Chippy

No one can say Jose has not given sweepy a fair crack now and I hope tonight he go's a way to thanking him for it he did ok against Sheff Utd but in an unusual central role, lets hope he has gained a bit of confidence and is not worrying that Robben will be on for him before the second half. hope Mikel copes and I am sure he will, lets get things back to normal against this lot

Funny how childish my chirp about Ghanaian markets was, unyet the Fat Fw**k remark you consider to be sensible debate Typical, if you were after sensible debate that you never turned up here before you had your little lead

I think we should go easy on the United fan here, he's probobly bought his knock off shirt down at the Ghanian market in 03 and looked good in red, he has waited patiently for them to win a title after reading about how good they used to be and now it looks like his dream could come true, let him celebrate, they have done ok this season and to get in front of even a weakened Chelsea side is good going so we cant take it away from them. If you win mate then well done, keep the newspaper cuttings though because it may be a while before we slip up as much as we have this term.

Gary Neville just gone off against Bolton with an ankle injury, I am not one to wish injuries on players but this does show some of the luck could just be equalling out. Bolton appear to be rolling over though so its not helping yet.

Nobody had a good game so I would not single anyone out, on a usual day though I think Rikky is as good as almost anyone in the Prem and this season he has been better than ever, ok he is prone to some rash challenges and does lunge in sometimes but these are parts of his game that appear less and less and I believe he will be even better next season.

Boring uninspired performance, I could mention Ballack just doesn't look interested and people who say Sheva and Ballack are here for their last big Paydays should compare the way the pair play, I actually think we are better with Sheva on the field and I cant say that about Ballack. a word for Sweepy, he had our best shot of the game with his first and nearly only touch Robben seems to be putting the ball about a mile too far ahead of him to go past players, lucky he do'nt do ronaldo stepovers or he would split himself up the middle

theres no accounting for what went wrong yesterday, even TT has not got a crystal Ball I for one will still be having a goi on his next tip, keep the faith

I wont slate Jose as whatever he said at half time and with his strange substitutions (Sweep for Paulo) we still done well to get a draw but heres my take on things. why with a recognised decent CB in the squad would you waste your in form midfielder at CB? i dont like players playing out of position if you have able players that are regulars in the squad, surely it not only hurts the performance but also the confidence of the player left out. Robben, just watching him throw himself down when he could possibly still get a touch on the ball drives me mad, he's better than this and Jose should do something about it or get shot of him, look at the way Joey was treated when Jose took umbridge to some of the things he did that he diddn't like (not diving) why cant he just tell Robben if he dives he will sub him straight away? I thank Martin Jol as much as Jose for getting us back in as Mido may as well have just sat and watched. Berbatov though looks better every time I see him play. We are still in it though and thats good, hopefully JT will be ready for the replay and if not Boula will play CB with RC. I dont know what to think about SWP and cant believe he is as bad as this, I actually thought his last few subs appearances had looked a bit more promising but today was a huge step backwards for him.

TT as I have faith in you, I have just put my last ?200 on 1/2 as well, I hope your sure

Being as this Arsenal loving interests me I thought I would post this and although I can see sense in some of it, I think its starting to look a bit ridiculas :lol: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 489923.ece Losing in style: How Arsenal discovered an ugly truth about the Beautiful Game Simon Barnes. Arsenal: a nation mourns. They lost the Carling Cup final, despite playing better than Chelsea. They were knocked out of the FA Cup, despite playing better than Blackburn Rovers over two matches. They have lost all chance of winning the Barclays Premiership, despite playing better than Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool. They are in danger of failing to qualify for the Champions League next season, despite playing better than all the clubs below them. And now they are out of Europe?s premier club competition this season, despite playing better than PSV Eindhoven over two legs and playing better than all eight clubs that remain in the competition. It?s not really fair, is it? But then Arsenal?s football was not better in terms of goals and victories and all that; it was better morally. Arsenal play the right way. They play with style and brio, with beautiful passes, with intricate patterns, with wit and charm. They also play with youth, plucked from the ranks and taught to seek and find greatness. This season Arsenal produced a team of pure and dizzy talent, the distilled essence of football. They embodied every kind of footballing virtue. Question: does defeat in four competitions destroy the moral argument? Does rightness depend on victory? Or is there really a right way and wrong way to play? Is it better to lose the right way than win the wrong way? After one season in which Arsenal had the upper hand over United, Sir Alex Ferguson, the United manager, said that his team may have lost, but they played the better ? ie, the more attractive ? football. The comment of Arsene Wenger, the Arsenal manager, has gone into legend: ?Everyone thinks he has the prettiest wife at home.? But this season, Arsenal really are the prettiest. None but the most besotted and uxorious of one-eyed fans can deny this. They are better than everyone else, but not good enough to win anything. Where does that leave us? Well then, what does being the best, the prettiest and most morally perfect football team entail? It is not a question of good behaviour, keeping to the rules, not diving, not kicking opponents. Arsenal have been guilty of all these things, but that does not contradict the belief that they play ?the right way?. No, a team that play ?good? football are one that please the senses of the observers. They are just nicer to watch. There is unquestionably an aesthetic dimension to football. The famous Danny Blanchflower dictum ? that the game is not about winning but about glory and doing things in style ? still has a deep resonance. In 1988, when Liverpool played Wimbledon in the FA Cup Final, people wrote that Liverpool were ?playing for the good name of English football?. Liverpool were morally good because they played a game based on passing and cute triangles. Wimbledon were morally bad because they lumped the ball up the middle at a beastly centre forward. One team were moral, one team were immoral. The immoral team won 1-0, proving what? In the early 1980s, football people were outraged by the theory of POMO: the Position Of Maximum Opportunity ? ie, whack the ball into the penalty area as many times as possible and it will end up in the net by sheer statistical inevitability. This was rejected by many as heresy, not just because it is less effective than pretty football, but because it is morally wrong. Cesc F?bregas, the heart and soul of the young and lovely Arsenal team, rebuked Mark Hughes, the Blackburn manager and a former Barcelona player, because his team ? successful against Arsenal in the FA Cup replay ? did not play ?Barcelona football?. As if this failure was a moral outrage. Blackburn played defensively, sought to stifle and intimidate, imposed themselves as far as the laws and the referee would allow them. Is that immoral? Would they have been more moral if they had, despite lacking the playing resources, attempted to play like Barcelona (or, for that matter, Arsenal) and lost 4-0? You tell me. We all know that football has no marks for artistic impression, but as a neutral I still wanted Arsenal to win. I can argue long and hard and probably correctly that Arsenal?s moral stance is utterly bogus, but I am still a sucker for glory and doing things in style. We all are, except when we have partisanship to deal with. In the rugby union World Cup of 2003, England were criticised for their lack of style. Is that all you?ve got? Look at the bloody scoreboard, we replied. Style is for wimps, we?ve got Jonny and Jonno. Yet, when England choose to kick a penalty rather than run it at Twickenham, there are always boos. The crowd wants victory, but the right way, with lots of running and passing and rolling mauls and line-breaking forwards. A bit of glory. So why aren?t the Barbarians everyone?s favourite rugby team? They always go for glory. But it doesn?t convince us because we know that there is nothing at stake. It?s not real, it?s just a bit of fun. We want glory in the context of the search for big prizes and persuade ourselves that there is a moral rightness in that course. There is a tendency to see all those who play extravagantly as morally right because they entertain us. But do we really want every athlete to be like Henri Leconte, a tennis player who cared little whether he won or lost so long as he went the pretty way? Ilie Nastase was adored at Wimbledon for his style and swagger; he was twice a finalist but doomed to lose. Pete Sampras, one of the all-time greats in all sports, was disliked because he was ?boring?; this was seen by some as a moral failing. In the 1960s, cricket became so attritional, so totally based on defeat-avoidance, that they had to invent a new form of the game. One-day cricket came about because the traditional version of the game had turned its back on style and glory. The primacy of one-day cricket in the sub-continent can be traced to the hideous excesses of negativity in Test matches orchestrated by Sunil Gavaskar, the India captain from the late 1970s to the mid1980s. Logically, we must always support every athlete?s right to seek victory in whatever legal fashion he chooses. Logically, we must accept that sport is only incidentally entertaining; that the only duty of the athlete is to struggle for victory with perfect sincerity; that when an athlete seeks to be an entertainer, he loses the sport in himself. But all the same . . . Sobers, Best, Campese, Warne, Pel?, Maradona, McEnroe, Jayasuriya . . . Pietersen, Muralitharan, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Robinson, Federer . . . yes, even F?bregas, Henry, Denilson, at least to an extent. Style may not be a moral imperative in sport, but sport is more amusing for its presence. To say that style doesn?t matter in sport does not mean that there is no style in sport. It only means that you lack this quality yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wenger's young thoroughbreds will outrun United in the long term http://sport.independent.co.uk/football ... 