Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Not Worthy Of A Thread

Thespence

by Thespence
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jill

Jill

Posted
Posted

The Puskas award (for best goal of 2010)- http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/puskasaward/index.html

Can watch all the goals nominated on the link. I know its not on the list, but everytime I see Pavlyuchenko's goal versus Bolton, I struggle to think of a better goal

 

Was actually really impressed with Yokoyama's goal untill I realised that they were girls, which btw, took too long for my comfort.

 

It's easy to spot as because they're so shit she actually manage to do what she does it must be women's football. Hardly an achievement as women's football isn't a real sport.

 

While on the subject, why are women trying to be equal when it's a natural fact that men and women will be built physically different? Their football suffer from the low keepers and big goals, also the pace suffers because they're slower than most males. Why not just shrink the pitch a tiny bit and have a size smaller goals? It would improve their game to the unrecognisable in my opinion, would perhaps even make it possible to watch.

 

I agree. :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Segun Oluwaniyi

Segun Oluwaniyi

Posted
Posted

The Puskas award (for best goal of 2010)- http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/puskasaward/index.html

Can watch all the goals nominated on the link. I know its not on the list, but everytime I see Pavlyuchenko's goal versus Bolton, I struggle to think of a better goal

 

Was actually really impressed with Yokoyama's goal untill I realised that they were girls, which btw, took too long for my comfort.

 

It's easy to spot as because they're so s*** she actually manage to do what she does it must be women's football. Hardly an achievement as women's football isn't a real sport.

I don't understand all this nonsense about women's football not being a "real sport". It's clearly a sport, just not one that you enjoy. They don't really need to change the rules, they just need the general level of the players to improve, which will occur if the sport spreads and becomes more popular. I really don't think any of the problems with the game at current are to do with physical limitations.

 

As for goal size, there are plenty of six foot tall girls about and it is not as if the scores are significantly higher than men's football except when poor teams play top teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaizero

Kaizero

Posted
Posted

The Puskas award (for best goal of 2010)- http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/puskasaward/index.html

Can watch all the goals nominated on the link. I know its not on the list, but everytime I see Pavlyuchenko's goal versus Bolton, I struggle to think of a better goal

 

Was actually really impressed with Yokoyama's goal untill I realised that they were girls, which btw, took too long for my comfort.

 

It's easy to spot as because they're so s*** she actually manage to do what she does it must be women's football. Hardly an achievement as women's football isn't a real sport.

I don't understand all this nonsense about women's football not being a "real sport". It's clearly a sport, just not one that you enjoy. They don't really need to change the rules, they just need the general level of the players to improve, which will occur if the sport spreads and becomes more popular. I really don't think any of the problems with the game at current are to do with physical limitations. 

 

As for goal size, there are plenty of six foot tall girls about and it is not as if the scores are significantly higher than men's football except when poor teams play top teams.

 

The Norwegian league is pretty much the second best league in the world after the US, and the scores are fucked up each week. Like the cup final with two of the best teams in the country... it ended 7-0 and there might as well not have been a keeper on the pitch. Our standard of league for the women is top notch compared to a lot of other countries, and it's the second most popular sport for women to play here after handball. There is definiately something fundamentally wrong with the way the woman's side of football is played, and unless it will be a sport only for giant women and not your averagely tall women it'd be even more of a niche sport than it is Internationally now. Most women playing football are around 5ft3 to 5ft7, just as those heights are pretty much the average height of women.

 

You see this in the US as well, there's just something not right. It's not as it'd be massive differences, just a slightly smaller area of pitch and a slightly smaller goal to compensate for the physical difference between the genders to provide a more competitive and entertaining incarnation of the sport.

 

Also, the general level of the best female players are no doubt up there with a lot of the best men. I went to college with two female players who at the time had represented Norway in youth Internationals, and it was impossible to play against them. Granted, I'm a pretty shit footballer, but they were just impossible to come up against. I don't think the standard is necessary low, I just think the physicality limits the way the game is played by females compared to males. So unless you start only allowing above average heigth women to play professional women's football, I don't see how my point would not remain valid.

 

And oh, of course it's a real sport. It's just poking fun at it due to the apparent lack of quality compared to male football, a lack of quality which in my opinion is down to playing after the exact same set-up even though the difference in physicality between the genders creates the illusion of the quality being low even though the footballing ability present is actually not bad, at the top clubs at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest neesy111

Guest neesy111

Posted
Posted

 

c***s! the pair of them  :angry:

Shame Zenden has to play for that lot, as I've always liked him. Apart from playing for them, he doesn't strike me as a cunt at all.

