Jump to content

LondonLax

Established Member
  • Posts

    15,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LondonLax

  1. 15 minutes ago, Zatman said:

    He is limited at times but he has a lot of Premier League experience, is in his mid 20s and has an English passport and currently playing for a team in the top 6 

    I doubt a mid table Premier League club are going to spend big money on Cash, they will be looking for better value elsewhere. A top club is not going to come in for him and no club outside the Premier League will be able to afford his wages. 

    • Like 1
  2. 5 hours ago, sidcow said:

    It has to be some mechanical failure, or a deliberate act. 

    There were apparently 2 local pilots on board plus of course the captain abd senior officers. 

    It's hard to believe that much expertise amongst so many people didn't realise they weren't in the middle of the channel. 

    The crew issued a mayday signal which alerted the traffic controllers that the ship was having a mechanical failure. The traffic controllers were then able to stop traffic approaching the bridge, but there were 7 cars that had already gone too far. 

    • Sad 1
    • Shocked 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

    I don't think England particularly underachieved in 2008 to 2016, no.

    I think there's an argument we could have done better in some of those tournaments, but I think we're talking fine margins.

    We were terrible in 2014 for example, and could have easily been better, but I don't think Gareth Southgate is getting us out of that group, and plenty other managers would have struggled as well by the way. That was such a poor England side. So we'd still exit at the group stage.
    2016 we should be beating Iceland but we're not getting past the QFs so we're talking one round more. It's not like we could have won the tournament in the same away as we could have in 2004

    2010 we go out at the same stage unless we won the group in which case we probably go out in the QFs instead. Again we're not a tournament winning team

     

    The difference now is the team is good enough to win tournaments, and we're not doing it. Again Southgate derserves some credit, I've never said otherwise. Getting us to semi finals and finals is still nothing to sniff at. But a slightly better manager would have delivered a trophy by now.

    Yeah you could argue he's underachieving by the same margin previous managers underachieved by. But now the cost of underachieving isn't missing out on a quarter final, it's missing out on a trophy. So naturally that stings more

    I don’t think you can expect to win a tournament and claim he has underperformed by not. Losing the final against Italy at Wembley is the only match that sticks out at a tournament and it was on very fine margins.

    England 2018 was virtually the same squad who were humiliated by Iceland so perhaps he overachieved in that tournament? In Qatar they went out to my pre tournament favourite in France (again on fine margins with your captain and best player missing a penalty). I don’t think you should claim he underachieved in Qatar. 

    So, as you yourself noted, England should have gone further than they did in tournaments from 2004-2016 but since Southgate I would argue they have been going about as far as you’d expect them to (with a frustrating penalty shootout loss in the 2020 final being the biggest disappointment). 

    • Like 1
  4. 9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

    Yeah that's fair. I'm not as confident (I think the England team from 2010 to around 2016 just got worse and worse) but it's not a mad suggestion.

    However I don't think they would have got much further. 2010 for example if we'd topped the group we'd get Ghana and the Uruguay. I doubt we'd win both of those games, so it's still a QF exit

    So to summarise, we all agree England underachieved in 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2014 and 2016 (I had forgotten them losing to Iceland 😂) then Southgate shows up in 2018 and suddenly they are making semifinals and finals of major tournaments. 

    • Like 2
  5. Just now, Stevo985 said:

    Agreed on 2008 and 2014

    I don't think that England team beats 2010 Germany regardless of who is manager

    It wouldn’t surprise me if a manager like Southgate would have topped that group in 2010 and avoided having to play Germany in the first knockout round. 

    Instead a very average USA side top the group and got an average Ghana in the knockout. 

  6. England 2010 WC - win one match (scraping past slovenia) to get pumped by Germany in the round of 16. 

    England 2014 WC - win no matches and out of the tournament after round 2 of the group stages. 

    2008 England couldn’t even qualify for the Euros.

    It’s not hard to imagine Southgate doing better with those tournaments. 

    • Like 1
  7. On 21/03/2024 at 00:21, TomC said:

    Scoring is up the past few years...

    Emi has been here since 2020-21. That year, average goals per game was 2.69, in the typical range for the PL era. But the last three years in a row have set PL-era records. From a previous record of 2.80 in 2011-12, the last three years have been 2.81, 2.82, and this year so far, a record-obliterating 3.24 (highest since 1952-53 in the old league). That helps explain the difference from Bosnich.

    Not to mention that Bosnich had Paul McGrath in front of him most of his time here.

    And, while it's not a fair comparison because goalkeepers weren't expected to do such things back then, none of the other candidates have Emi's sweeper-keeper and passing-in-back abilities.

    Bosnich was good, but I'd still take Emi any day of the week.

     

    Probably because we play about 10 mins more injury time this season each match. 

    Would also possibly explain why every club is in injury crisis. 

  8. Southgate doesn’t get England ‘punching above their weight’, though he has them winning the matches you’d expect England to win on paper. 

    I’m not his fan but to give him a little credit that is far better than his predecessors managed. I would also suggest this is potentially because international football is a unique set of circumstances/challenges for a football manager. What makes a good club manager doesn’t necessarily translate to international football tournaments.

