Jump to content

Recommended Posts

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Martinez may be next for the chop. He's

> fallen into the Tony Mowbray syndrome of trying to

> get a group of sub standard footballers to 'play'

> their way out of the relegation dogfight. Better

> to take a leaf out of Tony Pulis' book. It's not

> pretty, but it's effective.


Agreed - and your point on Mowbray is right too, but I suspect Celtics passing game can work better in Scotland than WBA in England given Celtic have the most money in the league they should have better quality players to put the passing game in place. But you need to combine it with some finished product and they need to be in the market for a quality striker. Rangers have always been expert at taking chances and maximising their opportunities, thats what celtic need to do on Sunday. They do not do this under Mowbray, so far.

Celtic shots on target about 10 to rangers 1. But no excuse for not taking chances. Celtic have one player who takes his chances and he was on the bench for 70 minutes. Not understanding the need to have a proper goalscorer on the pitch is celtics biggest mistake.

Rangers will be pleased as they had some key players out.

Aiden McGeady was unplayable today.

Quite enjoyed the Old Firm clash - Celtic played some good football.


Congrats to Leeds United but would they have dominated the game if United's best player Darren Fletcher had been available for selection (remember how United only lost to Barcelona in CL final because their dynamic midfield maestro was banned).

Right now, I could not be happier.


Leeds certainly didn't look two leagues lower and imo Fletcher would have made no difference. Howson, Beckford and Naylor were a solid spine that never wilted against Man Utd. Snodgrass hit the bar and we had more than enough chances to score more than one.


A return to the top flight cannot be far away now.


Altogether a cracking game. Although how Wes Brown stayed on the pitch I don't know.

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite enjoyed the Old Firm clash - Celtic played

> some good football.


Yes - it was a very good team performance - Celtic were more classy and more determined - played a high intensity passing game - if only for the finishing...


> (remember how United only lost to Barcelona in CL

> final because their dynamic midfield maestro was

> banned).


That's what MU fans like to believe, but to be honest they were outclassed that night.

FA Cup draw

southampton-Ipswich

reading/Dippers-Burnley

Millwall/Derby-Brentford/Doncaster

Bristol C/Cardiff C-Leicester

Stoke-ARSENAL

Notts Cty/Forest Green-Wigan

Scunthorpe-MANCHESTER CITY

WBA-Plymouth/Newcastle

Everton-Notts Forest/Birmingham

Accrington/Gills-Fulham

Bolton-Sheff Utd/QPR

Portsmouth/Coventry-Sumderland

PNE-CHELSEA

Aston Villa-Brighton

Tranmere/Wolves-Palace

SPURS-Leeds !!

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmm interesting Mick I thought United deserved to

> win it last season just as much as they deserved

> to win in 1999 and 2008 against Bayern Munich and

> Chelsea


Deserved to win the final against Barcelona? you are joking Matt surely?


In 1999 they were the best team in the competition without doubt, but Bayern should have won the final, if only because Keane and Scholes were missing. Had MU they been full strength they might have won comfortably.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
    • That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 
    • TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves.  I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)? https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...