Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by beninho Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

McLaren wrote:
beninho wrote:Having concerns about EU immigration does not make you a far right nutter or xenophobe. Mclaren, what is your knowledge on EU immigration, what dealings do you have with it? Can you see why people may have concerns about it?

Unless your concerns about how we can offer a more humane immigration system then you are xenophobe. If you are worried about the geographical location of where someone popped out of a uterus then you are not thinking rationally.

And no, I cannot see why anyone would have any issue with the current levels of immigration to/from the UK. Unless as I said above you are worried about how some people coming here are treated.

Do you not agree that an expanding population due to EU immigration, would lead to an extra burden on the NHS, housing, benefit and other public services aswell as the rise in rents?

Do you think that EU immigration, where people get fake payslips in order to claim benefits, working tax credits child tax credits and housing assistance? Or people that work minimal hours and tdo not pay any tax or nino who then can claim housing and benefit assistance? Or people that illegally overstay in the country, in order to achieve a loophole and gain housing or benefit assistance.

All of these are ongoing issues, though you did not answer my question in the first place.

by JAS Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:26 pm

McLaren wrote:Super

Mo Farrah is pretty bad example to clutch at.

What is clear to everyone on this board other than you is the complete lack of skill needed to be a runner.

Edit (NBS): I deleted the comment that could easily be construed as libellous.

Actually no Mac, I'm with super on this one,

1. You have no idea of the type of training regime required to run a marathon, properly & competitively. There's a mixture of long slow distance to build up aerobic capacity, pace running to allow the body to adapt to the pace target you set, interval or hill running to build cardiovascular strength and supplementary exercises to build leg strength and core strength.

2. Putting it all in the mix you're looking at averaging 40 miles per week minimum, top class athletes will be 100-120 miles per week. With those sort of miles the risk of injuries is high, you therefore need to be able to listen to your body to know when to ease off and when injuries do occur you need to work out how to rehab yourself bak to fitness and your training schedule

2. You probably think running a marathon is just like running a half marathon only twice as long (it's not - the mental element required for the last 6 is off the scale compared to what's required for the first 20) 20 and 6 are ballpark figures but at some point between 18 & 22 miles a runner encounters complete glycogen depletion. To train for a marathon properly a runner has to tune their body to a) up the mileage they can do before depletion occurs b) learn to run at the pace where they can run on a mixture of glycogen and fat c) mentally be able to cope with glycogen depletion.

I could go on but just to make the point, there's a helluva lot that goes into running training that a non runner simply doesn't understand and with marathon training theres a lot more goes into training that non marathon runners simply wouldn't understand either. If you think it's easy and simple go on then, do one, I'll sponsor you

by Yadsendew Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:47 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
super_realist wrote:If you don't think there is natural talent, coaching and learning involved in EVERY sport, then you're just a juicehead.

You really think Radcliffe was only successful because she "worked harder"
What a load of tosh.
Why do you think the most successful distance runners in the world come from generally the same area of Africa? You don't think there's a natural evolutionary bed of talent there where people are born with the characteristics and talent to help them run better?

Or do you think that an English person can just work harder and beat them all?

If you don't think runners need to be coached, why do they have coaches, why do they learn to run races better? Is Mo Farah a quality athlete? Didn't he say he needed to LEARN how to run marathons? His failure in marathons has nothing to do with not trying hard enough, it's technical, it's preparation, it takes tactics, it takes knowledge and it takes mental strength whether you are able to see it or not.
You could argue that the talent and skill is DIFFERENT to swanning around and getting knocked out by a bunch of fishermen, but it's still there.

You could say Jim Furyk has a terrible swing technique, but it works doesn't it?
Mullet Watson famously has never had a lesson in his life, can you win 2 Masters by just "working harder than everyone else"?

Wow. Talk about defensive and you still haven't supplied any real or logical evidence to suggest that top footballers aren't actually fit. Don't you think, for one second, that given all the financial riches available to the best footballers, that huge numbers haven't tried to get where, say, Messi is? Given that, it's clearly the case that you have to be extremely fit and, given that, your anti-footballer bias is clouding your judgement re. their fitness.

