starchief

I read that article earlier. Very good. Shearer is as dull as dishwater and contributes nothing but cliches. The article makes a good point that it wasn't so long ago that the pundits were Martin O'Neill and Gordon Strachan. Mind you, it forgets that Ian Wright was also there (who, when asked about IIRC how Romania would do in a match not involving England, he said "I don't care about Romania, I care about England!" - well, don't accept a salary if you're not going to be a pundit on the match). Really you want some fire. I like Keegan. He's biased and enthusiastic. If there was someone like Fergie or Souness to challenge him, that would be something. As it is, Keegan just sounds mad instead of passionate. Most of the commentary I get is in Arabic (except for some games that I have to get elsewhere when Nile Sport doesn't show it), so I only get the odd word here and there - no bad thing! Al Jazeera Sport has Lineker, Souness and Trevor Francis normally (Craig Brown too - he's a bit too easy-going but gives good insight into being an international manager). That's pretty good as there's some real analysis there.

Strong line-up. Still prefer a different right-back with Proctor in midfield, plus a genuine attacking midfielder (although Sanchez may bloom against better opposition). Mind you, how weak must the bench be now? An injury almost everywhere on the park means slotting in either Sanchez (from the above line-up) or a youngster.

Forget history and Africa, it still happens in every town and city in the UK, including by and to Highlanders and travellers! It may have a slightly more modern word than 'pillaging' but violent crime is still violent crime.

What a bizarre hand ball for Algeria. Gained nothing and a red card. Man must be a complete idiot. Still, the Egyptians here will be happy, it's ABA in Cairo.

So... Robert Green makes a mistake King is injured Lampard, when paired with Gerard, looks like a poor defensive mid ('coz he's really more an attacking mid) Heskey is a poor attacker who can't score Did Fabio actually watch any England games before he picked the team? All of these, eminently predictable.

Hmmmm, England's line up: Green, Johnson, Terry, King, Ashley Cole, Lennon, Lampard, Gerrard, Milner, Heskey, Rooney. Subs: James, Barry, Carragher, Carrick, Joe Cole, Crouch, Dawson, Defoe, Upson, Warnock, Wright-Phillips, Hart. Wouldn't have started with Green in goal. Too many errors in international matches. King and Terry? Untried. Got to blame the manager for not fielding this before if it all goes haywire. Lampard and Gerrard in the centre. Just doesn't work. Always better when Barry or Carrick is in there with Gerrard pushed out. Heskey just doesn't deserve to be there. Crouch is far more dangerous in terms of goals and has proved he can play with Rooney. No idea how strong (or not) the USA team is but a decent striker could exploit the space, plus there's only one goal threat upfront (and he's temperamental). Long-range shooting probably England's best chance if the USA get their tactics right.

Lennon got the results last season (bar one big one) but they were a few games where he only sneaked by (in terms of play, not goals). Granted, it wasn't his team and Mowbray may well have lost those matches but I wasn't overly impressed. I'm a bit surprised about some of Lennon's targets. Sol Campbell? Assuming there won't be so many injuries this time around, I think a back two from Hooiveld, Loovens, McManus or Rogne, along with back-ups in Dea and Thompson is good enough for the SPL. Can you imagine how Rangers would have done losing Weir, Bougherra, Wilson and Broadfoot for most of their campaign? Waste of a very large wage. Jimmy Bullard? An extremely good player a couple of years ago but vastly off-form and injury prone. I'd sooner go for the much cheaper Stokes. I'm not surprised to see Lennon stall on N'Guemo. Not a bad player but too similar to Brown for him to work in a pairing. Liam Miller or James McArthur (I know he's a Bluenose but those days are gone surely?) would be cheaper and a better fit. Kamara must be gone, as he was distinctly average. Bit surprised at Naylor going though as he was a decent left-back for the SPL (you don't need to be world class if Colin Nish is one of your biggest threats). I still think it's Rangers to lose. Sure, Boyd is gone and that will be a BIG miss. In fact, as big as Robbie Keane. They are the only two players in either of the OF that could score regularly. It's a big points gap for Celtic to make up, with Rangers only really needing to replace one first-pick (obviously they could do with some more players, especially a left-winger). Celtic need wholesale changes under a rookie manager. So back to ICT... Lennon just couldn't change it against Ross County. He also really struggled with Killie and some other games that slip my mind. Unfortunately, Butcher isn't a great tactician but if he just gets a break, then battles, Lennon won't know how to change it, especially with so many new faces. Which left-back will Hayes be up against? Some Championship pick still finding his feet? That could work. Hinkel v Foran? Even money. Bullard and Fortune playing well but unable to finish? Sounds good to me. All to do for Celtic. No longer a team to fear.

