The easiest way - the most efficient way, if you will - to differentiate him from the other very knowledgeable pundits.
The easiest way - the most efficient way, if you will - to differentiate him from the other very knowledgeable pundits.
I normally just use people's names.
Names are a bit passé imo, and problematic, to achieve a safe space it should be skin colour + number.
Obviously you'll need to go through the Dulux colour chart a bit. I was saying to Gentle Gold 4398 the other day, what is it with all these Frosted Dawn types giving my mate China Brown 324 a hard time?
Demonym or nationality + number, surely?
I mean obviously it's most patriotic to just despise anybody who's not as white as I am but if you go by nationality that helps you filter by white foreigners too.
Identify people as a description you would give the police.
"I would say he had an Irish accent, yes."
Chelsea are going to workmanlike Real to death here aren't they?
Madrid team looks much than last week. Pulisic getting dropped is a bit harsh.
1-3 Madrid, Hazard doing a madness
Hazard to go off injured in the first half. Chelsea to win comfortably by 3.
We'll not know how this goes until Don drops an opinion.
There's no goals in that Chelsea squad, don't be giving us that shit in the final.
Man Utd playing Thursday, Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday is a bit lol.
Joe Cole is good value as a pundit.
I've explored the possible upsides of a Chelsea final win, and I've got 1) lol at City; and 2) setting Frank Lampard's career back far enough that he technically won't have been born yet. Any others?
OGB will probably still just try and not change the team any more than he has to.Originally Posted by Waffdon
Chelsea are dreadful at finishing chances
The Super League Deep State seems to be doing a number on all the streams.
Van Der Beek should get a decent 10 minutes across the four.
Well played.
Kante
I'm not sure you can criticise Zidane for this when Ronaldo has been anonymous in both legs.
It's pretty impressive how all the big clubs in Europe have gone to shit at the same time
That final is going to be stunning stuff
I don't know if it's the super league or what, but my team has beaten Real Madrid to progress to the European Cup final and I feel nothing.
So after a clear experiment. Twitter is much better on a game week when all the boycotting accounts weren’t on it.
Given we've proven we're the best there should be some breakaway league just for the English teams.
Someone put our season review of 1995/6 up. I've paused it at the 12 point gap. You can see the end coming. We've drawn plenty already which means United must've been shocking in the first half of the season.
Academically, I'm not sure Kevin Keegan has tactics with us. The philosophy is there in spades (Can these players attack and have a bit of flair?) but there's bugger all positional discipline. I'm having kittens at the sight of Gillespie and Ginola somehow winding up on the same flank. Albert, Peacock and Barton winding up in amongst the goals loads tells you how fucked we are at tracking back. I can't think of a single defender you'd look at as a dependable rock. We'd not get a decent keeper in until Shay Given.
Still fantastic to watch, mind. We score some absolute pisstakes that season. It also reminds me how the 'Newcastle Sporting Club' stuff kicked off in a big way. United in football, the Falcons in rugby, the Eagles in basketball and that Lister Storm they sponsored. And the hockey team that did nowt. Madness.
David Ginola's luxurious barnet alone was worth 15 points, I'd say.
Aye, he's lush. Shame Nigel Winterburn figured him out in the League Cup Quarter Final. And at no time am I ever sure of Steve Watson's position. We'll not the see the likes of The Entertainers(tm) again. No manager would cultivate that insanity now.
Also as with a lot of fun teams of that era they've just get gegenpressed into oblivion now.
Joy must be crushed by tictacs and cardio.
Ferdinand would've destroyed Liverpool's high line, to be honest.
Guardiola-ball is the worst invention to modern football.
Come on Kiko, when we were kids watching individualistic chumps like Cantona and Zola, we never thought we'd grow up to see a co-ordinated high press of this quality. It's synchronised running at its very best.
As a neutral i'd rather watch a Guardiola team than any other.
Can't stand teams that go out for an hour just to keep it tight and stay in the game. Our semi final against Leicester was the perfect example. We were too concerned about not getting humped and ended up meekly pissing away a chance at a final.
Pep always wants to attack and go and win for 90 minutes. Not many manager around with that mindset sadly.
