Rovers13

You can prove something without winning a major trophy... For instance, back to back promotions is proving something.

Just maybe because we have a track record of doing so. Really? Who?

I hope it's not jim crane. He's been unbelievably cheap with the Astros.

"Aren't especially talented." So you just admitted his players weren't that good.

Well there's were I have an issue. Brad Davis, who plays as a wide midfielder on the left, not totally dissimilar to Donovan's role, is going. He's a decent player, good set piece deliver, but he's just not good enough in open play to play in a World Cup. He's too slow and will get torched. He's also not young. So I have no clue why klinnsmann would pick him and not Donovan.

Con, from the time he was there they were the 8th best side in the league. That'd be remarkable for any side that comes up via the playoffs, or any promoted side in general. And he did it without a summer transfer window to plan.

I don't think it's crazy to suggest England underachieves. Out of the countries with a top five league in Europe, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and England, England has the worst national team in recent history and it's not that close. I would think that's who England should be competing with.

I don't understand the "23 better players than Donovan" argument. No team brings a best 23.

See that's where people are wrong. He did a brilliant at palace this year, and a good job in getting them promoted. But he spent a ton of money there, so keeping them up with negative football wasn't any great job. With their spending, they could've been what Southampton are now.

I usually agree with you on things, so i'm sure you're right about their style. And, I remember now that I did watch them play another game where they were pretty attacking. Their game vs Liverpool at home, which if I remember correctly they lost 5-3, was pretty open and attacking from both sides.

On his day, he really might be the best in the world. He makes insane saves... But he also makes some bad gaffes, and these would he magnifies in a World Cup.

Why would villa hire someone who's proven nothing in management?

His Stoke side play pretty good stuff though going by whenever I've watched them. Well, a far cry from their football under Pulis anyhow. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Hughes, and he's a lot more positive than pulis. But, at least at rovers, he wasn't exactly a pochettino or Rodgers type, he was pretty pragmatic. Maybe he adapted because he knows top clubs prefer an attacking manager, I didn't get to see stoke play that much this year. So maybe I owe Con an apology. I just don't think id use him as the example of a manager able to play brilliant football and finish midtable. Edit: The two times I remember watching stoke this year was the away game at cardiff towards the end and their home game vs villa. Neither was anything special stylistically. They were outplayed by cardiff and failed to take the game to villa during villas horrible run in December. They won, but the game was pretty woeful overall, especially considering how many injuries villa had (herd was at CB)

I am not sure that any party has a policy for the next General Election yet. That is why I am happy to wait. Fair enough, but they have no policies in general that they're following.

There is no policy to read up on though. Farage basically said their most recent manifesto doesn't reflect their party, and they haven't announced policies to replace it.

Con, that point about Hughes couldn't be more wrong. I like him as a manager, but he's not exactly the most attacking manager like you make him out to be. At rovers he was pretty direct a lot of the time.

Serious question: since, judging off farage's comments, they have no policy outside of anti-immigration and EU withdrawal, what exactly is your local council going to do about local issues?

Don't completely discredit a good match by the Galaxy. You say Philly were poor, but I also saw a very hardworking midfield from LA who put a lot of pressure on Philly causing them to turn the ball over. Fair enough, the galaxy were pretty good. But I just have trouble giving too much credit to any union opponent right now. And excelling against a side this poor doesn't mean you're fit enough for the World Cup.

No, it's just cause the union are beyond awful. I watch almost every weak. They're so poor this year

Well, lambert certainly uses different tactics. He just didn't use any of them particularly well.

Argentina doesn't have the best defense either...

Isa, you've convinced me Lambert's not a good manager.

Because people vote against stuff. It's incredibly easy to get people to not like something. Can't, like, Frances other political parties get the voters to vote against racism?

How do people vote for a party like that? The ignorance/hate is **** astounding. I think I just found the first positive to our two party system, no completely insane fascist third parties. And the republicans, while pretty horrible and despicable, aren't quite there.

I do get the picture and though I probably don't disagree with you on much there (I would on open borders), I'm not sure the above makes you 'very, very liberal' (fundamentally, I can't see how one could be a liberal and be in favour of restricted immigration - it would seem anathema to being liberal to me). Like I said, different standards. Universal healthcare, for instance, isn't even in the national discussion in America, while in britain, it's the opposite. (As in getting rid of it isn't in the discussion) I would probably say the only areas I'm not liberal in is I'm not always a proponent of free trade and the restricted immigration