manc-mag

Aye, I didnt think it was Pulitzer stuff myself to be totally honest, so perhaps it's more accurate to say his verbals to camera aren't entirely out of kilter with his newspaper columns. Either way I think he's not doing much to assist.

I'll tell you what like, he clearly knows his audience as far as the Liverpool fans go anyway. Hope the media don't let him off the hook though as his blow up the other day was class. He needs it made clear to him at every turn that the rest of the country think he's a complete twat. Good post btw. Trying to remember the sequence of events of the Cantona thing...did Man U genuinely act before the FA did in suspending him? Or for longer than the FA could have done? I realise there was a prosecution so perhaps you're right as the FA sometimes do nowt if the criminal courts become involved.

Barnes' written articles on racism in football (as posted by Stevie on here previously) get completely undermined when he opens his mouth on camera I reckon. Can only think he must feel massively compromised by the Liverpool connection. It's a bit embarrasing imo, particularly when he was cited by Ferguson as exemplifying where we've come from in English football "John Barnes having bananas thrown at him" and then it cuts to him in the studio and he's basically saying there are worse things going on in the world. Well obviously, but funnily enough as it's a football programme, you're there to comment about the issues surrounding a football match. I get that it must be difficult being singled out in this way to talk about it, but it's a live issue and was always going to be prior to the game (at least potentially), so he'd be best saying he won't appear full stop if that's the best he can offer.

Yeah think that sums it up for me, broadly speaking. Also I'd say it's a reminder (for those that regularly complain about us not being 'attacking' enough), about the importance of making yourself hard to beat, perhaps even to the point of being a bit boring, in the early stages of a game. First thing to do is not lose the game before it's started and it's something we've generally done well this season. Yesterday was the exact opposite of that and it was finished within 20 if not 6 minutes. Pardew had said in the press we were going to 'go for it' against Spurs and I think that's what he did-and that was the result. It was forced on him due to personnel as most of the pundits picked up on, so I'm not going to lay into him for it, but it demonstrates how this team gets its results principally by grafting, defending as an entire unit and then using the counter well. We're not good enough yet to go out and play cavalier stuff so people need to realise that when they're slating Pardew for not going Hatem Globetrotters on the opposition. Spurs are a very good team, and in form, but they weren't super human the other night, we were just awful because we went to 'give them a game' and as a consequence lost any hope of containment.

Trying to sink 6 cans at half time, watch the second half legless.

I don't think theres too much the FA can do by way of penalty just for specifically refusing a handshake. Personally I think it's down to the media and they should hound him until there's a complete turn around from LFC, club and player.

Quality needle from Ferguson today (actually genuinely meant it too I think) and Dalglish losing it beforehand too. Absolutely surreal feeling for me wanting Man U to beat Liverpool and also enjoying watching Fergie get involved in piling on the psychological pressure, knowing how much we suffered in that respect once upon a time. Genuinely surreal.

My word.

The Virgin deal (previously prophesied on here as the 'free shirt sponsorship vehicle for Sports Direct', by those who knew best) could be a firm step back towards decent revenues on the corporate side and see us punching our weight there a bit more. Virgin are a blue chip brand; you'd like to think that would mean some other sponsors follow their lead. If we're genuinely about self-sustaining as an all encompassing discipline, sponsorship is definitely one thing FMA needs to start bucking his ideas up about and bring us some results on that side of house.

Hope Suarez loses it altogether in the second half the fucking odious rat-faced twat. Ps as there's gifs knocking about, has anyone got one of Welbeck's stepovers into touch

yup.

I think it's perfectly right in cases where you're looking at a player who's been sold in the last few years and a bit silly when you're looking at players who were sold ages ago who weren't exactly in the first flushes of youth at the time. Unless you employ some sort of adjustment. But as I say, theres an inherent unrealness in comparing one team to the combined talents of maybe six or seven different previous starting 11's. For me, if less than half of the first team is made up of players sold from that expansive a period of history it probably points to progress... and I think it's nowhere near half a first team's worth.

