Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/14/2014 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Should've used Adidas...they pay £75m a year for clubs to wear their kit... ...and that would've bought us Suarez..who likes to 'eat fresh'...a marketing dream! See what a bit of joined up thinking can achieve!
  2. 4 points
    I agree that it has been a good tournament. For me Messi was a huge disappointment and whilst he had the odd touch of something special, for large parts of most games - including the final - he seemed pretty disinterested and contributed little to the team. It is illuminating to look at the FIFA stats in this regard. In terms of distances covered most players ran over 1K every 10 minutes - even the much maligned Fred managed that. Schweinsteiger managed 1.26K but Messi only 0.90. Apart from his goals he didn't contribute much. 5 of his Argentinian team mates made more passes than him and all had a better pass completion rate. 9 of the German team exceeded him in both respects. Messi's pass completion rate was 68%. Even Pirlo made more passes than Messi (and with a 90% completion rate) and he only played 3 games compared to Messi's 7. Of course, Messi is renowned for his running with the ball and his shooting but he only had 8 runs into the box in his 7 games and had 22 shots on goal with only 10 on target. The awful Fred had 9 on target in his 6 games. Ronaldo only had 3 games but managed 23 shots on goal with 14 on target whilst chewy Louis managed 9 on target in his 2 games. Messi's contribution has been average at best and to have him named as player of the tournament is a real kick in the teeth for the many players who are far more deserving. Far from getting player of the tournament, Messi wouldn't even be close to my team of the tournament. In fact, he would struggle to get into my Argentinian team of the tournament. Well done to the Germans though. They thoroughly deserved their victory. Their work rate, team work and style of play was all excellent. The only downside is their tendency to appear to be injured more than they actually are or pretending to be injured when they are the ones who committed the foul. The otherwise excellent Thomas Mueller was chief culprit and having got Pepe sent off in the first game he was up to his old tricks again in the final. If they could eliminate that from their game, I could get to quite like them! Of other teams, the Dutch again thrilled but fell just short, Mexico, Costa Rica, Columbia, the USA and Algeria all provided some superb entertainment and excitement. Most of the other teams had their moments and came with the intention to play attractive attacking football. The competition will perhaps be remembered most for the astonishing 7-1 thrashing of the hosts Brazil but in many ways the most significant result was the thrashing the boring World and European champions Spain suffered at the hands of the Dutch and their subsequent elimination at the first stage. The world cup is over and the beautiful game is alive and kicking.
  3. 2 points
    It's funny you should mention that actually. From my research, a merged Inverness of some description wasn't just an idea that popped into someone's head in the early 90s. I remember seeing an "On this Day" thing in the Courier I think it was from the early 30s where a merger of Thistle, Caley and Clach (and possibly Citadel) fell through at the 11th hour. Mergers are nothing new and we're far from the only one. Aberdeen are a three way merger - Orion, Victoria United and another team named Aberdeen who played in white and blue shorts, merged in 1903. Ross County are the result of merger between Dingwall Thistle and Dingwall Victoria United. Motherwell are the merger of Glencairn and Alpha. Inverness Thistle were a merger in some ways as well with the incorporation of Inverness Union and Crown. I was told once that one of things the merger did was clear the deadwood. You know, the people who probably had a big team anyway and went to the matches not so much for the football, rather as a vehicle for drinking and having a scrap. They won't all be like that, but I'd guess that a good chunk were and good riddance to them. But how many refuseniks are there? I don't know, but I'd guess not that many, certainly not anymore. But here's the thing - if there's so many of them, why wasn't the merger voted down? If there's so many of them, why didn't they make more of an effort to fight back? Why didn't they attempt to resurrect a Caley and a Thistle in the Junior leagues as FC United fans did years later? The simple reason is, a lot of them probably never have existed and nowadays, they're a very small group, getting smaller and receive far more attention than is justified.
  4. 2 points
    I was there! I was very impressed with Tansey. He seems a much better player than when he was with us the first time round and as others have stated, Ferguson looked very lively when he came on. His pace and work rate remind me of Craig Dargo in some ways and I think he's a player who could have a good future with us. Also, I don't want to see Mckay taking a penalty again ever. How many times will he miss before somebody realises that he's just not good at them? The stats don't lie. On final thing I must say and it was the same last year, is that as long as that management team stay in charge of Forres, we really should consider whether it is worth playing them again. Three players taken off injured and why? Because of the brutality of the Mechanic's team. Hard tackling, elbows flying in all over the place, taking out the man, all totally unnecessary in a friendly match. I wonder if it's worth the hassle playing them again next season.
  5. 1 point
    Just needed somewhere to put the above post.
  6. 1 point
    If you look anything like your avatar, there'll no be a shirt to fit you! Eat Fresh? Eat something!!!
  7. 1 point
    I think its a great idea, play a set way, tell everyone you will only play a certain way, then when our back four are being over run by an attacking 2,4,4 as you now expect,meekings kicks a beauty up to Aaron on the left wing combined with Marley on the right opens up the centre backs and Billy scores down the middle.
  8. 1 point
    Usually courtious to acknowledge the originator of a quote. In this case Albert Camus the French-Algerian Nobel Prize winning author, journalist, and philosopher. Are you saying that Dougal isn't a Nobel Prize winning author, journalist and philosopher?
  9. 1 point
    DD - You got that right about Messi! Heck even Maradona is blasting it as a "marketing ploy" by FIFA due to Messi's status as an "Adidas Ambassador" and of course Adidas are major 'partners' of FIFA at the World Cup along with Emirates Airlines which also explains the flight attendants with the medals! He looked uninterested - or perhaps blasé? - for much of the tournament and didnt even score in the knockout stages and the expression yesterday when he got the award after losing seemed to be one of embarrassment. Thomas Mueller had more goals/assists and was perhaps a candidate, but for me, I keep coming back to James Rodriguez of Colombia. 6 goals in 5 games plus 2 assists ...... but no guy called Jimmy is ever going to win the World Cup Golden Ball !!!
  10. 1 point
    Last season we looked far more dangerous to the opposition when we were more direct. When we tried to play possession football, we looked more dangerous to ourselves. I am not saying that we need to lump the ball forward a la Wimbledon in the late 80s/early 90s, but when we try to pass the ball to death, we either look like we are about to give the ball away in a dangerous place, give our goalkeeper a hospital back pass, or allow the opposition to reorganise behind the ball.
  11. 1 point
    That is exactly the analogy - just imagine Bury merging with Bowton and then you have that feeling that many Caley and Thistle fans actually experienced. And would you like the yoof of Bury to be aware of the history of the club before they started eating black pudding pasties ?
  12. 1 point
    You say that "the prospect is a lot more scary than anything I've heard so far from the No Better Together Thanks/Project Fear side" yet seem to miss the point that it is you - a fervent supporter of the Yes campaign - who is shamelessly using the fear factor to push your case! Not only that, but your whole argument is complete nonsense from start to finish. Firstly, the Barnett formula is not just about health service funding. If there is an overall decrease in funding coming to Scotland as a result of a reduction of public spending in the UK generally then it is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how it wants to spend its allocation. If it wants to spend proportionately more on the NHS then the Scottish Government currently has the power to do so. Secondly, the Scottish Parliament also has devolved powers to increase the rate of income tax. If the Scottish Government feels that the amount of funding received from the UK treasury via the Barnett formula is not enough to support public services here then it currently has the power to raise more money in order to carry out that public spending programme. Thirdly, despite scare stories from the "Yes" campaign, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have all said that in the event of a no vote there are no plans to change the Barnett formula. It is therefore clear that in the event of a "No" vote, any reduction in NHS funding will be a result of what the Scottish Parliament decides. What happens to NHS funding in England is a completely unrelated issue. But the real vitriol in Oddquine's post is about the prospect of privatisation impacting on the NHS. It would appear that this is an evil to be avoided at all costs - but nothing could be further from the truth. Oddquine talks about the prospect of American style healthcare being imposed upon us and I take this to mean that she fears we may increasingly replace our government funded NHS with Healthcare being provided through health insurance paid for by the individual. This prospect is extrapolated from the TIPP consultations which might open up healthcare provision currently provide by the state to private companies. But nowhere in this is there any suggestion that the fundamental basis of the NHS would change - they would continue to be paid for by the state but the way the services are provided would change. And why would that be a bad thing in any case? Any provision of services would be open to a process which looked to award contracts to companies which provided cost effective services. If current managed service providers were not awarded contracts it would be because private sector companies were either able to provide the same level of service cheaper or a better service for the same money. Surely that is no bad thing! The next point is that Oddquine's post implies we should not allow private sector provision to creep into the the NHS. But it is here already and always has been! Patients' most common contact with Healthcare providers is with GPs and Community Pharmacies, but with the exception of few salaried GPs, all of these services are provided by independent contractors. We have homecare providers from the private sector providing services to patients in their own homes supporting patients who need injections and other aspects of care in a range of conditions from cancer, though inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis and MS. Private companies have these routine contracts because they are structured to deliver the specified level of service in a way which the non-profit making but over-bureaucratised NHS cannot match. In addition many of the targets the Government sets the Health