youlots

Spot on Davey. Anyone who thinks that the title is ours at present are in denial. And to the Arsenal & Utd games I'd also add the game against Pool.

Here is the article from The Times from Tony Evans: Why John Terry should win player of the year — but won’t Against the backdrop of Loftus Road, it is hard to see John Terry as anything other than despicable. Even more than his missed penalty in the Champions League final against Manchester United in Moscow, this patch of west London witnessed the nadir of his career. There, against Queens Park Rangers four years ago, he shouted a racist phrase at Anton Ferdinand. It is never quite a return to the scene of a crime for the Chelsea captain because Westminster magistrates’ court ruled that the exchange was not criminal. The FA, with a lower burden of proof, found Terry guilty of racist abuse, banned him for four games and fined him £220,000. The evidence yesterday was that he should be the primary candidate for the player of the year awards. This season, the 34-year-old has been magnificent. In the heat of a derby, with the home fans hurling abuse and his own supporters singing his praises, he was the centre of attention. His composure never faltered. He seems oblivious to the baggage he carries and the level of invective it generates away from Stamford Bridge. Others would struggle to cope. Terry never seems to have difficulty with it. This knack would be admirable in a man it was possible to admire. It would be wrong to dismiss his impact on the pitch, though. More than any other area of the pitch, the centre of defence appeared to be the place where Chelsea’s manpower was lacking. José Mourinho complained about being short-handed up front, but his squad is one experienced central defender short. It would not have taken too many injuries and suspensions to cause a crisis in the rearguard. Only Terry, Branislav Ivanovic and Eden Hazard have played in every league game this season. Hazard gets all the attention and will probably win the end-of-season awards, but Chelsea would have won the league without the Belgium forward. They would not have won it without Terry. Chelsea played what looked like a dangerously high line yesterday. Even though QPR are not the quickest up front, it still left plenty of space for Charlie Austin and Bobby Zamora to run into. Terry could have been exposed, but the defender’s anticipation and use of space compensate for any lack of pace. His impact is not confined to tackles and blocks. All the best central defenders are talkers and Terry chatters away, cajoling, chiding, instructing and encouraging those around him. It is too bad that the most memorable words of his career were a racist insult. Much about the Chelsea captain is objectionable. It would be hard to argue against the Football Writers’ Association’s “precept and example” objections to Terry winning their award, but Luis Suárez, last season’s recipient, fatally undermined the idea that character comes into consideration. Those who voted for the Uruguay forward would be hypocritical to cite Terry’s equally repugnant transgressions to deprive him of consideration for the award. He will not win, though. Morality will not come into it. Hazard, with his dribbles and feints, will get many more votes. Harry Kane, too. Attackers dominate both the Professional Footballers’ Association award and the writers’ prizes. Terry got the votes of the players in 2005 — when his rap sheet was relatively short — but before that you have to go back to 1993, when Paul McGrath topped the poll, for another defender. For the writers, a defensive winner is still deeper in the mists of time, with Steve Nicol handed the statue in 1989. Even then, the Scot caught the eye as much for his deployment as a midfield marauder as his adaptability across the back four. Terry has been the best player in the Premier League this season, the one with the most influence on a team heading for the title, but it is a good thing that he will lose out when the individual prizes are decided. At least then we could convince ourselves that Suárez was an aberration. He might reflect, however, that had he been a forward, he could have behaved like a scumbag and still cleaned up in the awards season.

3 pts

oh Haz - have to shoot there

So de bruyne is the new black is he?

Film noir doesn't get much better does it? Fritz Lang at his cruelest perhaps - what a f**kin great director he was. Definitely in top 10 of noirs ever made.

Not at all kev - endlessly fascinating subject which would get a bit of interest I'd imagine - Ploks has indicated his interest already & I'm sure that some of our history boffins such as Spuddy & others would contribute.

Ah...Anfield. Let me tell you a history...or perhaps an history.... A few years back now, think it was about 07 or 08 I was staying with a bloke I do a lot of work with in Sydney & it happened to coincide with ourlot playing pool at Anfield. He's dyed in the wool pool this bloke - born & raised there but emigrated down here 40 odd years ago. So naturally we both stay up late to watch the game. The players are in the boxy tunnel at the foot of the steps. The camera, as it always does, shows the famous sign above the steps that says "This is Anfield". As it does this I chuckle, and the exchange went something like this: Him: "What's so funny?" Me: "oh nothing - just the spelling." Him: "What do you mean?" Me: "Well, the bloke who originally owned Anfield, Orrell, I think his name was - he had a speech impediment." Him: "So?" Me: "Well the story goes that when the toffees first signed the lease, there was a mistake made in the name on account of the legal clerk misunderstanding Orrell. Because of the speech impediment, the clerk wrote "anfield" instead of "a field". Anyway, the name stuck because Orrell was too embarrassed to point it out. So that's how a field became anfield." Him: "Bullsh*t." Me: "No - true story. And now every time I see that sign I can't help myself." Since that time he still questions me about it: where did you read this...how do you know etc etc. Apparently he's done a great deal of research on it but can't find a thing. When he goes back to pool every other year (family etc) he's even questioned various Anfield ground staff! He knows I read widely - I usually get vague or fob him off somehow - usually by saying that pool is nothing but an history or is it a history? I think he's pretty sure I made it up but can never really bring himself to the point of accusing me of making it up. It's reached the stage now where even he jokes about it & has started to tell other scousers the story so he says. It's all too beautiful.

kev - why don't you start a thread on JFK in the Lounge - I'd be interested in contributing to that.

