Post a picture of something shit on Wearside

[PaddockLad 17087]

I think Tyne & Wear should be abolished personally.

 

 

Tyne and Wear County Councll was abolished in 1986, and so its districts (the metropolitan boroughs) are now effectively unitary authorities. However, the metropolitan county continues to exist in law and as a geographic frame of reference.^[1][2][3]

 

So the good news is it has been abloished, the bad news is it hasn't

[Craig 6682]

Look at any map. It's in Tyne and Wear.

 

....because the world began in 1974, didn't it?

[Craig 6682]

I think Tyne & Wear should be abolished personally.

 

Agreed. Stick us back in Northumberland and them in Durham

[Sonatine 11317]

I think Tyne & Wear should be abolished personally.

 

Agreed. Stick us back in Northumberland and them in Durham

 

Just make them some sort of self-governed enclave, no reason why the good folks of Durham should get saddled with them

[Monkeys Fist 42075]

Isn't CabayeAye from Easington. That is bang in the middle of bandit country. Mackem to its core.

Easington, calls it Newky Brown, it's all stacking up. Bet you he has dairy products on his chips

[McFaul 35]

I think Tyne & Wear should be abolished personally.

 

Agreed. Stick us back in Northumberland and them in Durham

 

Just make them some sort of self-governed enclave, no reason why the good folks of Durham should get saddled with them

Well we'd be back in the same county as Cramlington and Blyth so there's winners and losers on wor side too ye naa.

 

Just curious where do all of you think geographically represents mackemness in terms of a map.

[Monkeys Fist 42075]

Sunderland and Easington

 

[Guest CabayeAye]

Isn't CabayeAye from Easington. That is bang in the middle of bandit country. Mackem to its core.

Easington, calls it Newky Brown, it's all stacking up. Bet you he has dairy products on his chips

 

That's fighting talk!

[McFaul 35]

I think the ultimate test of mackemness is pronounciation of Peterlee.

[BigWalrus 0]

 

The above crude drawing demonstrates the boundaries of the mackem domain.

 

Vote for me, and I will build a wall, sealing off the area coloured in red.

 

If you are from anywhere outside of the red zone, you are permitted (and expected) to support Newcastle United.

Edited March 22, 2012 by BigWalrus

[JawD 99]

Hoy, keep the Mackems away from Durham thanks. Durham City and its surrounds are a million miles away from Durham as in Seaham and Houghton etc. I prefer to go off history. Newcastle and Durham city were true supporters of the Royal Crown while the dirty thieving Mackems were not. Keep it that way.

[Monkeys Fist 42075]

I think the ultimate test of mackemness is pronounciation of Peterlee.

The slightest hint of a y in there, CONDEMNED!!

[McFaul 35]

I think the ultimate test of mackemness is pronounciation of Peterlee.

The slightest hint of a y in there, CONDEMNED!!

Aye or anything like the way we pronounce Pea. Peehtahlaey! Only way to pronounce it. Another quirk is how mackems and peapul from Derrum pronounce Chester Le Street. They divvint pronounce the vowel in Le, its like saying Rob Lee how it should be said.

[JawD 99]

Just getting the lass in the office (mackem) to say so I can check Her Chester le Street seems fine but the Peyterlee is a massive give away!

[McFaul 35]

Just getting the lass in the office (mackem) to say so I can check Her Chester le Street seems fine but the Peyterlee is a massive give away!

 

The mackem lasses when I worked there used to take the piss out of me for my pronunciation of trainers. Obviously you pronounce it trainaaazz, they'd go "hehehe no-ah eets trainussss" and I'd be like train ye in what?!?

[ChezGiven 0]

How to talk proper, obviously.

[Monkeys Fist 42075]

Get them to say ,

In Hertford, Hereford, and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen.

 

 

Dead giveaway

[Gene_Clark 12]

Ask them if they can get a signal; if not point them in the direction of Mr Charity's Never ending Battery Emporium

[Tom 14011]

[Tooj 17]

Has this been posted?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/mar/27/martin-oneill-sunderland-statistics

 

 

The Question: How has Martin O'Neill improved Sunderland?