Super really is the Frankie Boyle of this forum. The whole thread has made me chuckle especially Super's simplistic understanding of professional footballers fitness levels including the domestic leagues. It is laughable to suggest that distance run per game is a true measure of fitness or competitiveness. More relavent is the positioning , explosive acceleration, endurance and stamina required within extremely short energy sapping periods that these footballers train for. Nothing wrong with effort / running 'good engine and all that but sadly, a bit like Roys outfit, these athletes can sometimes look like headless chickens.

by kwinigolfer Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:45 am

Physical fitness and ability is one thing; mental fitness and ability is another.
England's footballers might very well be physically fit, but fall way short mentally.

Yet another black American has been shot dead by Police, Louisiana earlier this week, Minnesota a day or two ago. Tip of the iceberg:
In the first six months of this year, 491 people have been shot dead by American Police Departments, about a quarter of them black victims shot by white officers.

We've had two within a mile of our house, one white drug dealer in his 40's (at least), one mentally ill gent in his 60's or 70's. It happens all the time - where's the outrage?

by super_realist Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:37 am

Yadsendew wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
super_realist wrote:If you don't think there is natural talent, coaching and learning involved in EVERY sport, then you're just a juicehead.

You really think Radcliffe was only successful because she "worked harder"
What a load of tosh.
Why do you think the most successful distance runners in the world come from generally the same area of Africa? You don't think there's a natural evolutionary bed of talent there where people are born with the characteristics and talent to help them run better?

Or do you think that an English person can just work harder and beat them all?

If you don't think runners need to be coached, why do they have coaches, why do they learn to run races better? Is Mo Farah a quality athlete? Didn't he say he needed to LEARN how to run marathons? His failure in marathons has nothing to do with not trying hard enough, it's technical, it's preparation, it takes tactics, it takes knowledge and it takes mental strength whether you are able to see it or not.
You could argue that the talent and skill is DIFFERENT to swanning around and getting knocked out by a bunch of fishermen, but it's still there.

You could say Jim Furyk has a terrible swing technique, but it works doesn't it?
Mullet Watson famously has never had a lesson in his life, can you win 2 Masters by just "working harder than everyone else"?

Wow. Talk about defensive and you still haven't supplied any real or logical evidence to suggest that top footballers aren't actually fit. Don't you think, for one second, that given all the financial riches available to the best footballers, that huge numbers haven't tried to get where, say, Messi is? Given that, it's clearly the case that you have to be extremely fit and, given that, your anti-footballer bias is clouding your judgement re. their fitness.

Super really is the Frankie Boyle of this forum. The whole thread has made me chuckle especially Super's simplistic understanding of professional footballers fitness levels including the domestic leagues. It is laughable to suggest that distance run per game is a true measure of fitness or competitiveness. More relavent is the positioning , explosive acceleration, endurance and stamina required within extremely short energy sapping periods that these footballers train for. Nothing wrong with effort / running 'good engine and all that but sadly, a bit like Roys outfit, these athletes can sometimes look like headless chickens.

Are you stupid? I didn't say that the number of KM's run per game was a measure of someone's fitness. I said that the low number of KM's run per player (typically 10-13) is such a low number that there is no reason they couldn't play more often than ONCE A WEEK in tournaments, despite there being short sprints. Tennis, cycling, athletics, basketball etc are full of "explosive" efforts, but none give their players such an excessive break.
Footballers hide behind the "contact" element, which is virtually non -existent in the modern game.

Being able to run (as everyone is) doesn't mean that all you need to do to get better is do lots of it. Like EVERYTHING physical, you need a good technique (i.e. improve your skills) to get better at it.

by raycastleunited Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:18 pm

JAS wrote:
McLaren wrote:Super

Mo Farrah is pretty bad example to clutch at.

What is clear to everyone on this board other than you is the complete lack of skill needed to be a runner.

Edit (NBS): I deleted the comment that could easily be construed as libellous.

Actually no Mac, I'm with super on this one,

1. You have no idea of the type of training regime required to run a marathon, properly & competitively. There's a mixture of long slow distance to build up aerobic capacity, pace running to allow the body to adapt to the pace target you set, interval or hill running to build cardiovascular strength and supplementary exercises to build leg strength and core strength.