Boards are only met by the Boards contracting out work to the private sector. A further irony here is that despite Oddquine's obvious abhorrence of American style Healthcare coming to Scotland, the NHS in Scotland has sent senior managers to private health care providers in the USA to learn about some of their patient safety and quality processes. Some of the very best healthcare is provided in the USA simply because the providers have to provide a cost effective service in order to provide a return on investment capital and to attract business from the insurance companies. It drives quality up and cuts out inefficiency. The tragedy for the NHS in Scotland is that whilst there is a recognition that the best care will be provided by focusing on quality and reducing waste, the Government lacks the guts to take the political decisions necessary to address the massively cumbersome management structures which have developed over the years which actually hinder the delivery of cost effective high quality services. It is actually quite extraordinary that the current SNP administration has a "no-redundancy" policy in place for the NHS. This completely stifles meaningful organisational change as savings can't be generated because you still have to pay staff who are no longer required. In some situations staff can be redeployed into other roles (with pay levels protected) but often they are not really suited to that role and the fact that they are put in those roles removes the opportunity for more able staff to move into the roles. No business would ever make a profit if it did that! In the case of the NHS read "reinvest in patient care" for "profit". The result is we have an NHS which is massively over-bureaucratised, with loads of management duplication, numerous posts which are not really necessary and staff who are in posts they don't like, aren't good at and for which they are paid more than the going rate. If we want a better health service we need to embrace either the private sector in service provision or a more business-like approach to the management of the service in order to drive this waste out. As I said at the top, the Scottish Government currently has the power to manage the NHS as it sees fit. What is happening in the rest of the UK is not going to impact on us unless we want it to. However, if a greater engagement with the private sector in England helps to increase quality and reduce wastage then we, in Scotland need to learn the lessons. If we are to invest in better front line services we need to be far more business-like in the management of the service. We need to embrace major reforms in the way the services are managed and delivered in the NHS. Keeping our tired old NHS structures and outdated restrictive attitudes within an independent socialist Scottish state is a recipe for continuing pressures on front line services and poor levels of care. Oddquine's post is a classic example of the "YES" campaign claiming the the "Better Together" campaign is "project fear" whilst at the same time promoting a scare story of their own which is totally without foundation. I sense the thrust of Oddquine's posts is a genuine wish for a more compassionate society - which is admirable - but the NHS is currently stifled by stale socialist ideology and is riddled with restrictive practises and a massively cumbersome management structure. This prevents better patient care. In order to allow the wonderful health care practitioners in the NHS to deliver a better and more compassionate service to patients we need to embrace radical change. Evidence from elsewhere is that better patient care can be delivered cost-effectively through appropriate engagement with the private sector. What matters is the quality and cost of the service provided - if the private sector can provide service delivery more cost effectively then so be it.
  13. 1 point
    These matches are arranged to give players game time so I don't think people should read too much into the results aspect. Having watched endless world cup games, you can see where Yogi is coming from regarding ball retention but we are presently lacking the quality final ball into scoring areas. We will no doubt have to wait and see if we are capable of making this happen but the longer we go without creating scoring chances the more difficult it is going to get.
  14. 1 point
    I very much doubt these ladies would be the type that enjoyed tea and cakes more like pints of lager and kebabs but you are right it's another way that new fans could be encouraged through the gates even if was only a few games per season Dougal No dougal. Strictly G&T or spritzers. They were formed about three years ago and chose a name that didn't clash with Accies. Since there inception they have been doing really well and could become a top league team soon. You should go and watch a girls game sometime dougal. Might teach you something about the game and how not to be a sexist arse. In what way was his post sexist ?
  15. 1 point
    Overall, I thought it was a good tournament. I'm as guilty as anyone for 'fawning' over Messi when he's putting in his weekly superhuman efforts for Barcelona in La Liga and the Champions League - but i really don't think he should have won the Golden Ball for the best player in the competition! The Germans will likely be a force for some time given the ages of the current crop. It's back to the bread-and-butter for them now with the Euro '16 qualifying campaign and a visit from Scotland! We often draw the current World Cup winners in our group. We had 2010 winners Spain last time, with 2006 champions, Italy, the time before that!
  16. 1 point
    Hi there old Gringers - love the statto fest, whets the appetite for the new season - cheers mate, get your pencil sharpened and bring it on
  17. 1 point
    Where has the Hughes out thread gone to ? Fer fecks sake it is pre pre season !!
  18. 1 point
    Cheers very helpful haha
This leaderboard is set to London/GMT+01:00
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up