in the World Cup - he hasn't played for Australia for more than two years (indeed, he has never played under Pim Verbeek). As much as the idea of Scott MacDonald leading the line in Australia has me shaking in terror, Viduka playing instead just isn't realistic. And as for playing on in the A-League, let me reproduce an interview which says pretty clearly to me that it isn't going to happen: http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/aussies-abroad/viduka-coming-back-home-233797

What are the odds of Taylor refusing to move?

The only quote in the article relating to transfers is "I am realistic enough to know that if I’m still in the seat as the weeks go on, discussions will have to take place over players going and so on, but at the moment it hasn’t happened.” Move along people, nothing to see here...

Duff - Carroll up front might be a fair shout, with Jonas and Lua Lua on the flanks. I don't think Hughton is the most courageous manager, but Duff up front is the most "conservative" of the tinkering moves he could make. Ameobi - Carroll just isn't good enough, and for all Duff's faults (and there are many) then it might just tickle Hughton's curiosity. Another option he might take would be to thrust Barton on the right - a move that would make many Toon fans scream with rage (as it would mean Nolan in the middle), but he seems to have this "senior players must play" mentality. EDIT: I just realised that's pretty much what Yorkie said on page one!)

Show me where I am wrong. You're the one saying one thing proves another, not me. Lets say you were my boss, and I said I wasn't coming in to work one day because I refused to travel. You would sack me for refusing to work. Same thing here. Not if I'd already told you you weren't needed that day, you moron. Look: We know he refused to travel. We don't know whether he was selected to play. We know Hughton says he wasn't selected to play. Those are the facts. You're the one assuming that means he refused to play. All I'm saying is you can't say that as fact. Fair enough. Still it shows that he was in a huff and disobeying club command. "Seb, I want you to chip in for the plane up to Dundee, so you can sit on the bench and cheer the lads on. Okay with you mate?"

His reputation is in tatters, and if the agency he employed to sell the club for him say "Accept or else we quit", then that reputation will be even more shredded... That said, he might not give a flying fuck for his reputation any more - he certainly isn't concerned with looking like a dick every time he goes up against Whelan...