Isegrim

Hamstring? 47022[/snapback] Tendinitis.

I have the strange feeling that Nobby did ring up Graeme S. during a night only to play on his trumpet ... the next morning Nobby got what is called "the sandwich-treatment" (allegedly).

Don't worry, there are five days left to deplete the squad...

I know the tractor boys have been piss poor for a couple of years, but since when has Ipswich's crest a yellow frame?

Have a yabba, dabba, doo time!

IIRC his achievements were to win the Italian Cup with Fiorentina and the Spanish Cup with Valencia. And Valencia only really became "successful" (i.e. frequently runners-up in European finals under Cuper until winning the Waffa-Cup under Benitez) when Ranieri left in 1999 after he had got them into the CL by finishing 3rd or 4th in La Liga.

I don't think it's too fair to label Ranieri a clown, thought he did a reasonable job at Chelsea. I do think Souness has lowered standards though, I reckon I'd cry for joy if we got O'Leary in. Just over 12 months ago that thought was not a pleasant one. 46713[/snapback] I'd replace reasonable with ordinary. With what he had available, he wasn't expected to achieve anything less than what he did, but that was far from being a good job. If he wasn't such a nice bloke, nobody would consider him on his merits at Chelsea (IMHO).

Well Ranieri was on Goals on Sunday this morning saying he wants a move back into English football, and is just waiting for the right offer. A bad result next week, and he might not have too much longer to wait...and then it's not as dreamy a prospect of seeing them here. 46532[/snapback] The thought of that gibbon in charge of Newcastle is hardly an inspiring step in the right direction though is it? One for the "anything's better than Souness" crew IMO. 46556[/snapback] While Ranieri wouldn't be my first choice, I honestly believe he would do well here and be a massive improvement on Souness. 46682[/snapback] Well, I do think it would not be a good decision to replace a muppet with a clown... on the other hand I am firmly in the anything must be better than Souness camp.

Well, as long as he isn't another Souness... Of course there is no guarantee that Hitzfeld wouldl succeed and it's far from certain that he will even come. Though, to compare someone who won the CL with two different teams and has been the most succesful manager in one of Europe's major leagues in the last decade with a Swiss nobody is plainly ridiculous. I also don't know what is presumptuous in saying that Souness will fail. That is an assessment by his work over the last twelve months in charge and a string of poor results and poor performances. But of course, it looks very likely that he will be succesful. Is this a flying pig I see outside my window?

I don't think you can punch above your weight three years in a row. Stuttered to the finish line in 2003? Sorry even if the performances might not have matched those of the previous season the team was still up for a top place throughout the whole season. Until this heartbreaking 2-6 against ManUre came. Then everybody saw that Newcastle were still lacking something to close the gap to the top teams. Of course the team would have needed more strengthening than just signing Bowyer in the summer. Still Woodgate was made out to be the major jigsaw. The season afterwards I don't remember many people saying we were punching above our weight. The general consensus as much as I remember was that the team was underperforming, especially throwing away many points in the dying minutes. If Newcastle still finished 5th it was down to the failure of other teams to capatilise. Robson then made a couple of signings by the money he was made available to sort out crucial positions like right back and a holding midfielder. Maybe the squad Souness inherited wasn't top class, but it was still better than what maybe 15 other manager's had available. Finishing 14th was simply not good enough. I'm happy with the summer signings, but this still does not make me believe Souness is the right man to work with it. So, if he is going to miss out a top 6 place again, will he beg Shepherd to sign the likes of Ronaldinho and Lampard then?

I don't dispute that Souness did well on the transfer front. But I have said it a couple of times, even before the transfer window opened, that I don't solely judge a manager on his transfers. With the right amount of money it's not that of a big task. So yes, in certain parts of the team we have improved. But overall the squad is still very thin. I was already critical about the physio department under Robson, but I never thought it was going to get worse. For me bad luck is when you have different injuries with one damaging his ligament, another one breaking his leg another one sticking 50quid notes into his nose. But I don't accept bad luck when you always have half of your team out with muscle injuries. There are few injuries that are preventable, but hamstring injuries most times don't come with bad luck but can get explained by lack of preparation wrong training. Even if it is the pitch then it's no case of bad luck, but of poor facilities and everything has to be done to sort out this problem immidiately.

It's a bit like one of Zeno's paradoxes. How many injuries does it need not to be considered bad luck anymore but incompetence?

I think he should be more than happy with the Cris award and retire.

Again, it is national managers who vote. Most of the national managers of the very small countries are just picking the allegedely big names. Very often a lot of nominations don't make any sense, sometimes players there are players on the shortlist who barely kicked a ball due to injuries etc.

Because it's the national managers of all countries who vote. TV certainly hasn't reached some of the nations yet...

Hoy, I'm still around you know. 45723[/snapback] Regularly around 5-6am by any chance, sending nasty PMs to people?

...unless they happen to be called Swindon Mag. 45708[/snapback] I do miss him nevertheless...

Q: Where did you park your car? [Ha, that's not the naughty stuff you wanted, eh!] A: I beg your pardon. That's not a question you ask a lady.

Maybe someone should ask Sepp B. at 5live about the meaning of the word greed...

Wit and sarcasm on here? Now you are joking...

I disagree, Gerrard's instincts are to attack and it's what he's best suited to. People seem to think just because he can put his foot in that he play well in the holding role. I reckon Lampard is a better attacking player too. Certainly for England in recent times. 45538[/snapback] I think what sticks out at Lampard's game is his constant efficiency. He is most likely to be involved in the decisive moments of a game. And his sense for getting in the right position is second to none. Gerrard is a very good player, but what stands out are rather those screamers he scores occasionally than his consistency... he is also good at reckless two-footed nasty tackles.

I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic. 45161[/snapback] I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%. And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they...

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it. 45114[/snapback] I don't think even with future facilites you'll be able a fair insurance system based on mileage. Look, insurances are basing their system on the cost of insured events. They therefore look how much money they have to acquire. The calculation is mostly based on a year, with insurants paying periodically (I don't think that's different in England). To get a fair system they now have to generate a system where the contribution of each insurant matches the insured events he causes as good as possible. Mileage doesn't fit into this system, because you have one parameter too much. You would have to base this system on insured events/year on one hand and insured events/mileage on the other hand. Well, you could change the system by crossing out the time factor, but then how to calculate the contribution so that they provide the insurance with enough cash constantly. Mileage is also a far too variable. Gender on the other hand is a static parameter. Renton is right, though. You could also base your calculation on other static parameters like race. That would obviously cause a huge uproar. Anyway, there exists an EC-discrimantion act that has to get implemented into national legislation. It prohibits every kind of discrimination of race, religion, gender etc. It is a big topic here in Germany (especially among privat law scientiest like me), because women right groups demand the act to be implemented as soon as possible, because they feel especially discriminated by one economical branch...and guess what...it's the insurance industry that is discriminating women in a lot branches due to their statistically longer life time. It's funny while those women are able to dig out loads of insurance sectors where they are discriminated, men do only come up with one...

Alex and Blaydon were a couple and have children named Benni, Adidas and Li3nz. They got divorced when Blaydon became a raver after Australia failed to get an automatic WC qualifying spot.

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver.