adw95

He was wank.

 

 

 

How does everyone get through their games so quickly? Do you all just have lots of free time?

 

I'd say it takes about 2 to 3 days to get through a season, I usually play whilst doing Uni work. I don't watch any highlights etc.

 

 

I have no time due to work so I get maximum of 2/3 hours game play per day

 

 

You should be able to complete a season in 4 or 6 hours, easily!

 

I'm nowhere near! I think I'm 10 games in after around 4 hours play (maybe less I'm unsure, will check tonight).

 

How does everyone get through their games so quickly? Do you all just have lots of free time?

 

I'd say it takes about 2 to 3 days to get through a season, I usually play whilst doing Uni work. I don't watch any highlights etc.

 

I have no time due to work so I get maximum of 2/3 hours game play per day

How does everyone get through their games so quickly? Do you all just have lots of free time?

 

 

That's why I mentioned having it accepted practice that cyclists use the paths but in their space, split the paths in half like I have seen in my area, this should be more common.

 

Also the bold part is wrong, its the law forcing people who cycle to take chances on the road, I assume in many cases they want to use the road but if they don't they have no legal right, so must find alternative travel. It's not a choice besides choosing how you commute.

 

 

It should be more common, but it's only half a solution. It's just not possible country wide. 

 

Indeed. The law tells you to either cycle in the road or you find alternative transport. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Seems fair to me. 

 

It's still better than the current set up. In city centres and towns it can be done (and wouldn't be the hardest thing to implement), grants it is much harder in the countrysides and small villages etc. but it's a good start point.

Costing can be an issue as it was to me when travelling to school and then college, a bus pass was too expensive so I cycled, during early hours when people are travelling to work it was busy where I live and cycling in the roads everyday would be dangerous, on the occasion that I did venture into the roads I had a few close calls with vehicles which is why I generally used the paths.

 

So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from?

 

I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general.

 

Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it?

 

 

You're not really getting it. Maybe you think you're safe and conscientious when cycling on the pavement, but who's to say the next fella will be as aware? We have laws like this for a reason, they're (usually) made to account for all eventualities. 

 

On the road it's you (as in anyone) taking your own life into your own hands. On the pavement you (not necessarily you) become a danger to others. It's quite simple. 

 

That's why I mentioned having it accepted practice that cyclists use the paths but in their space, split the paths in half like I have seen in my area, this should be more common.

Also the bold part is wrong, its the law forcing people who cycle to take chances on the road, I assume in many cases they want to use the road but if they don't they have no legal right, so must find alternative travel. It's not a choice besides choosing how you commute.

 

So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from?

I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general.

Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it?

Still breaking the law dude

 

I didn't disagree with that part (I also didn't know this at the time).

 

I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London.

 

The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists.

 

Oh dear.

 

a. You're breaking the law

b. Feck the pedestrians, yes?

 

small children, the elderly, the disabled should all jump out of the way as you zoom past? There's a law against it for a reason, squire.

 

So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from?

I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general.

Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it?

 

I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law.

There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe.

Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years.

The answer for you then is to not cycle around London, if you don't feel safe. That's your choice (and a good one IMO). What does that have to do with the law surrounding cyclist and the pavement?

It is already accepted practice to stick close to the side of the road, even in that there London. But bear in mind that's where the busses live.

Cyclists die, but it's their choice to take that risk. I'd feel for the driver in such circumstances, but as long as they themselves obeyed the laws of the road then any guilt they felt would not be justified.

 

I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London.

The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists.

 

I didn't claim you were wrong so you didn't need to include the bold part. My point is it is a ridiculous law.

It's a very sensible and perfectly reasonable law. Bicycles are fast moving vehicles, on the pavement they become a danger to pedestrians. On the road it is the cyclist taking the risk through their own free will, why should I as a pedestrian have that danger forced upon me?

Cyclist on the pavement, ridiculous idea and impossible in a built up city such as London (which is what we were talking about no, 5 deaths in 9 days?). One can only guess you've never been to London.

Cyclists having to have licenses and number plates to ride on certain built up areas such as Zone 1, now THERE is an idea.

 

I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law.

There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe.

Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years. 

Edit: Sorry, must remember to edit quotes.

 

Hmm.

 

This is no law I was aware of until now and it's ridiculous. In my local area the paths are being widened (I have assumed for cyclists) but there are no markings or indications that they are for cyclists, so it is illegal to use these paths yes?

 

Ridiculous.

 

Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888. 

 

 

Those pavements with designated cycle lanes are a different matter (they tend to be two tone black and red) - but for your bog standard pavement yes.... its illegal to cycle on them. 

 

I didn't claim you were wrong so you didn't need to include the bold part. My point is it is a ridiculous law.

 

Why can't cyclists use the **** path? I did unless the road had a clearly marked cycle lane or the roads were empty. 

Because the ****** path is for pedestrians. 

 

 

It is against the law to cycle on the pavement. End of. 

 

Cyclists should be on the road, they should cycling in accordance with the laws with full consideration to other road users. The same applies to every other road user, be it horse, car, van, lorry, motorbike or whatever. 

 

Hmm.

This is no law I was aware of until now and it's ridiculous. In my local area the paths are being widened (I have assumed for cyclists) but there are no markings or indications that they are for cyclists, so it is illegal to use these paths yes?

Ridiculous.

Why can't cyclists use the **** path? I did unless the road had a clearly marked cycle lane or the roads were empty. 

 

 

he should be taking all the corners. I dont know why PL persists with Westwood or Tonev

 

I don't remember Tonev taking a corner in a competitive game this season?

 

yeah i think i saw him take a few against Cardiff. They werent bad.. but when Bacuna can place the ball wherever he wants.. its a bit of a no brainer for me

 

I was sure Westwood took them all...

There are rumours emanating that Michael Carrick will be out until at least the new year with an achilles injury. Given the complete lack of backup for him and their relative dearth in central midfield it's not OTT to say he's arguably the single most important player in that squad. My United mate is currently re-assessing his top 4 prediction

I find this amusing, mainly because I don't rate Carrick at all and he seems to be very important to them!

Im now in march and still in 6th spot at villa. Recovered from Benteke buggering off to Dortmund by buying Alcacer, Ings and  Ince.  Wiemann is shite fo me, luckily Gabby and Kozak are playing well.

 

I havent been able to get rid of Given, Hutton or Nzogbia yet. I have played all 3 though as I like to rotate my players

Didn't want Hutton in my side at all so got rid for £500k.

 

 

Peter O’Demwingie

Re- the result. It was significant in our 'comparitive' fixtures with last season because that was a 3-0 home loss to Wigan, so as you can see from the stats above, we're now +8pts over the same opposition !!

 

BOF, I may be having a bad maths moment, but I only make it +7 on the basis you are doing it.

 

The problem might be that, in the table above, you have shown the points difference for Everton Home(this season 0-2, last season 3-3) as 0, when shouldn't it be -1?

 

Home game against Everton was 1-3 last season. So no impact on the points tally.

he should be taking all the corners. I dont know why PL persists with Westwood or Tonev

I don't remember Tonev taking a corner in a competitive game this season?

Trouble is the press love MON. Someone should have pointed out that he did sign in excess of 15 players at Villa: Shorey, Davies, Knight, Sidwell, NRC - the list of overhyped British mercenaries goes on. We're still recovering from his tenure.

I assume he meant in one transfer window, which is what Di Canio did (I think).

 

his crossing isn't great.

 

He fired in some nice ones - a little close to the keeper, mostly. Still, it was his cross that lead (eventually) to our second.

 

Very much this, if someone was running across the keeper for a number of his crosses it would have been a great chance.

The fact that following a 2-0 win there are still so many Villa fans moaning. Shut the **** up.

 

Great cameo today. I really want him to start against West Brom. We'll have to retain possession much better than we have been doing if we are going to win, and Lowton is one of our best players technically.

I think he's a good attacking full back. His touch, passing and crossing are all really good. He even reads the game and intercepts well. It's just he's poor defending one v. one. Which, ironically, is where Bacuna shines.

As I'm bored of watching KEA and Sylla either pass it backwards or lose possession, I'd love to see Bacuna pushed into midfield and Matty back in the side.

Something like this:

Guzan

Lowton, Vlaar, Clark, Luna

Westwood

Bacuna, Delph

Weimann, Agbonlahor

Benteke

That is possibly the best Villa side except maybe someone else instead of Weimann, it looks really good on paper.

 

I liked the way Tonev was just floating around so if Bacuna was going to be moved up then I'd still go 2 up front (any combination of Benteke and Gabby/Kozak can work) with Tonev behind them.

Rodriguez has done a lot more than gabby in fairness even in back end of last season. Its funny people moan when he doesnt pick villa players as we are allegedly an unfashionable club then he calls up Southamption players and its a bit of a joke

I think I just dislike Rodriguez due to last years home game vs. Southampton.

 

Jay Rodriguez in the England squad. 

He has been very good for the Saints. We shouldn't laugh at this kind of inclusion because it's the kind that should happen more often, namely getting in on form and merit. It's just a pity Delph didn't get in off the same reasoning.

 

Neither did Agbonlahor,not this time but the last few squads, saying that he is always a good option to have in your team. Surely there are better players than Rodriguez? It's not even a normal squad, 28 players (I believe) and no room for Delph.

On a side note, what does the general football supporting public have against Milner?

Surprised there's no Barry too.