Gyan on the other hand can fuck right off.

 

Football video  :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave

Dave

Posted
Posted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/9202453.stm

Man Utd boss Sir Alex Ferguson 'too old' for retirement

18 November 10 10:39

 

Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson has reiterated his desire to remain in management for the foreseeable future.

 

Ferguson turns 69 in December but has no plans to relinquish the post at Old Trafford, which he has held since 1986.

 

"Retirement is for young people," said the Scot. "I'm too old to retire. I would have nothing to do.

 

"As long as my health is in good condition I will carry on. My family will make this decision."

 

Ferguson, who won the European Cup in 1999, almost retired in 2002 but changed his mind and went on to win the Champions League again in 2008.

 

In the same year he celebrated a half-century in football having made his debut for Queen's Park as a 16-year-old on 15 November 1958.

 

He admitted his style has changed in 36 years as a manager but confirmed he is still prepared to give players the 'hairdryer' treatment and lose his temper if warranted.

 

"I've mellowed a great deal," the former East Stirling, St Mirren, Aberdeen and Scotland boss admitted.

 

"The world has changed and so have players' attitudes. I'm dealing with more fragile human beings than I used to be. They are cocooned by modern parents, agents, even their own image at times.

 

"They need to be seen with their tattoos and earrings. Some players even cry now in the dressing room - [former captain] Bryan Robson never used to cry.

 

"It's a different world for me so I have had to adapt. There is nothing wrong with losing your temper if it's for the right reasons. But I never leave it until the next day. I don't believe in that."

 

News emerged this week that United's American owners plan to reduce the financial pressure on the club by paying off high-interest loans, estimated to be worth £220m.

 

The Glazer family's £790m takeover in 2005 has provoked much criticism and resulted in the setting up of breakaway fans' club, FC United of Manchester, as well as the Green and Gold protest movement.

 

But Ferguson said he was "privileged" to work with owners who let him focus solely on running the team.

 

"They have never bothered me or interfered with my job," he added. "I'm probably in a privileged position. Some owners are hands on because they've invested a lot of money, not just foreign owners.

 

"I've heard stories of owners texting managers during training sessions, English owners. Just because people are successful in business, doesn't mean they will be successful at a football club."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roger Kint

Guest Roger Kint

Posted
Posted

Just been on another forum and theres a poll after last night: What was the worst/most devastating defeat this century?

 

The lad had the 2-2 draw with Greece in there :mackems:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lagerstedt

Lagerstedt

Posted
Posted

All we need is Torres to pull up with an injury, and have the game switched to Anfield, and we've got a chance now :laugh:

 

Doesn't Hodgson have an awful away PL record?

 

IIRC, according to the Guardian podcast he has only won 11 games away from home in his last six years as a Premier League manager..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Lol

Martin Lol

Posted
Posted

Looking more and more likely that Spurs will make the move to the Olympic Stadium at Stratford with their Partnership with AEG.

 

The West Ham bid needs the Newham Council to lend them £150m to complete the refurbishment after the Olympics have finished, money the Council doesn't have and I would guess would be loathe to borrow.

 

Local MP tweets the realisation that Levy is serious about moving out and the Olympic Inspector says that the Athletics Legacy doesn't necessarily have to be in the Olympic Park, Spurs are looking to do up Crystal Palace. 

 

Can't say I'll be happy if it happens but the Olympic option is said to be over £200m cheaper.

 

 

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/football/1813283-london-2012-spurs-deadly-serious-with-olympic-stadium-bid-says-tottenham-mp

 

 

http://www.itv.com/london/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roger Kint

Guest Roger Kint

Posted
Posted

Teams getting 'free' stadiums irks me rather a lot.

 

Free stadium plus massive profits from filling it. There must be some hefty price tag on it otherwise its a joke, How much did it cost? Is it about £150m just to convert it after the Olympics for football?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disco

Disco

Posted
Posted

Teams getting 'free' stadiums irks me rather a lot.

 

Free stadium plus massive profits from filling it. There must be some hefty price tag on it otherwise its a joke, How much did it cost? Is it about £150m just to convert it after the Olympics for football?

 

Completely unfair on the other teams in the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JH

JH

Posted
Posted

How on earth do West Ham need another £150m? It's supposedly a World-class facility that will have just staged the 2012 Olympics - does it really cost £150m to paint white lines and stick up a couple of goalposts? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...