2. Putting it all in the mix you're looking at averaging 40 miles per week minimum, top class athletes will be 100-120 miles per week. With those sort of miles the risk of injuries is high, you therefore need to be able to listen to your body to know when to ease off and when injuries do occur you need to work out how to rehab yourself bak to fitness and your training schedule

2. You probably think running a marathon is just like running a half marathon only twice as long (it's not - the mental element required for the last 6 is off the scale compared to what's required for the first 20) 20 and 6 are ballpark figures but at some point between 18 & 22 miles a runner encounters complete glycogen depletion. To train for a marathon properly a runner has to tune their body to a) up the mileage they can do before depletion occurs b) learn to run at the pace where they can run on a mixture of glycogen and fat c) mentally be able to cope with glycogen depletion.

I could go on but just to make the point, there's a helluva lot that goes into running training that a non runner simply doesn't understand and with marathon training theres a lot more goes into training that non marathon runners simply wouldn't understand either. If you think it's easy and simple go on then, do one, I'll sponsor you

JAS I think you've just illustrated Mac's point for him. You make 3 points:

1. Type of training regime required: running slowly, running a bit faster, running up hill.
2. Amount of training required: "top class athletes will be 100-120 miles per week." ie a lot of running.
3. Training for glycogen depletion: run some more so they can run through it.

So in a nutshell, do lots of running. That skill you learn as a toddler.

by McLaren Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:42 pm

JAS

I didn't say it would be easy to get good at running my point, as ray mentions above, is that it requires little skill or technique to get good. The main thing is putting in the miles, in whatever form that is.

by Yadsendew Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:35 pm

super_realist wrote:
Yadsendew wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
super_realist wrote:If you don't think there is natural talent, coaching and learning involved in EVERY sport, then you're just a juicehead.

You really think Radcliffe was only successful because she "worked harder"
What a load of tosh.
Why do you think the most successful distance runners in the world come from generally the same area of Africa? You don't think there's a natural evolutionary bed of talent there where people are born with the characteristics and talent to help them run better?

Or do you think that an English person can just work harder and beat them all?

If you don't think runners need to be coached, why do they have coaches, why do they learn to run races better? Is Mo Farah a quality athlete? Didn't he say he needed to LEARN how to run marathons? His failure in marathons has nothing to do with not trying hard enough, it's technical, it's preparation, it takes tactics, it takes knowledge and it takes mental strength whether you are able to see it or not.
You could argue that the talent and skill is DIFFERENT to swanning around and getting knocked out by a bunch of fishermen, but it's still there.

You could say Jim Furyk has a terrible swing technique, but it works doesn't it?
Mullet Watson famously has never had a lesson in his life, can you win 2 Masters by just "working harder than everyone else"?

Wow. Talk about defensive and you still haven't supplied any real or logical evidence to suggest that top footballers aren't actually fit. Don't you think, for one second, that given all the financial riches available to the best footballers, that huge numbers haven't tried to get where, say, Messi is? Given that, it's clearly the case that you have to be extremely fit and, given that, your anti-footballer bias is clouding your judgement re. their fitness.

Super really is the Frankie Boyle of this forum. The whole thread has made me chuckle especially Super's simplistic understanding of professional footballers fitness levels including the domestic leagues. It is laughable to suggest that distance run per game is a true measure of fitness or competitiveness. More relavent is the positioning , explosive acceleration, endurance and stamina required within extremely short energy sapping periods that these footballers train for. Nothing wrong with effort / running 'good engine and all that but sadly, a bit like Roys outfit, these athletes can sometimes look like headless chickens.

Are you stupid? I didn't say that the number of KM's run per game was a measure of someone's fitness. I said that the low number of KM's run per player (typically 10-13) is such a low number that there is no reason they couldn't play more often than ONCE A WEEK in tournaments, despite there being short sprints. Tennis, cycling, athletics, basketball etc are full of "explosive" efforts, but none give their players such an excessive break.
Footballers hide behind the "contact" element, which is virtually non -existent in the modern game.

Being able to run (as everyone is) doesn't mean that all you need to do to get better is do lots of it. Like EVERYTHING physical, you need a good technique (i.e. improve your skills) to get better at it.

Yes, as it happens I am stupid but that’s not the point. When it comes to this discussion you really don’t have a Scooby Doo and you keep reinforcing your ignorance and naivety with more rubbish.

Even you must realise that the reason why these teams don't play more games closer together in these major tournaments is nothing to do with the teams or fitness it's purely for commercial, media and logistical reasons. Anyways, back to those grossly unfit professional footballers especially the ones we are familiar with. Not including training, within the season most professinal footballers, play two and sometimes three times a week depending on how successful they are. One of the major issues that Managers of the bigger club’s whinge about mostly is having to play too many games when perhaps other teams (usually but not always less successful) may benefit from longer periods of recuperation. This point, I am sure, will be made in the next few days with Portugal clearly having more time to recover than France

It’s exactly the opposite to what you are suggesting clearly a team that’s had more time to recover playing at more or less the same level is going to have a significant advantage especially at the extreme levels of honing and fitness that professional footballers need to maintain.
Why do you think richer clubs have such big squads and ‘give players rests’ when engaged in lower level matches? It’s all about equal competition regardless of whether you play once or five times a week. If you don’t understand this, then just like me, you are stupid.

by I'm never wrong Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:28 pm

Busy Sunday for sports fans. British Grand Prix, Wimbledon men's final, Euro 2016 final plus the Scottish Open final day, US Women's Open Golf. Couch potato time.

by kwinigolfer Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:32 pm

You've forgotten Cleveland Indians at home to the New York Yankees . . . . . .

by westisbest Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:40 pm

Connacht final to Very Happy

by Yadsendew Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:43 am

Well done Portugal, scrambled through just about every round of the tournament but came through in the end. Saw a different side of Ronaldo last night which has softened my view on him. I think I may go and Bradly dredge that lake he threw the mike in last week, maybe worth a few bob!

Can't remember, but did anyone predict the winner?

by pedro Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:34 pm

The most boring Euro in...well... at least 4 years. For sure I was left with a flat feeling and not because I warm particularly to France.

I think they need to tweak the format as it promotes defensive playing in the group stages allowing mediocre teams to sneak through. Of course these Euros got us Wales and Iceland, but I think at the end of the day you want to see the big nations in the big games.

I wouldn't be surprised with a future format similar to the current CL format (and EuroVision!) with a pre-qualification and with big nations being given a bye, either in the pre-qual and/or in the group stages in the finals.

by McLaren Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:54 pm

Pedro

Don't think there is much that can be done to make tournament football more exciting when not loosing and at least getting a crack at penalties is the best option. Teams no they have to avoid conceding in normal time and extra time at almost all costs.

Look what happened to germany in the semi's, tried to pump France and in the process conceded two goals and went home.

by Davie Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:16 pm

I must admit I wondered why that stupid global post about Brexit was still a sticky and attracting attention - then I see that there is a certain TRUSSMAN posting in there keeping it all going

I wonder if he knows anything more about British politics than he does about Ryder Cup golf, and golf in general.

Probably not

by raycastleunited Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:12 pm

Terrible Euros, worst tournament I can remember, and it's not just because England were dreadful. Most defensive tournament since Italy 1990, when incidentally... the same 24 team format was used just like 2016.

Expanding to 24 teams had the effect of:
1. Creating a boring 2 year qualification period, with some very weak groups (e.g. England winning 10 out of 10 matches) and lack of excitement for many of the major countries as it was too easy to qualify.
2. Creating a boring group stage, where winning wasn't essential (eg Portugal!). There was not enough incentive to play attacking football and try and win matches. The weaker teams realised that they could scrape through playing dull defensive football.
3. The success of negative tactics in the group phase encouraged further negative tactics in the knock out phase.
4. An extra knock out round of 16 devoid of excitement: all the games at this stage were either one-sided or stifflingly poor.

They should really go back to 16 teams in 2020. Obviously this won't happen, more teams = more money.

by Roller_Coaster Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:41 pm

IMO - it used to be tougher to win than the World Cup. Generally the top 16 sides through with no easy games for anyone even in the group stages (except for anyone playing England obviously...).

I'd agree with going back to 16, 4 groups with top 2 through with ties settled by head to head then (IMO) results vs third placed side before goal diff/scored etc.