 

As Billy Beane acknowledged last week, football is a game that remains largely resistant to statistical analysis. Its fluidity, the variety of ways in which it can be interpreted, mean that what is good for one side does not necessarily mean anything for another.

As Barcelona pass teams into submission on a regular basis, it has become common to look at pass-completion rates and nod approvingly as they stretch beyond 90%. Yet Zambia won the African Cup of Nations in February with the lowest pass-completion rate of any of the 16 sides in the tournament. What is even more baffling is that, to the naked eye, they appeared a cohesive side who used the ball well. The issue was that they got the ball forward quickly, looking for raking forward passes out of defence that, being high-risk, often went astray. If they did find a man, though, a smart interchange between the astute Christopher Katongo, the rapid Rainford Kalaba and the intelligent Emmanuel Mayuka was often enough to undo opponents.

 

Trying to determine exactly how Martin O'Neill has improved Sunderland since taking over at the beginning of December poses similar conundrums. In one sense, that of results, the statistical difference is obvious. Steve Bruce left after 13 games of this season in which Sunderland took 11 points, leaving them 16th in the table. Defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers the following Sunday (having taken the lead and missed a penalty) dropped them to 17th. Then O'Neill arrived and, in his 16 league matches, has taken 29 points, lifting them to eighth while inspiring a run to the quarter-finals of the FA Cup in which they face Everton in a replay on Tuesday.

 

Intuitively, Sunderland look a more confident, organised team than they were under Bruce. They look capable of resisting sustained sieges, as they did against Manchester City, for instance, and they break with a greater purpose. The City game, again, is a good example: Sebastian Larsson was so exhausted that after leading a surge from the back he was doubled over in the centre-circle as Ji Dong-won stumbled around Joe Hart to score the winner, but the point is that he did bring the ball out and found James McClean with a pass; with less belief that victory was possible, he might easily just have belted the ball into the corner – and probably been praised for his pragmatism by fans.

 

McClean, who works the left flank with bracing energy, is the only real difference in personnel to Bruce's side. It was Bruce who signed him from Derry City last summer, but he only made his first-team debut under O'Neill, his arrival as a substitute against Blackburn in O'Neill's first game being the moment at which the season turned around. He didn't contribute directly to either goal, but one burst and cross lifted the mood, inspiring the fightback that saw Sunderland win 2-1 having been 1-0 down after 83 minutes. Saturday's goal against QPR was his fourth in 15 league appearances, while his height coming in from the wing has given Sunderland another dimension (one which Bruce tried to introduce on the opposite flank through Ahmed Elmohamady).

 

Sunderland score 1.44 goals a game, the fifth best in the league, under O'Neill, as opposed to 1.15, the 13th best, under Bruce. That again, though, is a result. A difference in process is harder to ascertain. Opta's stats show that Sunderland have fewer shots under O'Neill (the second worst in the league, remarkably) than they did under Bruce; they have less possession (42% as opposed to 47%) and make fewer passes, of which they complete fewer; they put in fewer crosses (the 12th most as opposed to the third most); and they win a lower percentage of their tackles.

 

They do win 50% of duels as opposed to 49% and now make the most as opposed to the third most tackles, but those are marginal differences. The only two basic metrics in which Sunderland have noticeably improved are in the number of fouls committed (down from the seventh worst in the league to 16th). Part of that is down to Lee Cattermole who, despite his performance in the derby when he became almost a caricature of himself, gave masterclasses of controlled aggression in the league win over City and the FA Cup victory over Arsenal. But it also suggests Sunderland's shape is better: fewer of their tackles are desperate lunges.

 

Where the Sunderland of O'Neill are far, far better than that of Bruce, though, is in the productivity of their shooting: 19% of their shots now yield a goal as opposed to 11% before, an improvement from 13th best in the league to second. That might mean that they are creating better opportunities before pulling the trigger, but the fact is that an awful lot of shots in the past four months have flown in from outside the box: David Vaughan's thump and Nicklas Bendtner's free-kick in that first game against Blackburn, for instance, the Vaughan and Craig Gardner strikes at Wigan, Fraizer Campbell's volley against Norwich, Phil Bardsley's goal against Everton in the FA Cup.