341278.ece by James Lawton It was the kind of thinly disguised disparagement which would have been more familiar on the lips of Ars?ne Wenger after his latest banishment from Europe but it was Sir Alex Ferguson, the new favourite to win the Champions League, who suggested the '07 vintage was looking distinctly thin after Barcelona's death on the vine at Anfield. No, said the man who knows his way round a good Burgundy or Bordeaux better than most, he couldn't pick a dominant threat among the quarter-final survivors. Bar?a had been the class product of 2006 but in the end you could scarcely distinguish them from a jug of sangria. So for Fergie, he made it plain, it is a case of taking what comes along in United's currently shaky pursuit of the historic treble they landed in 1999 - and without too much trepidation. In fact, you could make a case of roughly equal force for the remaining English runners: United plagued by a sudden dose of injury and suspension and the impending departure of the marvellous Henrik Larsson, and desperately searching for the slick coherence and beautiful passing which gave them such momentum before Christmas; Chelsea refusing, so far, to lose focus despite ever more explicit civil war at Stamford Bridge, and Liverpool, Rafael Benitez's course specialists of tigerish tackling still striding along in the absence of a creative thought in their heads. But what of Arsenal, the team who fell so badly, so disconsolately, the least sentimental elements of the bookmaking trade have already made them odds-on (10-11) to go through next season without landing any of four available trophies? For the foreseeable future are they really at the end of their road? No. Though it is fashionable, and perhaps unavoidable, to take aim at the embattled Wenger, it also shows a shocking failure to understand that for many reasons, including the one made by Ferguson that it is not a time of extraordinary development in any club in Europe, there are different ways of measuring success in today's game. One of them is Arsenal's only way of comforting themselves at this moment as they stand so forlornly on the jetty while the rest of English football's elite march into today's Champions League draw. But it is not a bad one; indeed, some of his rivals might kill for the right. It is to ask a question that has never been more important than in this age of grossly inflated transfer market values and the signal failure of a club as mighty as Barcelona to build on the foundation of extravagant talent. Who could Wenger possibly envy as he reviews the progress of young players who will be at the core of his team for at least half a decade? The answer could not be more emphatic. There is nobody in English football who has stored such riches. He has been as larcenous as he has been superbly acute in assembling such lion cubs as Cesc Fabregas, Denilson, Mathieu Flamini, Emmanuel Adebayor, G?el Clichy, Armand Traor? and Johan Djourou. These are not objects of speculation. They are keepers and they will grow up, you could put the mortgage on it, in the soaring Emirates Stadium which for a while curbed Wenger's spending powers but now underpins the club's future. Once, in his little office beneath Liverpool's old rickety main stand, Bill Shankly was explaining the club's future with the passing of such bedrock figures as Ronnie Yeats and Ian St John. He said that he had gathered together a bunch of young players who eventually would explode into the sky like a "great bloody bomb". The impact of this statement was not lessened by the fact that in order to make it the old warrior had clambered on to his desk, stood to his full height and then violently clasped his hands together. Wenger, a more cerebral figure when he isn't ranting at the moon over some perceived injustice, is generally not given to such extravagant gestures, but who could have said he would have been wrong to have touched on a little of that bombast after the brilliance displayed by his young team in completing the double over Manchester United and, with the football equivalent of a stable full of two-year-olds, outplaying Chelsea for a good part of the recent Carling Cup final? Shankly, sadly, was wrong about some of his youngsters, though not over the flyer Steve Heighway and Emlyn Hughes. Wenger by comparison appears to hold pretty much a full hand. It is the most spectacular pure achievement in English football since Ferguson brought through his production line of young talent in the mid-Nineties, and under circumstances that the manager of United would be the first to agree have been changed quite radically by the FA's pursuit of a playing field that is level. Back then Alan Hansen declared that you don't win with kids, but of course Ferguson did, as Sir Matt Busby did before him. Everything depends on the kids. Among Jose Mourinho's recent taunts is that he cannot afford to dally over the nurturing of young players. He has to win. When you have been given a budget guaranteed to make the president of a small republic drool, there is a certain obligation to get on with the business of winning, today. It is not as though Wenger has detached Arsenal utterly from the game's glittering prizes. In a time of transition which is required by all those who lack the resources to make instant teams, he has taken his squad to a European Cup final, gone to a Carling Cup final in a campaign which was turned into a field exercise for his youngest first-teamers and contenders, and is on course to qualify again for Europe. Whatever you think of some of his recent behaviour, it would be absurd to say that Wenger has been left behind. In a field which even the front-running Ferguson admits is not exactly loaded with distinction, he has lost an important race. But then it will resume in the autumn, when the shrewd betting has to be that Arsenal will be that much more experienced - and handily placed.

Vegetables get hurt in fight........... Smashing Pumpkins

I liked what I saw last night and think if he would have been handy had we got him in January, that said its good to see how he go's for the rest of PSVs season if we have an option for next season, at least hes getting some good games under his belt in the CL so if he comes out of it well he could be worth Jose thinking about (if Jose is still here). I hope we dont get them in the Draw as I would like to see him a against Man Utd or Milan.

Drogs goals have undoubtably made him the most important this season as without them we would be nowhere, I doubt we have another player who would have scored half of them. with Essien I think he is massive for us but its far easier to see what Drogs adds in terms of goals than what Essien adds, Power Pace Commitment Versatility and even in defence assurance. I think possibly money could buy someone to do what Drogs does but I am not sure another player like Ess exists. just Drogs for me for the ammount of goals but Essien is in a class of his own. lets hope we keep them both for the foreseable future.

I hope Jose admits the Robben goal had an element of luck to it after critisising uniteds lucky goals, have to say in a small defense of their goalie that the ball did bounce twice and he dived a bit early and let it over him a bit, well maybe he was just crap First half we were totally outplayed and credit to Porto for the way they stuck to their gameplan, second half as usual when we have gone behind was a lot better, I bet on Ballack to score tonight but at half time I hoped he would be subbed, he did however look better in that second half and better all game than Frank. Joses substitution was strange for me as I would have brought on Boula and swapped Essien with Maka, not because Maka was bad but I just wanted to see Essien in midfield. Mikel though was superb and like Diarra (nice sub by Jose as Quaresma would have had him off) is a very promising youngster. Drogs rolled on the floor for his first four touches of the ball and I sensed it was not gonna be his day, hard to blame sheva as Ballack and Lamps gave him very little and the hoofed balls were all meant for Drogs. If I was to rate the players it would be Cech 7 not much he could do with the goal Diarra 7 good on the ball and got at Quaresma quite well Riccy 8 glad to have some stability there Essien 8 so calm under pressure although sometimes wanders Cole 8 done well and got forward a bit Maka 6 done okay as usual Robben 6 gave them something to think about -1 for the dive Lamps 5 missed passes and pointless backwards passes Ballack 6 not enough effort but a few decent passes and the goal Sheva 6 started well but no service, good set up for Ballacks goal Drogba 6 rolled about too much but improved after the break subs Mikel 8 best player second half Fereira 7 done his job well Kalou not enough time to rate thats how I saw it, glad were through but we need to improve on that showing bigtime.

I will give you evens Dorsets next post is a priceless piece of his own unique blend of wit and knowledge tinged with a little sarcasm I still enjoyed it and will enjoy it more if uniteds luck runs out tomorrow night

Sounds about right TT, I fancy the 2-0 and will be going for that. I will probobly go a tenner on each as I have had a bad season with the bets. got a bit back on the portsmouth game as you know which will go on this. Its always good when I am about to bet to see your tips are on what I was gonna do anyway, when they are not I will just bet less.

I think Pool actually played well, and worse than that I think Bellamy had a good game and should have stayed on. Cant see how they never scored but then Saha should have had a penalty and like us in Joses first season, Utd are getting the luck. I think we have to concentrate on the CL and just look at winning as much as possible and hoping Utd get the results their football dreserves (the last couple or three games they have been second best by a mile) a CL win would make this a great season for us, a CL and FA cup still a dream season. lets live the dream

already posted http://www.csrforums2.co.uk/viewtopic.p ... 8&start=15 but worth another read

I for one like the Betting stuff TT in fact I have a small bet on all our games, I am well down but dont keep a record as I only bet between ?5 and ?40 normally on the score which makes it hard as you know, I had ?30 on 1-3 on sunday. I do all mine on Sportingodds.com as I cant be bothered to look about and join up with the other sites. I am a bit worried about this game as I think UTDs result may affect the way we play here. I will take your lead this time and go 15:51 102672660 4.00 S Portsmouth v Chelsea Correct Score 0-3 9/1 O 15:51 102672634 6.00 S Portsmouth v Chelsea Correct Score 0-2 11/2 O Plus my usual quid on 15:52 102672846 1.00 S Portsmouth v Chelsea Scorecast 2-0[away],Frank Lampard 25/1 O