This is something we lack currently, other than Grealish there aren't any real individual talents you'd pay to watch outside the top few sides.
It's not so much Guardiolaball, but the modern obsession with possession, and the attendant sideways/backwards passing that almost always entails that is the bane of modern football. I suppose 'playing out from the back' has brought the lols, but it's still intensely irritating as a spectacle.
Guardiolaball is actually just massively out-resourcing all of your opponents, and pretty much always has been.
One of the fun things about Leicester's title was how they did it with so little possession.
Possession-ball and playing out from the back would result in modern teams smashing the shit out of the finest 90s sides so suck it up.
Speaking of Leicester, interesting to note Mahrez and Kante were the 2 individual stars of each CL semi. No fucking wonder they dragged Leicester to the league.
Posession ball is fucking dull mostly though (or maybe Niko is just right, better resources and players means it's just a way of stifling the game for the opposition). A bit like Chelsea 2004-06, killing out games without the opposition ever looking like winning. It's not a good spectacle to have one sided fixtures.
Anyone for a super league?
Weirdly American sports is fixated on having as many one-sided fixtures as possible, they love and strive for DOMINANCE and DYNASTIES, with upsets or anything else being seen as disappointing or a letdown. That is one of the central tensions in the whole American ownership thing, sport over there is a completely different social concept to sport over here.
Behold this week's new story of the golf superleague (funded, I suspect, by the same people as the football superleague), should be an interesting case study in how far the yanks will prostitute themselves for moolah.
Last edited by Jimmy Floyd; 06-05-2021 at 08:49 AM.
Who is it you think hates upsets in American sports? I can't speak for baseball but in NFL the people watching and reporting it love an upset or a surprise success as much as anybody else in my experience.
Sure they'll wank on about a Dynasty but so do the press over here, we just don't call it that. They still write "how will they ever lose a game again??????"-type articles when a team dominantly wins the league.
Do they not have an existential meltdown whenever two 'small market' teams, or those not featuring Tom Brady, get to the Super Bowl? Seems to happen in all the other sports there.
The only narratives they really like are strongman dominance (Brady/Jordan etc), a New York or LA team winning, or anything to do with a 'drought'.
Nah they just bang on about the history of said team and How They Got Here and whatnot.
I mean a favoured pastime for most of the NFL is lolling at the continued failure of the Dallas Cowboys, 'America's Team', and their owner Jerry Jones being miserable.
If a 'smaller' team makes it to the Super Bowl they tend to just dig into their history in the build up. Almost all of the teams have been to at least one Super Bowl and the NFL does so love its own history so they get loads of mileage out of that stuff.
There aren't really many 'small team' narratives in the NFL though, seeing as they're all part of a multi-billion dollar cartel.
Who are the small market lolbags? Jacksonville as a newer entrant (or I guess Houston/Tennessee by the same token)? Buffalo or Detroit as places of a bygone era?
It seems more of a thing in baseball from my extremely ill-informed perspective as there are established super teams (well, The Yankees) who appear to be allowed to outspend their rivals (to varying degrees of success). No one gives a fuck about basketball where I have no real idea what the success formula is, it seems some teams are able to aggregate all-star rosters somehow.
I was also thinking of T.Woods and M.Jordan (and probably others) as individuals, the American media acts around them like my parents' dog does when I have food in my hand. The same thing doesn't happen at all over here, the media are out to tear them down if anything. An Andy Murray figure would never be disliked there to the extent he is here.
Is that England badge revamp a stunt or permanent?
Devoting your energies to an 'inclusive' re-design of a thousand year old symbol of England whilst the domestic game almost falls to pieces on your watch is the best summation of this country's shithouse institutions possible. It will only be topped if they end up dropping it for excluding families with two lionesses.
Link.
No, you're just talking less successful / fashionable rather than 'smaller' because obscene wealth is the entry point into owning a franchise in the first place.
So when a traditionally shit team does well it tends to be because they've had to draft well for years and ideally, for the media, made one or two big signings that have tipped them over the edge. Obviously a QB is the dream in that scenario.
There appears to be a telegraph story, but it's adblock sensitive.
You can see it on the official FA twitter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote