Ronaldo

At a guess Bowyer vs Dyer? :lol:

The Milan fans have & they seemed to have rated him pretty highly. as do I I don't think he was ever the world's best player though The thing with Kaka I think he has to be one of them you watch you every week as he does not do the stuff that gets highlights like Ronaldo & Messi. courtesy of Sky Bet Player I watched him for most games last season, he's damn good but in the premiership I'd rather have Lampard

The Milan fans have & they seemed to have rated him pretty highly. as do I I don't think he was ever the world's best player though

How many people have watched Kaka week in, week out? He's great but nowhere near as good as has been perpetuated by the mainstream media

yep, bang on. Shearer was twice the player but by no means had anything like the first touch of Viduka

One of the maddest posts ever in internet history It's mad now, sure, but at the time Lampard was in the final year of his contract with Chelsea stalling on a new deal, whilst we on the other hand had a billionaire owner in charge who was supposedly willing to pump money into landing a major star player or two. If we had done what Man City did regarding Robinho (or what we did with Owen from Real), and offered Lampard £200k per week or more, would he honestly have said "no"? Without doubt. Kaka was on the verge of a move to Man City. He's easily better than Lampard, recently the best player in the world, has a higher profile worldwide, and was considering a move to a mid table club with a sitting duck in Mark Hughes in charge. Money talks. Lampard is greedy. It was a possibility, even if a remote one, and hence I don't think Keegan including the player on a wishlist is a sign of madness. what an absolute load of nonsense Not really, but without meaning to be disrespectful (it's your opinion after all) then you've stated you believe Lampard to be better than Xavi, despite Xavi outclassing him in every single meaningful encounter so far, so I'd expect this from you. Kaka has put in high quality performances in the CL and at international level in big games. Not consistently enough given his talent and he can go missing at times, but he's at least shown his class at that level. Lampard on the other hand has done nothing other than look like a plodder at those same levels in similar big games. yeah, he went missing in the champions league final didn't he. How about last season's quarter final? Lampard wont shine if conservative tactics are being employed, but he's still done well in those situations imo.

I admit it, I really like Hughton now and will be severely pissed off if Shearer gets the job without us slipping up. I hope he doesn't spoil it by playing Nicky Butt tomorrow and on Wednesday

He'll get 15-20 this season and be nailed on to start every game in the premiership next season, where he'll get 5-7

Owen didn't leave the bench, yet again. Where are all the daft idiots saying that he'd be top scorer this season? Honestly

One of the maddest posts ever in internet history It's mad now, sure, but at the time Lampard was in the final year of his contract with Chelsea stalling on a new deal, whilst we on the other hand had a billionaire owner in charge who was supposedly willing to pump money into landing a major star player or two. If we had done what Man City did regarding Robinho (or what we did with Owen from Real), and offered Lampard £200k per week or more, would he honestly have said "no"? Without doubt. Kaka was on the verge of a move to Man City. He's easily better than Lampard, recently the best player in the world, has a higher profile worldwide, and was considering a move to a mid table club with a sitting duck in Mark Hughes in charge. Money talks. Lampard is greedy. It was a possibility, even if a remote one, and hence I don't think Keegan including the player on a wishlist is a sign of madness. what an absolute load of nonsense

you can get 12/5 that's just daft, where is that?

we're 2/1 to win tomorrow, pretty good odds if you ask me

Did Shola's goals win more games? I don't know the answer but that might be why. Chopra's goals have won them 3 and helped them draw 1, so no

That is unbelievable, i hope it pisses off the little cunt no end

just stuck my £2 winnings on Man U Draw Inter Win Milan Win Us Win Villa Win Fulham Draw returns £275

did you forget it had 10 minutes plus to play?

Merson is an idiot, an actual idot. What is doing on TV? he should be in a home somewhere

Drogba is the fucking man, accumulator back on

Is that son tha boshed the coke? Phil rang his X the lads mother & had right go at her. The son found out about Phil ripping into his mother so he is going to t*** Brown. naughty to tell lies

Try and keep up mate, the discussion isn't at all about effectiveness, we all know who was more effective.

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball. Viduka's first touch was magnificent to the extent you cannot teach. Shearer's was very consistent to be fair but not quite in the same league imo. He seldom miscontrolled it but couldn't really manipulate the ball as well as the Duke. We all know who the better player by far was. I think Shearer had to work a lot harder to become the player he was, is all i'm saying. In a nutshell, Shearer's mentality and discipline combined with Viduka's natural talent (including size) would just about equal the man himself, almost

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? People only remember the battering ram Shearer they forget the Blackburn speedster & goals like he fired past Everton I certainly don't. He was clearly as his best at Blackburn

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. Can you elaborate? That whole natural talent thing is rubbish I think personally. Physicality and determination are as much football skills as controling the ball imo. spoken like a true African, no offense intended whatsoever