I'd also have no seeding at all in the finals. I don't care if that means (say) Germany, Italy, Spain and France all in one group - that's the luck of the draw. All the games will sell out as all the countries each have enough fans to half fill any stadium and any of the later rounds are going to be a huge draw for TV etc anyway regardless of who plays as they are QF or better.

I've got nothing better than extra time and penalties I don't think.

One radical idea - sudden death corners? Each team starts with a corner and has (say) a 30 second time period during which play could continue until either a goal goes in or the time runs out. So if a goal is scored, it is a goal and next team is up for their corner knowing they need to score. If not, both teams have the remainder of the time, giving either the attacking team a chance to score off a clearance or the defending team a chance to score "against the head" with a breakaway goal. Before the next team gets their go with their own corner.

Involves the whole team, tactics and I think removes the element of lottery and individual pressure of a 1 v 1 solution (ie penalties) to a team game.

Doesn't change much about teams being defensive through the whole match and taking their chance on getting to that stage though, but I don't think anything would without resorting to allowing the team with more "shots on target" (or equivalent stat) to go through.

by raycastleunited Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:49 pm

Generally agree with you Roller.

Apart from sudden death corners. I think this would be terrible, you'd have teams playing 90/120 mins waiting for corners, then bring on the big lads and lump it in the box for the set pieces. I could see Allardcye being successful if UEFA tried this.

by McLaren Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:06 pm

You could have some sort of "cost" if you go through on penalties. For example any team progressing via a penalty shoot out would have to play their next round against away goals(other teams goals count for more if the match is drawn). If both teams got there via penalties then it is back to level playing, and so on.

by kwinigolfer Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:06 pm

Brendan Rogers having a baptism of fire. Celtic one goal down against Lincoln Red Imps of Gibraltar early in the second half.

by Davie Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:11 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Brendan Rogers having a baptism of fire. Celtic one goal down against Lincoln Red Imps of Gibraltar early in the second half.

by pedro Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:26 pm

Ray, I think you are spot on. It was exactly the point I wanted to make, especially 2+3. I also came to think of the boring Italy 1990, although back then Germany clearly stood out as the best team.

by raycastleunited Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:35 pm

Golf juice anyone? I've seen both episodes so far. A bit silly and not really my cup of tea, but not a bad idea to have a soccer am style show to get down with the kids.

Jimmy Bullard is very funny in small doses but I imagine he would be annoying for extended periods

by McLaren Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:54 am

Turkey? Anyone see that coming?

Apparently those worried about its entry to the EU needn't have bothered.

by Be_the_ball Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:06 am

Failed coup attempt at this stage.

by SmithersJones Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:47 am

McLaren wrote:Turkey? Anyone see that coming?

Apparently those worried about its entry to the EU needn't have bothered.

Just another Leave lie, always was even before this.

by kwinigolfer Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:34 am

Wonder what Turkey is going to do for an army now? Hire Blackwater??

by McLaren Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:59 pm

Speak to the free folk?

by pedro Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:10 pm

Fantastique

http://www.lbc.co.uk/caller-blindsides-farage-on-migrants--languages-133913

by McLaren Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:05 am

Super_Realist takes news of Tiger's PGA champs withdrawal harder than expected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36841810

by I'm never wrong Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:29 am

McLaren wrote:Super_Realist takes news of Tiger's PGA champs withdrawal harder than expected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36841810

No, Mac; just no.

by pedro Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:17 am

What a weird story. They write something without writing anything. (A bit like the reporting on Tiger Woods's health.)

by super_realist Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:43 am

McLaren wrote:Super_Realist takes news of Tiger's PGA champs withdrawal harder than expected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36841810

Surely I'd be celebrating Mac rather than top myself?

by McLaren Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:52 am

Super

What is clear is that you have a passion for Tiger and you will be sad to see his reduced presence in the game.

by super_realist Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:42 am

I'll be delighted when that cretin retires.

by MontysMerkin Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:58 am

I'm sure he'll be very upset by your sentiments, Rolling Eyes

by super_realist Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:55 am

MontysMerkin wrote:I'm sure he'll be very upset by your sentiments,

About as much as he'd be happy with Mac's constant arse licking.

by beninho Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:17 pm

To be fair, i would not be surprised if Tiger enjoyed a bit of rimming.

by McLaren Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:51 pm

beninho wrote:To be fair, i would not be surprised if Tiger enjoyed a bit of rimming.