I dont much like Cascarino and dont agree with all of what he says here but its worth a read and some of it rings true, as with all managers decisions though there are two ways of looking at things, anyway heres Tony's way, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 459129.ece March 02, 2007 Friend and foe alike kept in cold by Wenger Tony Cascarino: Analysis Ars?ne Wenger is better at starting arguments than at winning trophies these days. Then again, why does he need silverware, he?s already got a huge shield ? the one he uses to deflect away the reality of Arsenal?s own shortcomings. You could accuse the assistant referee of being wrong to tell the referee to send off Emmanuel Adebayor in the Carling Cup final, but not of being a liar. That?s accusing him of dishonesty, effectively of cheating. It?s not the linesman who has an agenda, but the Arsenal manager himself. Something goes wrong? It?s somebody else?s fault. Wenger produces more sour grapes than a dodgy vineyard. Funny how he courts controversy after defeats, but appears far more mellow when all is well. Wenger seems incapable of admitting that Manchester United and Chelsea are superb sides. Apparently the league table is not enough evidence for him. He?s always been like that, back when he was the coach of AS Monaco and Marseilles were the dominant force in French football. Wenger kept sniping at Marseilles, saying that their success was down to underhand methods. He certainly had a point, but the fact was that Marseilles had a great team, no matter how shady the chairman at the time, Bernard Tapie, was. Tapie used to refer to Wenger as a ?nearly man?. The danger for Arsenal now is that they become a ?nearly team?. The Champions League is the only competition they still have a chance of winning. Is that the fault of the assistant referee in Cardiff, or is it Wenger?s, for his team selection both at the Millennium Stadium and at Ewood Park on Wednesday? The assistant referee?s a liar. Deflection. Away from his own huge blunder in selecting Philippe Senderos to face Chelsea, despite repeated evidence that Senderos cannot handle Didier Drogba. Watch the video and see how Drogba keeps drifting away from Kolo Tour? and towards Senderos, because the striker knows he?s too good for him. Yes, we can all talk of how promising Arsenal?s kids are, but by not choosing his strongest side in the past two games, Wenger reduced the chances of victory. Was that a smart trade-off for 90 minutes? work experience for his teenagers? Wenger is incredibly secure in his job, deservedly, but that brings its own risks. Was picking the kids really in the best interests of the club and fans, or was it a personal indulgence? Does he start with J?r?mie Aliadi?re if his job depends on winning the game? Of course not. If Arsenal don?t beat an inferior team such as Blackburn Rovers, it?s usually the opposition?s fault for playing dull, stifling tactics. Deflection. They outwitted his team but Wenger gives them no credit; quite the reverse. To praise others would be to start to build a relationship and Wenger doesn?t seem to do friendship. He distances himself from everybody. Perhaps Wenger feels that a certain coldness is necessary to preserve his ruthless streak. The result is that he has an air of mystery, of complexity, even to his players. I was told a story that rings true, whether it is or not. When in charge of Wycombe Wanderers, Tony Adams supposedly tried to contact Wenger to ask if he could take a couple of young players on loan. Yet despite being an Arsenal legend, Adams was unable to get hold of Wenger and was forced to talk to his underlings. Distance, deflection, no matter who you are. Wenger is easy to admire but hard to love and it?s a shame because he is one of the finest managers to work in this country.

strange how the African player of the year voting looks so spot on, no surprises like sometimes crop up in other player of the year polls. Drogba Eto'o Essien cant be to much Bias going on with the voting.

I saw that quote from Arsenal land and to be honest some of the boys on there are not a bad bunch, much more likely to talk sense than any other opposition Forum I have seen. obviously they love their team like we do ours but some of the things they say makes sense. has anyone been on Redcafe? that is about the complete opposite and even the threads headlines are often just abuse for opposing teams.

A year already? it only seems about ten years ago he was playing and its still one of my best Chelsea memories, I think I will re watch the 70 final DVD to show my respect for the man, you know you need it Loz

I think Jose would remember that Arsenal won the FA Cup 2004/5 as we beat them in the Charity Shield dont you? the press love to make out everything Jose says is an insult, last week it was the thing about Wenger never having won the CL now this, why do they need to keep stirring things up between these two in particular, my guess is that as Arsenal are a bit of a favourite with impartial football fans it just turns more of them against Chelsea, cant think of any other reason.