    It’s not actually a guarantee that a new manager takes England forwards from here. 

    • Like 1
  9. 38 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

    Correct. I made this point a few pages back. If it was a solid colour nobody would care. 
     

    It’s because it vaguely resembles and LBGT rainbow. They’ll say it isn’t, but we all know that it is 

     

    Not the LBGT rainbow but the Telegraph was suggesting it resembles the trans and lesbian flags.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  10. 7 hours ago, Zatman said:

    I dont think the creative change considered how many gammons that would get offended

    I genuinely dont think a pro American company like Nike would offend on purpose that might make a backlash at home

    Supposedly the first draft of the design had the flag as a rainbow colours and the FA knocked it back. 

    Surely they must know En-gur-land football fans are not known for their progressive politics? It was an entirely predictable result. 

    I don’t really know how such a big company like Nike could make such a mess of it. 

  11. You have to wonder though why Nike have done this. They must have known what kind of reaction they would get changing a countries flag, they are not completely tone deaf.

    Are they marketing on the idea that all publicity is good publicity? Was it a boozy long lunch dare between design executives? I can’t imagine this kit is going to be a big seller for them though. 

    • Confused 1
  12. 4 hours ago, regular_john said:

    Why would IS attack Russia?

    Because of Russia’s help given to Assad in Syria killed a lot of them and went a long way to destroying their caliphate.They have also been attacking Iran recently, a close Russian ally.

    The same branch of IS bombed St Petersburg a few years ago and Russia said they foiled an attack from them on a Moscow mosque a couple of weeks ago. 

  13. 3 hours ago, villa89 said:

    The reason they don't put boots on the ground is that the reality is that NATO doesn't really care about Ukraine, or how many people die there. It suits them to have an ongoing war that weakens Russia hugely and has little impact on Western economies. NATO couldn't be scared of Russia, they know how weak the Russian army is. 

    The other reason is that NATO troops on the ground means NATO deaths on the ground. 

    It’s not a popular political move to send your own people off to fight in a foreign war and watch as a proportion of them come back in body bags. 

    • Like 1
  14. 42 minutes ago, paul514 said:

    we are 15m under the 3 year limit and will now have a substantially higher income next season due to CL and sponsors. We can also cut wages with our fringe players going by a hell of a lot and we can sell 1 star for big money to spend a lot.

    Yes we could potentially sell a star player to fund the purchase but I can’t see us adding him to the current squad.

    I don’t think we would be looking as making such an expensive signing though even if we sell to buy. We’d sell a star to reinvest in a couple of positions and ease FFP. 

  15. 6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

    Sad to see Starmer jumping onto the England football kit flag motif debate and asking Nike to replace it with a proper English flag for proper English people.

     

    He was asked a question about it and he answered that he didn’t think there was a need to change the flag. It seems the obvious answer really. He also said the price of the shirts was too high. 

  16. Boeing’s issues go much further than a door falling off. This whole article is a pretty incredible summary of their problems over the last decade. 
     

    Quote

    Boeing whistleblower John Barnett was found dead in his car with a gunshot wound to his head on the same day he was due to testify against the aircraft manufacturer.

    The mysterious incident happened as the company’s stock has nosedived, fuelled by a series of incidents including a door plug which flew off a 737 MAX 9 operated by Alaska Airlines at 16,000 feet on Jan. 5 and a wheel falling off a 777 jet a few weeks later.

    https://www.skynews.com.au/business/boeings-shocking-personnel-scandals-drug-dealing-love-triangle-and-murdersuicide/news-story/93d41c9090cb5919ce7c5f8309d6bb8d?amp&nk=5f12f38ab1f8355b495f64ccb2afbb2d-1710934838

  17. 27 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

    I've often thought about this, as someone who was a little 'un at the time and wasn't really directly affected by it.

    From a modern perspective, the concept of men going into mines to dig up coal is so archaic and, in fact, seems pretty distasteful in many ways.

    So, was the real problem with the shutting down of the coal mining not the end aim of removing that industry, but the manner in which is it was done? The timescales, the pension issues, the police behaviour etc.? Because I cannot imagine any world in which manual coal mining would still be a thing now.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Thatcher in any way at all, I'm just curious what people think the "best" solution should have been to this assuming that we should have arrived ultimately at a point where coal mining was a thing of the past anyway.

    We didn’t lose our coal mining industry in Australia but it has actually become a bit of a rod for our backs in the move to decarbonise the economy for the sake of climate change.

    The coal mining industry and its workers are a powerful voting block and lobby heavily to resist any moves towards the phasing out of coal power stations in favour of renewable energy sources. The Labour Party often try and ‘ride two horses’ by telling their inner city voters all about their great ideas for renewable energy, only to head off to the coal mining regions promising their industries will not be touched.

  18. 19 hours ago, Genie said:

    Exactly, making personal remarks about someone’s appearance who was only doing their job is not ok at all.

    He’s not talking about the guy’s appearance. He’s saying he has not done his research before asking that line of questioning. 

×
×
  • Create New...
Â