Fowllyd

I think the word you were after there was 'defamation' - mind you, it reads rather nicely as is!

I don't remember if anybody posted such a poll this time last season; certainly, had they done so it would have been horribly depressing, with Kelvin the only realistic candidate by virtue of saving us from any number of tonkings. Right now it's a really difficult choice - I've voted for Lambert, but Lallana is mightily close. And there are a few others not far behind too. How refreshing is that?

For pretty much as long as I've been watching football (let's say thirty years) it's been the case that whenever the ball goes out of play the closest players from each side put their hands in the air to claim the throw/kick. Is that cheating if you know the ball hit you last? I'd say it probably is, but then I've never even played the game at any serious level - it's easy to be sporting when nothing rides on the result. I'd agree with DD about lack of bookings for simulation - refs have been given the power to do this, and they should do it a sight more.

I remember watching that match on TV at the time. Initially my thoughts were along the lines of WTF? - I think I just couldn't believe what I thought I'd seen. When I then saw the replay, and then in slow motion too, I had to believe it but didn't want to. A straightforward, deliberate assault on an opponent, which could have led to even more serious injury than it did. Schumacher should have been banned for life for that.

Who'd have thought it, eh? When you're not wittering on about Hoddle you've actually got a sense of humour!

I reckon they were getting that way anyhow - but this will make it even more so. Great result, I'm just loving this!

Hmm, let's see... Papa laid on the goal; almost scored at the end of a move he'd started himself; took the ball off their players and started attacks many times; and had their defenders crapping themselves on a good few occasions (that last one is my view only - hard to see any arguments against the other three though). We all watch different games, don't we?

I'm with you on that - I thought James had a pretty good game last night. In addition to his more defensive duties, he played a couple of neat backheels down the line, and put in a lovely low cross which Lallana really should have buried (I guess that's the should-have-been assist you mention). A post like this one sounds just like the bilge that was spouted all match (or at least until he left with ten minutes still to play) by some bloke behind me in the Kingsland. Anything James did less than perfectly was greeted with yells of derision, anything James did well (and there was plenty last night) was ignored. The best indication of this bloke's knowledge of the game, though, came when he complained (very) loudly that a Wycombe player was offside when receiving the ball from a throw-in. Top marks there then. Just to get back on topic - Schneiderlin was class last night. The first time I saw him play (Brum in Carling Cup last season) he reminded me of Steve Williams - and praise doesn't come much higher than that. Last night he did it again. I hope he keeps right on doing it.

Sorry, but I don't believe that's really the path to hell. There are no good intentions paving it.

I thought that was its usual state...

Or much more comical than Lambert's! Nifty one-two off the keeper there.

As you could indeed have done for your location... I understood the post you were having a go at perfectly, even though I write mine with all the punctuation, capital letters and suchlike that you prescribe. Had it been unintelligible then I'd see more point in your comments, but it wasn't.

Eh? Where did you get that from?

I've been there. It's not. If you want a beautiful, picturesque and historic town on that stretch of the coast, try Whitby. Hartlepool's one saving grace is that it isn't Middlesbrough.

Come now, you must have heard of the Orcheston Fringe - as sported by Mick Channon back in the 70s!

You're right with that first point - you see a good deal more parrying and punching of the ball than once was the case. I've heard that the balls used nowadays are the root cause of this; they're prone to swerve in the air late in their flight, making it more difficult to judge a catch correctly. I'd also guess that the fact that they're lighter makes a difference - as a comparison, a cricket ball is easier to catch than a tennis ball because it's heavier and harder, and therefore less likely to bounce out of your hands before you can clutch it. And, as you say, a punch or parry should take the ball well away from the danger area, otherwise it's all too likely to offer an easy chance for a striker. I wasn't at the match myself, but judging by the highlights I've seen I wouldn't put any blame on Davis for their first goal (excellent save, unfortunate in that it came straight back out off the post), but it seemed to me that he should have held onto the second.

I've read the article, re-read it, then read it again just to make sure. Having done that, I still don't read it remotely the same way as you do. So, what exactly is there in that article that makes you think Pardew's saying he's clueless and has lost the plot?

Are you talking about Ron Davies or Mick Channon here?

That's brilliant - and well worth making into a thread too. Major respect to the Old Codger.

Well, no more than about half the posters - see various posts on this thread referring to booze for starters.

His chances of success are far greater with Boro than they could possibly be with Scotland. True, the town itself is a dump, but I doubt that living within Middlesbrough was a condition of taking the job.

I reckon Strachan has far too much sense to go anywhere near the Scotland job.

It would be, if that were what 19C had been doing. In actual fact, he was merely voicing his own opinion, which appears to be that MLT had committed some offence, but the CPS had deemed it not worthy of pursuing. This is the wording from the BBC piece which you posted a link to: "Police said discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concluded an investigation would not be in the public interest." Note that the thing deemed to be not in the public interest is an investigation, not a prosecution. To me, that suggests that there was no definite view as to whether any offence had been committed; an investigation would be required to determine this, and the CPS thought it would not be worthwhile. An exoneration it isn't, but neither is it the implicit condemnation 19C considers it to be (and, I suspect, would like it to be).

Most spot-on comment I've seen on here in a while...