Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

  • Admin

I was going to post about the cracking goal scored by Carton Cole last night.

But then I realised that he's no more capable of scoring an excellent goal than he is a lucky goal. I've wised up since last week you see.

And I was going to post about Liverpool's lucky goal last night, but apparently ping-pong like that amongst defenders is only ever the result of the efforts of the attackers.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I wonder how two such experienced footballers and managers as Dalglish and Hughes have got things so very wrong....?

The stupid arseholes both think that Liverpool had a lucky win last night with that flukey goal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/9377458.stm

Those football experts known round here as TheGayTent, worm and ampersand will soon put them right.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

cos i'm sure both games were exactly identical along with the lucky goal. can't comment on the liverpool game as i haven't seen it though.

if any team was stronger, Liverpool were stronger against Fulham than West Ham were against Brum (in first leg). But there was little difference overall.

Both goals were equally flukey - both involved a shot that woulkd not and could not have gone in without come comical attempts to stop it by the defending team.

Seems pretty even to me.

And anyway, TGT and worm said there is *never* a lucky win. So Dalglish and Hughes are obviously (to use their favourite word) retards who know nothing about football.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

:lol:

That should be Efests' motto.

Efestivals – Where you don't have to have seen it to pass comment.

Maybe have it in Latin?

I've seen flukey goals - lots of them - and those two matches both had about the flukiest goals I've ever seen.

And of course in both cases both teams only won the match because those flukey goals gave them the flukey winner to those matches - making them both flukely wins.

Unless you're TGT or worm, where there can never be flukey wins, and anyone who says so is a retard about football. Such as Dalglish and Hughes, the retards.

Or perhaps it's just TGT and worm who are the retards? Nah, it can't be, they both know more about football than any players who've played at the highest levels and who have managed at the highest levels.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

you can get lucky wins, course you can.

but a lucky goal does not mean a lucky win. it might have done yesterday, i didn't see it. but west ham deserved their win in the first leg. end of story for me.

West Ham might have 'deserved' the win on effort, but they only ever get a win by scoring one more goal than the other team. And if the goal they score is a fluke, so is the win.

After all, no team wins anything on effort alone. It's only the score that counts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West Ham might have 'deserved' the win on effort, but they only ever get a win by scoring one more goal than the other team. And if the goal they score is a fluke, so is the win.

After all, no team wins anything on effort alone. It's only the score that counts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

i just don't think it's as black and white as that. if a team scores the best worked goal you've ever seen but it was against the run of play does that mean it was a deserved win cos of that goal alone? course it doesn't.

Within the rules of football, yes, it's a deserved win.

And it's also of course an excellent goal if it's "the best worked goal you've ever seen".

But if, as TGT and worm think, there is never a 'lucky goal', there can also never be an excellent goal, because they're two sides of the same coin.

Which just gets to show how f**king moronic they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

did they deny it was a lucky goal though?

i know worm quoted and agreed with my 'goal was lucky, win was deserved post'.

if he did, then that makes no logical sense.

You only win by scoring more, and if the scoring more is by luck and not skill, then so is the win.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you're TGT or worm, where there can never be flukey wins, and anyone who says so is a retard about football. Such as Dalglish and Hughes, the retards.

Or perhaps it's just TGT and worm who are the retards? Nah, it can't be, they both know more about football than any players who've played at the highest levels and who have managed at the highest levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Why must I always have to point out the glaringly obvious to you, but no one else?

because you don't, you only talk worthless bollocks. :rolleyes:

Just as you did when you wrongly stated that no woman has ever fronted a footie programme.

And I should point out that a woman has fronted football in the UK "on a channel dedicated entirely to sport" as well as overseas.

As ever, you don't know what the f**k you're talking about, but think your gross ignorance has the right answer.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yes, but getting a flukey winning goal after firing in 40 shots versus the oppositions 0 is not a flukey win.

This is the argument, nowt else. Stop changing goal posts.

That might have been "the argument" if the game we talked about had been anything like that. It wasn't, so you're talking worthless crap yet again.

A win that comes via a flukey goal is a flukey win. That's something aside from whether the winning team played better overall than their opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

made up scenario, but if west ham hit the bar 7 times, have 4 cleared off the line and 2 correctly disallowed goals, but win 1-0 due to a sclaffed shot and goalkeeper error, then it's a lucky win?

yes it is - because the ACTUAL win was only via that flukey goal.

That says nothing about who might have deserved to win because of what they managed to do during the game. That's something else entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I didn't say that though did I. I said that no woman has ever been the lead football expert in a panel of experts on a channel devoted entirey to Sport. In other words, no woman's ever had Andy Gray's role and when they do we'll see how just how committed to sexual equality his critics really are.

Again, why do I have to point this out?

You just can't help being a fraud 100% of the time, can you? :rolleyes:

The lies you've posted above are just lies. Here's what you really posted....

No woman has ever taken a lead role for football on a channel dedicated entirely to sport. Never.

Why must I always have to point out the glaringly obvious to you, but no one else?

And you're wrong. Just for a change.

It's happens all the time on Sky Italy. It used to happen all the time on a UK "channel dedicated entirely to sport" too.

But no doubt there'll be a post in a minute where you'll revise history yet again or come out with some other worthless drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...