joey_big_nose

It is not the action of criticising others that I am criticising you for, it is the fact that, unlike any political figure, you are unwilling to make any sacrifices in order to back up you opinions (which are legion). In essence these individuals whom you regularly attack at least have the balls to back up their views by acting upon them in a capacity beyond discussing them on the internet or in the pub. However, despite the enormity of your dissatisfaction and the (apparent) confidence in the methods you have divined to solve the problems of the day, you do nothing about it. It is sheer impotence.

I am not sure that is neccesarily true. Those who go into politics tend to be, in my experience, idealists who honestly believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can change things for the better. For the talented young person there is no financial reward from going into politics rather than business, and in the strong whip system of this country no real prospect of accumilating any notional amount of power in the short term. While there are people who are in there for the kicks, just look at Archer, to sustain yourselves through those years of paying your dues you have to really actually believe in what you are doing. Politicians are just people. Some good, some bad, but merely through making a sacrifice (and don't for one second think there are not huge sacrifices) to serve the people (one few if any of us on here have), like teachers and doctors, worthy of some respect. I feel personally that the routine abuse handed out to politicians is part of the problem that we have. All to easy to blame, very hard to actually get up and change things.

How is it hypocritical? I am not the one who desires to to radically alter the political and social environment in which I exist. You and AESF obviously have deep lying concerns about the way society is structured and the course it is taking, and, presumably from the nature of your posts, feel much more qualified and able than the politicians in charge to sort things out. It is clear, at least in the way I read your posts, that the pair of you consider yourselves morally and intuitively superior to the members of the administration of the country and vast swathes of the population of the country in general. Yet you limit action, as far as I am aware, on the subject to sniping on an internet message board.

I do agree that lying to the press outright in a way that will sway the voters is unacceptable. But doesn't anybody feel all this prying into the private lives of MPs is going a bit too far? The point is surely their policies and carrying out of the duty to the constituency. But it is not dereliciton of duty that makes the headlines but sex scadals, mainly because everybody is so goddamn sordid. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had done something outside of the real of sexuality the impact would have been less. I said this before, but perhaps it is worth saying again, if the public is more interested in the sex lives of celebrities than in the policies and parties that create the society in which we live it is hardly suprising we have the set of politicians we do, and that our parliament runs in a less that perfect manner. The tools are entirely at the disposal of the public to create a nation of their own choosing. We are a completely democratic state with a functioning court system and an, at least compared to the United States, government free of the binding hand of private interests. We are not a nation of victims hoodwinked and pushed around by maleovlent interest which conspire against us. Each individual is not powerless. We are a nation of free people with a collective voice. The only thing that chains us down is our collective apathy, and the wilful ignorance of so many people. I personally feel that most MPs are decent men who are by no means perfect but willing to eschew larger salaries in the private sector in order to serve the public. Sure they become cynical over time, much like TND and AESF, but they put themselves in the firing line which both of those two individuals are too busy (or scared?) to do. Of course there are exceptions, but I grow extrodinarily tired of gleeful people pointing out the faults of others without doing anything about it.

Interesting to see that half the votes have gone for england to go out at the quarter finals or earlier. I guess that shows Englands fans are not so arrogant as they are portrayed to be... Or maybe it is just all the Aussies, Americans and Scandinavians on here!

beat me to it

Steb, doesn't the list need an update? I am still up for Engerrrrland-Sweden, if thas okay!

Well Reid is a good player but I think with Savage in the side we would be able to replicate the form of last season provided we spent the money wisely. Indeed Savage and Reid have a similar game. We could even improve ourselves if Hughes found a bargain. The reason Nelsen is indispensible is because he holds the whole back line together and is genuinely good enough, in my opinion, to play for any side on the planet nearly. I don't think we would be able to replcae him because he is that good. Reid is not (yet?) in that category. While Neill looks like a decent option to come in at the back I have no shadow of a doubt that we would be a lot poorer than we are with Nelsen. He is a leader and an absolutely first rate defender. All that said I fully agree that we have to do our best to hold on to Reid along with the rest of our key players- Neill, Pedersen, Bellamy, Nelsen, Savage (to an extent) and Freidal.

2.2mill attendance divided by Population of US- 300 million equals 0.007% of population. Premiership Unofficial Average Attendance: 33,875 x 10 games (one round of fixtures) equals 338,750 plus English League Championship Unofficial Average Attendance: 17,719 x 12 equals 212,628 plus English League One Unofficial Average Attendance: 7,668 x 12 equals 92,016 plus English League Two Unofficial Average Attendance: 4,242 x 12 equals 50,904 thus Total average english weekend league attendance: 0.694298 million divided by England population of 50 million equals 0.013% of population. A pretty comprehensive win for 'blighty! ps. the true acid test would be to work out combined english Union, League, Cricket and footie versus Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball and Ice Hockey. But I canna be bothered! Guardian puts the boot into myth of America sporting passion. This time Baseball get it in the nuts.

You know what, I reckon even if we lost Reid, Pedersen and Niell I think Sparky could handle it if we recieved decent money. I want them all to stay, especially Reid who has genuine potential to become talismanic for the team, but my confidence in Sparky is so high I am not really too worried. Honestly I would only say Nelsen and Bellamy are utterly indispensible at present.

