manc-mag

You've got to keep Leazes in check tbf. One minute you can say Ashley deserved a chance upon arrival and the next he'll tell everyone you said "Anyone but Shepherd, I hated the 90's at NUFC". This is the crux of it for me. His recent digging up of old threads (in response to your posting that one where he predicts that Ashley will probably now go on to better Shepherd/Hall’s Champions League achievements) is a typical obsessive overreaction too. Digging them up to try and re-assert when he ‘first called Ashley’ or whatever misses the point spectacularly; he’s shown later to be saying he thinks we’ll be back on for Champs League under Ashley. Now only the other day he was agreeing with OBG that it was a Sports Direct model and this was all obvious to him from the start of his reign-well no it clearly wasn’t as he changed his prediction about Ashley’s ambitions when Keegan was appointed. There’s nothing wrong with this per se (a shifting narrative where you constantly re-evaluate based on current information), in fact Chez does this and it stimulates good debate on here imho, but on the other hand if you’re Leazes and what you’re essentially doing is trying to claim some sort of clairvoyance it makes you look a tit- because what you claim you’ve always had some sort of intractable belief about is shown to be something that in reality you’ve also argued the complete opposite of at intervals. “Oh yes, I’ve always claimed he was doing this the Sports Direct way, and before anyone else might I add.....apart from the time when I thought he was going to beat our Champions League achievements to date. Can you just all ignore that bit please? Ta.” Classic cake-and-eat-it. Going back to what you said above, that’s the essence of his “I was right you were wrong” nightmare patter. It involves re-inventions of the past both in terms of what he’s said himself and what other people have said about a subject. What’s even more tragic is that nobody else is arsed, and yet he’s been genuinely obsessed with it for 4 or 5 years now.

Cheers to one and all! 34 and looking every bit of it these days!

Amazing, even with a horde of black men around him he still manages to fly past them all. I think that goal also highlights the main difference between Messi and Ronaldo. There's no way Ronaldo would have chased Mikel down like Messi did. That and the way it moves between his feet without the goose-stepping lollipops too. Not saying C. Ronaldo isn't immensely effective as he quite clearly is, but Messi is far more beautiful to watch imho. All about balance, centre of gravity and very slight feints rather than exaggerated Kevin Bacon can-can stuff. The effectiveness debate can rage all it likes, but just in terms of football for sheer enjoyments sake, he is the current personification of why it's 'the beautiful game' for me.

That pitch looks even narrower than SJP! Great goal btw, kudos on the amplified sound as it hit the woodwork too.

Aye he had like a brush over, when that lass wrote I love you on her eyelids. Yeah I'm with you now. Paul could do that one word on each eye, that's why he grows the fringe.

Just fucking hoy them on the list Deadaz, cheeky twats.

Indiana Jones?

It's the crew cut that's his most dangerous weapon imho, as he can look relatively normal with it, whereas with the whip over you'd know fine well to AVOID. The whip over is like a bell round his neck tbh and a good thing it is too.

Great shout, that was a good show. I liked the bit when Jack Nicholson went to buy some Shreddies from Mick and Keef's corner shop. It was fucking mint, haven't seen it for time now! "Anything looks like a fucking pack of Shreddies to you at this time of day"

His 'fuck you' thread reminded me of Len the psychotic Geordie gardener in Stella Street.

whos venables? although yeh youre right, that would cover it 'memory gap'

I would say he's about as antithetical to a trad Italian defender as you can get. Doesn't have to think about the game at all because physically he's got a bit more going for him. That sort of schtick doesn't cut the mustard at top level though, so I'm with Capello on this one. who would you have in instead of him? That's a fair question, I don't think we've got great choice there at all* on whats currently available. If Johnson was fit though I don't think it's a discussion worth having really. I've no qualms about Richards filling in there I suppose, I just really don't want him there for any tournament football. *Mind you I never thought Gary Neville was owt special either and he played there for a decade. Do you rate Johnson? Not a fan at all personally. Agree with everyone saying Richards is thick. I remember after he broke into the City team he was interviewed in the off season and was talking himself up for a move to Chelsea. I don't think he's great actually, I just don't rate Richards. Richards got loads of plaudits at the very start of his career and that seems to have persisted but I don't think he's come on at all personally (particularly in the intelligence stakes as Stevie highlights) and that's a shame when you've got all the other things going for you. But then that's a different skill altogether and I suspect Richards just doesnt have that. You look on the other flank and you've got Cole, who is a complete twat of a human being and a mong off the pitch, but in terms of football judgment is an absolute joy.

Actually overall I just don't think it's a spot we've got much talent in. Fortunately as I've said before, I think it's probably the least significant position on the pitch being as you face a left sided attacking player, which is statistically the worst staffed (and therefore weakest) position for most opponents.

Twice he's said fuckin in interviews. He knows what he's doing he's trying to get a laugh out of his mates. Total mong. He'd have been in them riots if he wasn't a footballer. No racial intent in that comment, but he would, thick as fuck. Howay man Stevie, it's not even midday yet! In your heart you know there's a high likelyhood that he would though Sammy. He's that sort of modern wrongun character. What sort of doilum takes a video of himself shaggin a bird on his phone say "any good pet?". He is everything that's wrong with modern Britain, and football bling culture. He'd make DEADMAN look like Charles Darwin if he was on here I guarantee. class.

I would say he's about as antithetical to a trad Italian defender as you can get. Doesn't have to think about the game at all because physically he's got a bit more going for him. That sort of schtick doesn't cut the mustard at top level though, so I'm with Capello on this one. who would you have in instead of him? That's a fair question, I don't think we've got great choice there at all* on whats currently available. If Johnson was fit though I don't think it's a discussion worth having really. I've no qualms about Richards filling in there I suppose, I just really don't want him there for any tournament football. *Mind you I never thought Gary Neville was owt special either and he played there for a decade.

Twice he's said fuckin in interviews. He knows what he's doing he's trying to get a laugh out of his mates. Total mong. He'd have been in them riots if he wasn't a footballer. No racial intent in that comment, but he would, thick as fuck. Howay man Stevie, it's not even midday yet!

I would say he's about as antithetical to a trad Italian defender as you can get. Doesn't have to think about the game at all because physically he's got a bit more going for him. That sort of schtick doesn't cut the mustard at top level though, so I'm with Capello on this one.

Wouldn't have him there playing against top internationals. Richards makes mistakes but has the pace etc to recover and put in a second challenge, you don't get any of that against the top guys though. Not for me, ta.

Jones looks frustratingly good for Man U like. Proper assured defender.

Richards=shit footballer, just v athletic.

Horrible wallpaper like.

Pardew: The Lost Weekends.

Aye he fucking should CT but thats not how the table works.... (looked at end column) Hadn't noticed that...why is it ranked as win%? S'pose it's a more memorable way of doing it. Just the number hat's always reported. It's what's on the Wiki page and what CT quoted in the Pardoo thread. I added points % as I think it's more informative....but didn't want to mix it about. Ah reet. The Stan Seymour dates need changing too btw, he was done by 1954, Doug Livingstone was manager for the '55 final (as the table already shows).

Aye he fucking should CT but thats not how the table works.... (looked at end column) Hadn't noticed that...why is it ranked as win%? S'pose it's a more memorable way of doing it.