benjii

Mane played badly to force an exit? Bull****.

This is true.

Is John B, Tony Blair?

I agree with the above. He's an excellent wide left player. He's not anything else.

In fairness, we were unlikely to be able to replace Mane. He's comfortably Liverpool's best player and one of the top 10 players in the league. Our current problem is a lack of identity. If you accept that there will be times when we simply won't have the players to compete with the best then at least we can bring a style of play that might trouble them. Unfortunately we currently have a relatively mediocre set of players but a pretty aimless style of play.

The one time we actually got the ball to him in an advanced position he skinned the full back and cut the ball back across the box. He, Tadic and Redmond are all to some extent a victim of us not complimenting them with someone who plays more directly. All three of them want to work the ball and receive to feet. So whichever way we attack through them, we end up not being goal side of the opposition. I'd like to see Boufal central, Tadic or Redmond on one side and Long or Sims on the other (ideally I'd be talking about a new signing instead).

Agree.

Agreed, but why don't we ever let him play centrally? He's always shunted out on the wing when he'd be much better behind the striker IMO.

I think you can trace all this back to the failure to appoint Hoddle some time ago.

We don't have any identity or obvious plan anymore. Part of the problem is the personnel but at least Puel seemed stubborn and had a plan. Not sure Pellegrino really has a grip on it yet.

He's battling a foccacia addiction. It's no laughing matter. It's nearly as destructive as Toblerone addiction.

I know for a fact that when Cortese was a banker in Switzerland he had has eye on Dan Harding as a good signing, were he ever to assume control of a football club.

I think he's referring to the fact he has six children, not that it has any relevance to the discussion.

I bloody hope we rate Hoedt higher than Stephens or we shouldn't have signed him. Two clean sheets is glossing over the obvious weakness of our current centre back pairing. Each of them is OK, although Yoshida is clearly better, but together they are not great and we clearly wanted better or we wouldn't have signed Hoedt.

You could probably say that about a one month old, TBF. All it does is wail and ****. Never made a worthwhile contribution to anything. Stupid little mosquito. In fact, a mosquito is at least ostensibly busy and can look after itself. They're both parasites but one is at least self-dependent. Does some magic cognitive leap occur when it gets its head squeezed out of its mother's vulva?

I can confirm this is true. Unless it isn't. In which case it was true at the time. Only joking.

Well, it's a right granted by parliament that, as far as I understand, he has no particular plan to campaign against and he is willing to respect, albeit he wouldn't personally vote for it. I should have been clearer but my point is that it's not an inalienable right - it's subject to a pretty arbitrary cut-off in the pregnancy for example. I don't agree with him, for what it's worth.

Indeed. Absolutely mental that some people think Stephens is better than Yoshida.

He holds a religious belief that human life is sacrosanct and looks beyond the story-book banality of the infantile euphemism, "keep the baby". He sees it as choosing to kill a human. To him, it's not "keep the baby" or "not keep the baby" (like it's a ****ing handbag or something) but rather "murder the baby" or "not murder the baby". The religious belief is, IMO, potty but the careful consideration of the process of causing death to a human is clearly worthy of thought and debate. By issuing such a perfunctory dismissal predicated on the basis that abortion is some sort of right you just make yourself look unthinking and bigoted.

I'm surprised it doesn't say something like, "final bloody offah, ya bunch of fackin maags. Comprende?" though.

I like the way he puts the subject in CAPS in the body of the email. If only someone invented a "Subject" field for emails.

No need to sell VD. He'd still have four years left.

And he owns a top hat.

It's possible to believe in the spirit of a religious text / teaching but not take it at literal face value. Hardly anyone takes any religious text completely literally. Partly because they are full of contradictions so it's impossible to. Even someone who believes 100% that the Bible is the pure word of God can't "comply" 100% with it. That said, I agree with the general thrust that religion is ****ing retarded and a stain on the landscape.