In fact 49% of all Sunderland's goals have come from outside the box this season which is a slightly troubling statistic in that it is probably unsustainable. Unless O'Neill has found a job-lot of Billy Dane's spare boots that is not the sort of figure than can be produced even by increased practice. Yes, working on long-range shooting may up the percentage a little, but no side can rely on constantly thwacking the ball into the top corner from 25 yards, something that suggests an element of luck in the improvement under O'Neill.

Then again, what is often construed as luck is often the result of confidence, which in turn stems from organisation, discipline and a manager's personality. For that, O'Neill can certainly take credit, but again the measure is subjective rather than being discernible by statistics. Under Bruce this season, Sunderland never lost a game by more than a single goal. It's easy to criticise him, and nobody would seriously argue that Sunderland are not a better side under O'Neill, but equally Bruce took Sunderland to sixth at the end of January and in games like the 3-0 win at Chelsea he proved he was not the tactical neophyte many portray him as.

 

Sunderland under O'Neill seem more consistently at the top of their game, but the statistics merely emphasise how fine the margins between success and failure can be.

[Guest CabayeAye]

Has this been posted?

 

http://www.guardian....land-statistics

 

 

The Question: How has Martin O'Neill improved Sunderland?

 

As Billy Beane acknowledged last week, football is a game that remains largely resistant to statistical analysis. Its fluidity, the variety of ways in which it can be interpreted, mean that what is good for one side does not necessarily mean anything for another.

As Barcelona pass teams into submission on a regular basis, it has become common to look at pass-completion rates and nod approvingly as they stretch beyond 90%. Yet Zambia won the African Cup of Nations in February with the lowest pass-completion rate of any of the 16 sides in the tournament. What is even more baffling is that, to the naked eye, they appeared a cohesive side who used the ball well. The issue was that they got the ball forward quickly, looking for raking forward passes out of defence that, being high-risk, often went astray. If they did find a man, though, a smart interchange between the astute Christopher Katongo, the rapid Rainford Kalaba and the intelligent Emmanuel Mayuka was often enough to undo opponents.

 

Trying to determine exactly how Martin O'Neill has improved Sunderland since taking over at the beginning of December poses similar conundrums. In one sense, that of results, the statistical difference is obvious. Steve Bruce left after 13 games of this season in which Sunderland took 11 points, leaving them 16th in the table. Defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers the following Sunday (having taken the lead and missed a penalty) dropped them to 17th. Then O'Neill arrived and, in his 16 league matches, has taken 29 points, lifting them to eighth while inspiring a run to the quarter-finals of the FA Cup in which they face Everton in a replay on Tuesday.

 

Intuitively, Sunderland look a more confident, organised team than they were under Bruce. They look capable of resisting sustained sieges, as they did against Manchester City, for instance, and they break with a greater purpose. The City game, again, is a good example: Sebastian Larsson was so exhausted that after leading a surge from the back he was doubled over in the centre-circle as Ji Dong-won stumbled around Joe Hart to score the winner, but the point is that he did bring the ball out and found James McClean with a pass; with less belief that victory was possible, he might easily just have belted the ball into the corner – and probably been praised for his pragmatism by fans.

 

McClean, who works the left flank with bracing energy, is the only real difference in personnel to Bruce's side. It was Bruce who signed him from Derry City last summer, but he only made his first-team debut under O'Neill, his arrival as a substitute against Blackburn in O'Neill's first game being the moment at which the season turned around. He didn't contribute directly to either goal, but one burst and cross lifted the mood, inspiring the fightback that saw Sunderland win 2-1 having been 1-0 down after 83 minutes. Saturday's goal against QPR was his fourth in 15 league appearances, while his height coming in from the wing has given Sunderland another dimension (one which Bruce tried to introduce on the opposite flank through Ahmed Elmohamady).

