matthew123

Couldn't see Campbell getting in ahead of Cannavaro, or Hargreaves ahead of Guttuso - and don't forget Cup Final hero Steven Gerrard! The most important reason for England's failure imo is their style of football in not being able to play from the back. The England back 4 (who ever plays) often look like a pack of lame donkeys down at the beach and until they have technicians bringing the ball out I think they will always come unstuck. England on their day when they're firing on all cylinders can beat anyone BUT, and it's a big but, they can not sustain the tempo required with quick fire matches in a short space of time needed to actually win World Cup.

2 or 3.... This was the Italy team that won the World Cup - yes they played poorly but I reckon there'd have been more Italians than England players. What England players do you think would have made it onto the pitch? Buffon, Zambrotta, Cannavaro, Materazzi, Grosso, Camoranesi (Del Piero 86), Pirlo, Gattuso, Perrotta (Iaquinta 61), Totti (De Rossi 61), Toni. Subs Not Used: Amelia, Barone, Barzagli, Gilardino, Inzaghi, Nesta, Oddo, Peruzzi, Zaccardo.

Van Persie out for 6 weeks.. injured on Dutch duty

If England win the World Cup it'll be because likes of Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Holland, Italy, France have seriously underperformed. England simply aren't good enough. Over the last 18 months they've been defeated every time they've played a top nation - only match I can think where they have delivered (result wise) is drawing 2-2 with Holland. Watching some of the Russia game yesterday and the passing and technique throughout the team was so far ahead of England. The only way England's style can defeat the top teams is if they can play a very high tempo - and then it goes back to are they capable of putting together a string of such performances in the knockout stages.

I watched that Arsenal Spurs game in the Foresters Arms (now the Bishop) and there was one Spurs fan still celebrating hard after the final whistle (after Spurs late equalizer) and eventually he looked back up at the big screen and gasped in astonishment, 'have arsenal won the league' then marched out in a huff...

I'm not advocating the introduction of Saudi Arabian law into this country as much of it seems to be corrupt, i.e. buying off victims. I just find it surprising people don't consider the barbaric act of chopping someone's head off in public (for this type of Saudi crime) not to be more of a deterrent than a prison sentence. The only studies worth the paper they are written on are those with crime statistics since the introduction of draconian punishments, and it seems from Hal's post that it has been a success in at least other types of crimes.

Good point Hal - no argument about that

I'm not saying there is a witch hunt against Rafa but Mick I think you need to look at the bigger picture before you jump on the anti Rafa band wagon. For instance we don't know what those damn Yanks put in Rafa's contract. For all we know there is a clause that says Voronin has to play. We really don't know. Anyway Rafa is a good lad and because of that we should not blame Rafa for anything that goes wrong. Are you on message now Mick? :))

I think the problem is Keef, he and Mascherano are both being used as holding midfielders doing 1 man's job. He rarely get's the opportunity to express his full ability in that restricted position. I've seen enough of him to say he is really a box to box player with good power and pace, and good passer of the ball. Hopefully he will play against England and demonstrate his qualities.

Lucas is a great player, unfortunately at Liverpool he is not encouraged to venture over the half way line. Hopefully tomorrow, if he plays, he'll be allowed to cut loose just like he did against the Mancs few weeks back when he totally dominated the United midfield.

Or put another way not getting enough subscribers to pay the bills. I think it might have been a different story if they'd managed to piggyback onto Sky HD like ESPN.

For me Chris Rock is the equivalent of Jim Davidson in that he has to rely on a foul mouthed tongue for his humour Do you really think the N-word being reclaimed is not going to lead to mis-use and mis-interpretation - it's very dangerous ground in my view

I've not said everyone who uses the N-word is trying to be racist (even though I find it's use pretty disgusting as a joke) - my issue is that keeping it alive will lead to continued problems. What purpose does that CR (or even let us imagine Bernand Manning) routine serve. None.

Cudicin in what sounds like a serious motorbike crash - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8357262.stm

It's a disgusting racist term - that is not okay to use by anyone. I'd be appalled at hearing it from whoever said it - White, Indian, Black. Keeping it alive liberally will lead to mis-use & mis-interpretation. To eradicate racism you cannot have half baked rules - and yes it is one rule for all otherwise we have even more hypocracy.

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As like many nouns it's usage has changed over the > years, and in Britain, imo, it is racist > regardless of who is using the word. You should be > equally as outraged hearing the term blind as you > are to discovering it's being used by a Black man. > Same applies to all derogatory terms. Maybe what I said was not clear. 'hearing the term blind' as in, you hear the N-word but not who has said it - i.e. your disgust at hearing the N-word should not differ on turning your head and now seeing the culprit was Black rather than White. Another point is, does a White child on hearing the N-word being used liberally take into account it's only legitimate usage is by Black people or does he/she think it is also fair for them to use and thus keep the whole racist term alive for another generation.

Well Keef you could use the same logic for just about any other set of criminals - but I actually think that someone is going to think twice before they carry out they kiddie fiddling with the thought of now having their head cut off in public. For instance has Gary Glitter been seen sunning himself in Saudi recently... no of course not he goes to the Far East where he did believe it would just be a slap on the wrists if he was caught. That is the logic. Revenge / justice what ever you call it is not the key issue - stiffer the sentence the greater the deterrent for all crimes.

What does it do for society if criminals are not adequately punished - which in this instance would be anything less than the death sentence. Whether it's barbaric or not is another matter - but what works best as a deterrent, is it something merciful or something horrific. People are deterred from breaking a law the tougher the sentence - so why not for these particular crimes.

Bloody hell, "Germany and Hannover 96 goalkeeper Robert Enke has died after being hit by a train in an apparent suicide on Tuesday, police have confirmed" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8353733.stm

A tube station - hooked up to the underground

"They pretty much all show no link.." => that says to me that some studies recognise it as working as a deterrent, which goes back to my point of it being justified if it means one less victim. "If public beheading and posthumous mutilation were a deterrent the crime wouldn't have been committed in the first place" => Not so for this offender but what message will it send to those who were deterred if it is now seen that capital punishment is not served on this convict.. I'm not sure murder rates would remain the same, or be even lower, if they abolished capital punishment in US, China and Jamaica.

The guy needs to be punished that is clear - the Saudis have it appears given him the maximum sentence in their country. Would he have got the maximum sentence in the U.K. for his crimes? Maybe, or perhaps he'd have been released after a few years cured of his mental illness or maybe escaped on a day trip to the seaside. I'd rather we eliminate any chance it could be repeated, and if public execution is a deterrent to just one less victim then it has worked.

No you don't have to touch a player - but I think for it to be given as a foul it has to be seen as a foul would have taken place if the opponent had not taken measures to avoid contact. In the case of Ngog it wasn't remotely anywhere near being a foul. The weird thing about Ngog's dive was he was always in control of the ball and if he hadn't decided to go down it looked like a simple pull back for Yossi to equalize on edge of 6 yard box. Liverpool were pushing very hard at this point in the game and the momentum was such that I felt an equalizer was inevitable. But as Anna said we've been denied a lot more cast iron penalties this season than ones awarded for cheating.

Great movie - as is Downfall and The Miracle of Bern