Giving or receiving?

by Yadsendew Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:45 pm

Big Sam to become England manager within next 24 hours. At least he'll make sure we don't get relegated Shocked

by Davie Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:57 pm

Yadsendew wrote:Big Sam to become England manager within next 24 hours. At least he'll make sure we don't get relegated

RIP the 3 lions if this is the case. I've been increasingly disillusioned with the England setup for a few years now as most have - but this is the end

by beninho Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:07 pm

Experienced premier league manager and easily best of the bunch being put forward. Pretty happy with the appointment of big sam. Becausethere was fu $k all else!

by McLaren Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:47 am

Davie, it could have been worse. I heard the FA were going to try and temp Wenger again.

by MontysMerkin Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:47 am

Davie wrote:
Yadsendew wrote:Big Sam to become England manager within next 24 hours. At least he'll make sure we don't get relegated

RIP the 3 lions if this is the case. I've been increasingly disillusioned with ~~the~~ England ~~setup~~ for a few years now as most have - but this is the end

There, fixed it for you.

by Davie Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:49 am

McLaren wrote:Davie, it could have been worse. I heard the FA were going to try and temp Wenger again.

At least with Wenger we'd finish 4th

by raycastleunited Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:06 pm

I don't know what to make of Big Sam as England manager. Overall it's not great news, but then there were so few realistic candidates he looks like the best of a bad bunch.

Hopefully he will get the confidence back into the team by ensuring we have a game plan and the players will understand their roles. He should make us harder to beat as well, which often seems to be a good route to success... Portugal, Greece, Italy.

I'm a bit worried about the style of play. But then I was worried about the style of play when Neil Warnock was QPR manager, and actually he was a revelation because we played exciting attacking football. Warnock explained that previously he had never had the players to play good football, but at QPR he had the budget to buy talent who he could trust to play a more expansive style.

Maybe Big Sam has always applied this same pragmatism... secretly he'd love to play tiki-taka but recognised Bolton, Newcastle etc couldn't do it. (I'm not saying England can). So I'll give him he benefit of the doubt for now.

by beninho Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:08 pm

I dont care what style of play england play, Portugal hardly set the world alight with free flowing attacking football, and I would happily accept that end result.

by Roller_Coaster Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:49 pm

It is what it is.

As with any incumbent, give them a go.

Then slag off anything and everything to do with them and claim it should have been Brian Clough, Harry Redknapp or whoever flavour of the month is at the time.

Yours sincerely
The UK Media

by Davie Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:50 pm

What exactly does Sam offer that Woy didn't? Nothing that I can see

by Roller_Coaster Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:54 pm

Northern accent?

Possibility of picking players on form rather than reputation? (NB only a possibility)

Speaks 1 language, nearly fluently?

Can actually drive a bus so might be justified in parking it (when we play the likes of the mighty Iceland again)?

by Yadsendew Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:03 pm

raycastleunited wrote:I don't know what to make of Big Sam as England manager. Overall it's not great news, but then there were so few realistic candidates he looks like the best of a bad bunch.

Hopefully he will get the confidence back into the team by ensuring we have a game plan and the players will understand their roles. He should make us harder to beat as well, which often seems to be a good route to success... Portugal, Greece, Italy.

I'm a bit worried about the style of play. But then I was worried about the style of play when Neil Warnock was QPR manager, and actually he was a revelation because we played exciting attacking football. Warnock explained that previously he had never had the players to play good football, but at QPR he had the budget to buy talent who he could trust to play a more expansive style.

Maybe Big Sam has always applied this same pragmatism... secretly he'd love to play tiki-taka but recognised Bolton, Newcastle etc couldn't do it. (I'm not saying England can). So I'll give him he benefit of the doubt for now.

'Colin' is not in the same league as big Sam, well not that often anyway. Sam understands the science, player motivation and relevant movement / fitness (that's for you Super) better than anyone. Given the budget of the top clubs he would, in my opinion, have won many trophies.

Whereas England may or may not win at the very highest level during his reign, at least his sides will be prepared, briefed and contain players that can motivate and to quote Alladice "be able to adopt an adaptive style" during the course of a game.

The name Colin is there to avoid any future litigation Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content