 

Sunderland score 1.44 goals a game, the fifth best in the league, under O'Neill, as opposed to 1.15, the 13th best, under Bruce. That again, though, is a result. A difference in process is harder to ascertain. Opta's stats show that Sunderland have fewer shots under O'Neill (the second worst in the league, remarkably) than they did under Bruce; they have less possession (42% as opposed to 47%) and make fewer passes, of which they complete fewer; they put in fewer crosses (the 12th most as opposed to the third most); and they win a lower percentage of their tackles.

 

They do win 50% of duels as opposed to 49% and now make the most as opposed to the third most tackles, but those are marginal differences. The only two basic metrics in which Sunderland have noticeably improved are in the number of fouls committed (down from the seventh worst in the league to 16th). Part of that is down to Lee Cattermole who, despite his performance in the derby when he became almost a caricature of himself, gave masterclasses of controlled aggression in the league win over City and the FA Cup victory over Arsenal. But it also suggests Sunderland's shape is better: fewer of their tackles are desperate lunges.

 

Where the Sunderland of O'Neill are far, far better than that of Bruce, though, is in the productivity of their shooting: 19% of their shots now yield a goal as opposed to 11% before, an improvement from 13th best in the league to second. That might mean that they are creating better opportunities before pulling the trigger, but the fact is that an awful lot of shots in the past four months have flown in from outside the box: David Vaughan's thump and Nicklas Bendtner's free-kick in that first game against Blackburn, for instance, the Vaughan and Craig Gardner strikes at Wigan, Fraizer Campbell's volley against Norwich, Phil Bardsley's goal against Everton in the FA Cup.

In fact 49% of all Sunderland's goals have come from outside the box this season which is a slightly troubling statistic in that it is probably unsustainable. Unless O'Neill has found a job-lot of Billy Dane's spare boots that is not the sort of figure than can be produced even by increased practice. Yes, working on long-range shooting may up the percentage a little, but no side can rely on constantly thwacking the ball into the top corner from 25 yards, something that suggests an element of luck in the improvement under O'Neill.

Then again, what is often construed as luck is often the result of confidence, which in turn stems from organisation, discipline and a manager's personality. For that, O'Neill can certainly take credit, but again the measure is subjective rather than being discernible by statistics. Under Bruce this season, Sunderland never lost a game by more than a single goal. It's easy to criticise him, and nobody would seriously argue that Sunderland are not a better side under O'Neill, but equally Bruce took Sunderland to sixth at the end of January and in games like the 3-0 win at Chelsea he proved he was not the tactical neophyte many portray him as.

 

Sunderland under O'Neill seem more consistently at the top of their game, but the statistics merely emphasise how fine the margins between success and failure can be.

 

Makes sense that the biggest pile of shite excuse for a 'newspaper' has a perma-hard-on for the tramps. .com picked up on their talking bullshit about attendances today.

[Gemmill 44410]

There's already been a thread deleted on there today when someone posted the Cisse "You paid for my flight" pic and a bunch of them responded with "I can't see who it is, it's too dark"... "Why would we pay to fly a bag of coal over" and the classic "If someone says something about a blacky it doesn't make them racist".

 

Check out this thread.

 

 

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=689230#ixzz1rAwziDKO

[BestBaNone 0]

Chest-l-street is my pronunciation like

[Howay 12496]

There's already been a thread deleted on there today when someone posted the Cisse "You paid for my flight" pic and a bunch of them responded with "I can't see who it is, it's too dark"... "Why would we pay to fly a bag of coal over" and the classic "If someone says something about a blacky it doesn't make them racist".

 

Check out this thread.

 

 

http://www.readytogo...0#ixzz1rAwziDKO

They're the most bi-polar bunch in footy tbh, they bang on about how classy they are then the same blokes go on about how class it is that there is loads of racism at Sunderland home games and that they chin everton.

[Gene_Clark 12]

There's already been a thread deleted on there today when someone posted the Cisse "You paid for my flight" pic and a bunch of them responded with "I can't see who it is, it's too dark"... "Why would we pay to fly a bag of coal over" and the classic "If someone says something about a blacky it doesn't make them racist".

 

Check out this thread.

 

 

http://www.readytogo...0#ixzz1rAwziDKO

 

that thread makes me want to vomit; fucking morons