Thanks for posting that Dorset - imo a fair & balanced article. And as Rem says, the truth of what Chels has/is doing with the kids is now starting to dawn on many. The pressure placed on kids these days! I don't know how I would have felt at 10 if I'd been told that I didn't cut it & the dream was, well, just a dream all along. The flip-side of all this are those rare & uplifting narratives that come out from time to time of the kid who is rejected at these early stages but who sticks with it & who later emerges against all the odds to become a top player. However, another part of me also believes that it's a shame that by this, we seem to be implicitly accepting the notion that childhood should not be insulated from the mechanics of professional sport.

mmmm...both Looney Tunes either way kev ;-)

hehe...sometimes you remind me of the Coyote in Roadrunner: yet another failed acme detonation ala Mourinho, kev?

I'll get back to you on LOTR et al - I have an important skins match for high stakes on WGT so I have to go. Cheers.

Breaking the Waves: Magnificent film - a film I still watch w/o fail every year.

CFC-F.....well...an answer.. of sorts. There is no need to apologise... just try to avoid the ad hominems in future. It's ok to have differences of opinion - in fact it's necessary really - for the good of this site among other things. And look...thanks for trying to particularize why you feel those films are classics...good & evil etc etc. Thanks for having a go - I know you've struggled with it...and I know that you know that I know that you've come up way short...but hey, that's ok; Movie Franchise.....all down to the buck eh? I have to say that the last sentence of your post was magnificent though so well done for that.

It happened here...that takes me back...certainly one of the best films made in 1966 & such astonishing dedication on sticking with it by Mollo & Brownlow & a large measure of support by Kubrick. Pauline Murray's acting in the film was top drawer - any academy nomination? What do you think?

Absolute unmitigated rubbish - one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made.

oh hitchens...what is to be done with you?!? I've asked you to tell us why you think that they are "classics". You continue to avoid answering that question. I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion - only yours! So please particularize & answer the question! You already disparaged Guinness' views - matter for you. But do you have a considered opinion not reliant on others? And again, I did not bring up Star Wars - another poster did - try to follow the provenance of the thread posts. Not too much to ask it is?

hehe....that rings a bell with me. I can remember when it first came out & vividly remember watching the tv series & like a lot of my adolescent friends at the time we were all infatuated with Kay Lenz & Susan Blakely. It was about 76 or 77 wasn't it? Anyway my Dad had a copy of the book & I remember devouring it which I'm glad I did - not so much because Shaw was anything special but because it lead me onto reading much more serious & valuable texts that my Dad had on WW2 & in a sense that brought me much closer to my Dad & his generation. Anyway I digress - I remember that I similarly had a go at re-watching the tv series in the late 80s & I too was a bit disappointed. I'll say this though - some of Nick Nolte's finest work as an actor.

Listen mate - sledge away - it seems that largely that's all you have. What should I do? Call you plebeian & banalistic in return? Where does that take the discussion?

Well....ok...let's do this: you've said that these Star Wars films are "classics". In what sense are they "classics" - feel free to use any of the filmic disciplines when answering. As for your further Guinness comment it's pretty obvious that his views concerning the films are a bit of a sore point for you aren't they? Why is it irrelevant that such an esteemed actor who participated in the films feels that they were guff? You tell me? In what sense is it irrelevant when you were the one who initially brought up Guinness?

I've read a lot of sci-fi over the years including obviously Asimov who I have a great respect for. I won't comment on the others.

Good for you & good for them.

Ok - your prerogative & sure there'll be plenty who disagree with me as there are plenty who'll agree with me - where does that leave us exactly?

oh dear....look, firstly I never disparaged Guinness' acting in the in the film at all - so you're projecting there aren't you? It is trite that decades before Star Wars he was rightfully considered one of the supreme & most interesting actors of his generation & personally he's a great favourite of mine - particularly for his superb comedic talent in many 50's classics. As for the Academy...well, what do you want me to say? Perhaps this: Guinness was not even nominated by the Academy for Kind Hearts & Coronets done more than 25 years earlier?!? What does that say about the Academy - their nominations are usually mostly guff as are their awards albeit that they seem to have improved somewhat over the last decade but still in a patchy sense. As for your detection abilities I'm truly at a loss - where's the hostility exactly in anything I've said. I'm sorry that I've upset you but I feel you're being a bit precious about a set of films that, let's face it, are guff after all.