Toonpack

My mam used to read her books when me and my sister were little. She used to be fucking terrified! The terror was because of you, not the books

Agree but I'd like to see the same back four as the weekend working together again, even better workout if there's kids in front and they're under the cosh.

Hair straighteners? Possibly. and superglue for gel

Agreed but that haircut made him look like he should be in a corner shop, or serving curry

I think it also helps that Milners workrate is excellent, provides good balance on the right, unfortunately Carr's back in the squad for Sunday

appeared to be operating as more of a unit since Pearson's arrival, despite the chopping and changing

Oh dear, I guess you lot are too young to know the likes of Frank Swift, and our own Ronnie Simpson I'm going off what my Dad told me, who was born in 1945 btw, as much as anything. And the footage I've seen backs it up tbh. Even though the likes of us weren't there (though you'd be nearer to being there than me ) from any of the footage you see, you can tell the standard of goal keeping was alot lower in those days. Some of it is downright abysmal and looks like its a joke or needs the benny hill theme being played over it! Still, what would have a Banks, Yachin, Tilkowski, Trautmann ( ) etc. looked like in the game, if they had been born 20 years later? What would have a Maradona looked like if he had been born 20 years earlier? He'd have spent 50% of the game rolling around on the deck ahving REALLY been kicked not just pretendy kicked

Yashin was class although I saw little of him as he was just "before my time" There were plenty decent keepers around, you never or rarely see the saves on old footage as it's always the goals that are seen. It's a bit like Robinsons "air-kick" the other week for England, watch a clip of that or Tim Flowers over the shoulder bounce disster or Shays putting the ball down inciodent and they're a crap keepers, but we know they weren't/aren't. Thats a fair point, but the incidence of poor goalkeeping on footage of olde world goals is still alarmingly high and much higher than you see nowadays. Plus as I say, they didnt even wear gloves-it's horrendous trying to stop a ball with your hands in a match without gloves Especially as those old balls were like stones when they were wet. Real men tbh. I'd liked to see Ronaldo (the diving one, not the fatty) kicking one of them. He probably would burst into tears (again). Don't know about the tears but he'd definitely fall over My first football had to be dubbin'ed several times before I could play with it, even then it sucked up water like a sponge, and boy did it hurt on a cold winter morning when someone cracked it into your thigh

Yashin was class although I saw little of him as he was just "before my time" There were plenty decent keepers around, you never or rarely see the saves on old footage as it's always the goals that are seen. It's a bit like Robinsons "air-kick" the other week for England, watch a clip of that or Tim Flowers over the shoulder bounce disster or Shays putting the ball down inciodent and they're a crap keepers, but we know they weren't/aren't.

Good name to bring up, Puskas played 354 games for Kispest/Honved and scored 357 goals. For Real Madrid he played 179 games and scored 155 goals. He played 85 games for Hungary and scored 84 goals. I doubt Pele or Maradona could match that goals to games record. Teams played 4-2-4, had no idea how to defend, and the keepers were shit in those days. I'm not saying he wasn't a good player, but I reckon his goal scoring record would be a lot more modest in the modern game. No they bloody weren't, well not all of them. Same as today, the odd exceptional one around and the rest much of a muchness

Exactly. I think what people mean is that culture in Britain changes. A hundred years ago, people in this country would go on holiday IN this country. Now? Millions go abroad every year. Is this people losing their culture, or is this culture changing? I would like to know what part of people's culture they think they are losing... Try 30/40 years ago, 100 years ago only the rich had holidays.