Great Preview! I am going for Poland, a great country full of lovely people. Kracow is one of my favourite cities in the world. And obviously the Germans should lose every game. Forever.

I have completely turned around on this. I was not against Crouch as such but I thought we should put Gerrard up front ahead of him. Now you have to say that he gives us a whole new dimension. He scored three and he height created at least one other. I am still a little worried that if we play a side with a good midifeld we are going to struggle to retain the ball without Carrick in the side. None of our starting midfielders are interested in keeping possession but rather look for the amazing pass or, in Cole's case, dribble. Obviously as they are all fine players it means it creates chances, but also we never really get the game by the scruff of the neck. And then if the opposition play an attacking midfielder behind the front two (Czech Republic, Italy, France, Germany) who the hell is going to pick him up. But if we play crouch who can you drop for Carrick? The lack of balance worries me.

The dingles usually simply call us @#/?s, or, imaginatively, The @#/?s. West Ham- Cockneys, the wideboys Liverpool- Scousers, jobseekers, carthieves Arsenal- Arse, Le Arsenal, Middlesborough- Smoggies (sometimes used) Beyond that I am struggling a bit. Portsmouth, Sunderland, Villa etc I don't dislike enough to have picked up any names for them. Obviouly they have their 'official' nicknames- Pompei, Mackems, Villains - but they are just too nice, aren't they?

Well to be fair at Rovers the only 'skillful' players we have are Bellamy, Tugay and, to a lesser extent (lots of skill, not much product...) Bentley. But the likes of Savage, Reid, Pedersen, Kuqi, Gray, Neill himself are all effectve. I reckon we could match Australia man for man. We have a better defence, a better keeper, and, in Bellamy, the best player who would be on the pitch. I mean EMerton can't even get in our side for Christsakes!

Um, i think thats because redbull only comes in cans! As it is not alcholic there is no problem mixing drinks, no different to Vodka coke or a G and T

We still have an outstanding side without Rooney or even Owen. Liverpool managed to win the European cup and FA cup without an outstanding striker, Greece won Euro 2004 without any world class players. It comes down to whether we can get Gerrard, Lampard, J Cole and Beckham to perofrm, they can cause problems for any side. If Owen gets fit thane that is another string to our bow. Quarter finals for me. Shame as if Rooney was fit I would say odds on for the semis. Hey ho!

Well Parker is still the obvious candidate for me, it is a shame he is ill (would Sven even of picked him for the squad if he was fit?) I'm not really sure Carrick is 'too ambitituous' passing though. He can keep it very simeple at times, like Tugay, and just make sure things tick over. In most world cup matches there is not a big midfield battle so his lack of tackling is only really a problem then. To be fair to Hargreaves he hasn't had a proper shot at the holding role, at least as far as I can remember. Worth a crack perhaps?

I didn't quite understand either. English football, especially in the Premiership, is extremely safe these days. My understanding, although I don't really know that much about it, is that the risk of violence is much higher in Italian, Greek, Dutch and Turkish football. I am more than willing to be corrected though.

Apparently Sven is going to play Carragher as the holding midfielder tomorrow. What the hell is that all about? Carrick is infinitey more suited to the role. I suppose it will make us more solid but still... I will be very interested to see how Gerrard does up front!

Um, it's a bit cheeky I suppose, but I wouldn't mind giving England-Sweden a crack. And France South Korea woul dbe interesting too! I have just realised Eddie has nailed down the France games. I will ponder some more...

Well if you look at all the flops that every single premiership club has had in their history it does suggest that buying players and selecting ones that will flourish at your club is vital. It is a difficlt art, indeed perhaps te most difficult as it defines what kind of side you have. Perhaps it is easy for Mourinho who can go out and buy whoever he likes. But Paul Jewell has shown genius in the players he has bought. If your theory is correct, "its easy to spot good players" why didn't anyone with more status buy chimbonda or Bellamy or Mendes or Gabbidon or any of the other numerous players who turned out to look absolute bargains? Ultimately you have to be the one who says- I believe this player can succeed and then back them. It is not easy at all. Teams live and die by their signings. Just ask Sunderland.

Well I suppose that is a factor! But seriously I doubt that Tugay has ever been on the money that Ferguson, or Cole, or Yorke, or Bellamy. Mainly becuse there weren't too many sides in for him when he came to us, and we have not had to offer big deals to get him to stay as far as I remember (there was some interest from Galatasary, but that was it I think).

I have had a bit of a think about this and reckon there really isn't much point taking Defoe and leaving Rooney behind. If Owen makes it then we are going to play a Gerrad-Owen combination up front with Crouch coming off the bench with Walcott employed as a supersub to hit other teams on the break. For Defoe to start he will need, I reckon, both Owen and Crouch to be injured as well as Rooney. His involvement would be negligiable if he is on the bench as I rekon Walcott woul dbe preferred as an impact player. So any which way you look at it Defoe is in a bind. It's going to be strange, playing without two 'proper' strikers, but I rekon it could well be interesting and produce some attractive footie.