Good post. A lot of the 'potential of the club' argument gets pinned to our attendances without it actually giving us the massive edge people say it does. It's basically just a slightly nuanced "we're a bigger club than X" argument by the back door, but it's largely redundant afaic. We need to find ways of competing with Aston Villa and their heavily subsidised ownership. They're in a halcyon time because they've had loads of blank cheques written. Football changes all the time. We're not going to be subsidised and currently they are. At the moment, we're more than competing. Ditto the Blackburn's and Bolton's we've been compared to.

I think it's fair to take into account their trajectory/development after they left the toon, as it's the only solid evidence available. HF's point about taking it to extremes is valid imo (ie if they're now near retirement), however in some cases, of the players released that's one of the reasons they're not retained (ie Nolan wanting a long contract which would have taken him to the door of retirement). The question's straightforward in one sense but it can throw up some slightly unrealistic debates.

I think Tiote 'nips it in the bud' better tbh. ie he'll make his tackles in the middle of the park at the source of the danger, whereas Parker you'll often see tearing sixty yards or so with a man before making the tackle on the edge of the box. Tiote fouls more though so more of his challenges are misjudged, using his more 'decisive' method.

Agreed.

So the idea is to compare players in their prime with those either retired or close to it? Apples and oranges in that case. That on the other hand is a fair comment, but then the counterpoint to that is the players sold represent numerous seasons worth of 'talent' from numerous different permutations of starting 11, and you're only comparing that with one instant 11. So apples and oranges too really (or unrealistic in any event). But then that's how the question was put so it's not a criticism.

While here? He was 3 times the RB Simpson will ever be. No doubt. Milner would walk in. Carroll would play more than best, ameobi or Lovenkrands who have a hefty number of appearances. Kieron Dyer in his prime would improve the team. Bassong would get in over Williamson deffo, if not Taylor. Duff v Guttierez is close too....as is Given v Krul. Enrique, deffo. In terms of what players they are now tbh. ie I think you're judging Milner in the 'here and now' - and he would indeed walk in now because he's a top peformer. But at the time he left he wasn't any great shakes as far as I'm concerned. Looked very decent but nothing out of the ordinary.

Beye went dogshit. Fuck N'Zogbia an all btw, the moody arsed never happy twat. Believes he's better than he is and as such will never offer best value.

Get on the list you cheeky fucker.

Think Barton would definitely make the bench too but other than that that's probably about it tbh. I'm very positive about the way the transfers in and out have gone in more recent times. It's clear the standard has been raised and that's the main thing at the end of the day. For that reason I'm not one to bang on and on about the Carroll millions and get fixated with transfer fees over transfer quality. It's as naive as it is pointless in many ways. Having said that, a stronger bench (and hence during the ACN, a stronger starting 11) probably would have meant we would still be in the FA cup, where we might have actually had a chance. So you have to weigh that for context too.

What you did or didn't want at the time is an interesting talking point for here at best but my point is always that it's irrelevant. ie the board are there to take the decisions in the best interests of the club and that entire transaction (replacing Robson when they did and with who they did) was a monumental fuck up. As were most things done after that basically. You make some valid points about SBR and the season overall but Jaw D's post earlier probably most accurately represents the consensus feeling of the time for me.

Aye, like I said there may well have been booing; some clearly heard some, some didn't and it will have been evident in some places and not in others. What it didn't amount to however is the "sack SBR message" it's portrayed as by the revisionists. And even if it had, it wouldn't have amounted to a reason to sack him even if that exact chorus had broken out around the ground for 15 minutes afterwards. The error is the board's, not some fan booing in the emotional and immediate aftermath. Board's have to be stronger than that and have more of a clue what to do and sadly they didn't. As Alex rightly pointed out, it was a pathetically handled sequence of events by the powers that be; booing or otherwise just seems to be quoted as some bizarre attempted distraction from that.

Rice getting his cheap thrills.