Whoever said he is becoming like Comical Ali is spot on. he is quite clearly shitting it I bet he's looking forward to the due dilligence report

Correct and the fact people always miss when taking pleasure at one of our players being injured is our wafer thin squad. Any more injuries and suddenly you need the player you were delighting in getting hurt, or players needing a rest and you have no replacement. In our situation, with our resources its frightening that there are fans who actually think these injuries are good or even just not a problem. It also shows what a mess of the tranfer market we made leaving us in this situation...perhaps we should have had some sort of plan and it wouldn't have turned out so bad! Cue Leazes

Fuck me all I asked was "do you think it's acceptable" is it or isn't it ? I never stated you thought so, but simply asked the question So do you ?, yes or no (and hurry up because I've got to fuck off 250 miles to Aberdeen in 20 minutes time) BTW in my world it's always various shades of grey and there's very little black and white or + and - if you prefer

If Duff and Carr aren't fit, that's a bonus

Where have I said it's acceptable? Like I said before, my disagreeing with you in saying that it's as bad as racial chanting seems to make you believe that I think it's acceptable. Like I said before it's not mutually exclusive. Twisting my words tbh Not twisting your words at all. You said it wasn't that offensive, so I asked did you think it was therefore acceptable, which I guess you're now saying it's not. SOOOO Roeder has every right to comment, SOOOOO I win

You really believe "it's not that offensive"? and therefore acceptable ? If Roeder had lost his wife due to a brain tumor (for example) then yes, it's offensive. How is it offensive when he doesn't actually have a brain tumor anymore? Would you seriously be offended if someone shouted it at you? I am only defending his right to reply. I do not believe because he got better he's fair game. I guess his family who probably went through hell and others who simillarly suffered and then read/hear of the reports will feel OK as well. I'm just curious what makes it acceptable in this day and age of "correctness" As it happens I personally find the Lua Lua issue more personally offensive and hurtful having been there myself but that doesn't effect my opinion of Roeders "right to reply" IMO. And Sima you still haven't answered my question - is it in your opinion acceptable? That's what one of these "?" means, I was asking a question not stating anything

True but I'd like to think we don't sink that low. The point that was made was that Roeder has no right to respond, I just begged to differ on the acceptability of the jibe and his right to respond.

You really believe "it's not that offensive"? and therefore acceptable ?

Yeah, some people haven't been so lucky as to have the opportunity for life saving treatment due to the colour of their skin tbh. Give up, eh? That doesn't even begin to make sense Please explain your logic why Roeder has no right to make comment about the taunting, and therefore by inference why said taunting is acceptable

Slight difference between a cold and a brain tumour To the individual concerned surely a taunt about a serious illness which could have killed them, and any other people within earshot or reading the report who's friends/family have suffered similarly, is deeply offensive and hurtfull. Similarly a taunt about skin colour is deeply offensive, but a taunt about skin colour isn't a taunt about something that could kill you. Both simply show the ignorance of the taunter, and I fail to see any lesser offence in either ahahahahahahahahaahaaahaaaa seriously, what? Last I heard having a black/yellow/brown skin wasn't a cause for life-saving medical treatment. I'm not saying racial taunting is acceptable in any way BUT taunting about a potentially fatal medical condition is no less offensive, and the logic that says why someone should "put up or shut up" in those circumstances is beyond me.

Tell me how it's not, oh great wise one ?? You dont find yourself being held back by society due to pre-conceived notions of you purely on account of the fact you've had a brain tumour. Overlooked for jobs, that sort of thing. Leazes will explain that better. You don't die from being held back/overlooked for jobs. This isn't about offence/discrimination to a population or section of society at large it's about effect on an individual, and should that individual have to put up with it without comment.

Slight difference between a cold and a brain tumour To the individual concerned surely a taunt about a serious illness which could have killed them, and any other people within earshot or reading the report who's friends/family have suffered similarly, is deeply offensive and hurtfull. Similarly a taunt about skin colour is deeply offensive, but a taunt about skin colour isn't a taunt about something that could kill you. Both simply show the ignorance of the taunter, and I fail to see any lesser offence in either

Tell me how it's not, oh great wise one ??

Wembley Park is served by two tube stations and has 5 platforms - it has the capacity to bring in thousands very quickly. I think I'm also right in saying that it has the best transport links than any other stadium in London. Whether it should have been built in the midlands or whatnot is a different debate, but for me, the national stadium should be in the capital of the country. It will be interesting to see if good old Brit organisation/crowd control can make efficient use of the capacity available, I have my doubts.