Robbie Winters was a big success in Norway for Brann. Quite a few calls at the time for a return to the Scotland squad based on his form. Charlie Miller was well-liked by the fans and sports writers but not by the manager. If he had just got the head down and stayed at one club earlier in his career for any length of time, he could have been something special. Now he's in Australia on a short-term contract after yet another injury.

But it seems in this case they couldn't move on further. There was a mechanical problem, so had to stop somewhere nearby. They moved on in a couple of days, which suggests the excuse was genuine. There was no trouble caused and no intention of staying. I daresay there are problems in some places where they illegally alight but I can't see this being one. That happened to me when I first moved to Inverness, only it wasn't travelers, it was an Invernessian. I then moved and the next door Invernessian turned out to be a wife-beater. So there you have it...people from Inverness are wife-beaters and thieves. I should know, I lived next to them! (or is it not that simple to castigate whole communities on the basis of a few individuals?)

I think someone's looking to be offended. Let's see what happened with direct quotes: "There has been no trouble" "the police spoke to them on Sunday morning and at that point the travellers indicated they would be leaving" "they had stopped to deal with a mechanical problem with one of their vehicles" "We are waiting on it being fixed and then we are going to move on to Thurso" "TRAVELLERS who occupied the car park of a city secondary school over the weekend moved on yesterday afternoon" Storm in a teacup.

1984, Liverpool won the European Cup with Dalglish, Souness, Hansen, Nicol and Gillespie all getting medals, whilst Graeme Sharp and Andy Gray (would have made a great international pairing) won the Cup Winners' Cup in 85 for Everton. Perhaps now some of the younger ones will see why some of us are not too impressed with today's 'stars' of the national team. Oh for a multi-awards winning Liverpool side made up of a core of Scots again.

Scott Booth seemed to do okay. I think he came back as there was a hint of training at Aberdeen that never worked out when he was unceremoniously shunted by a new manager, despite being their player of the season and top scorer. But, yeah, a lot, in more recent times, come back pretty soon after leaving. Remember Gary Smith? Possible Scotland captain material at Aberdeen. Left for France for a year and struggled to get a game on his return (ironically for Aberdeen). Ian Anderson too. Full of potential at Dundee. A little above average when he came back from France. Gary O'Connor, lasted one year at Moscow and was howling to get away far before he did. Even Paul Lambert was desperate (or rather his wife) to get back, despite winning the European Cup. Bunch'a woosies!

You sure it wasn't Jim(my) Calder?

Utterly bizarre decision. Esson's a terrific keeper that we'd struggle to better. Tokely's captain material and solid both on the right and centre of defence. Can't see the logic.

How do you know the new season is about to start? Jimmy Bullard reckons he'll be out of plaster in 4-6 weeks!

Why are Israeli commandos on the boat? There are far more peaceful ways to resolve the situation. Either don't let the boat dock, or let it dock, send the aid back and detain a few ringleaders for a while. Israel wasn't interested in a peaceful situation. I think people do protest against at least some of those - certainly Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea. But we exert very little influence over these countries. Sierra Leone and Rwanda are far different countries to ten years ago, whilst the problem in DR Congo isn't the government being corrupt, it's a lack of power due to lack of outside support but with outside interference. I think Israel is such a rallying point because it just seems they can get away with anything. No matter what happens, there's no sanctions. Hezbollah capture one Israeli soldier (a despicable action) and Israel slaughters thousands indiscriminately, whilst deliberately targeting a UN post killing all inside. Response? Nothing. Not even the slightest hint of sanctions. Meanwhile, Israel holds literally thousands of Lebanese prisoners without a trial. Not a peep from the international community. I expect a few harsh words but nothing more to come from this latest outrage. Had this been Yemen, Egypt or Iran attacking a supply boat of Israeli goods, the response would have been far different.

Sold Mike Teasdale a DVD of Celtic thrashing Rangers a few years back, when I did a Xmas stint in MVC in 1998. He was still in his tracktop and shorts from training.

Not sure if this is Rumour or Non-ICT. The Daily Record claims some SPL clubs are in the market for this prolific striker. Adebayo says, "I've had three or four Scottish Premier League clubs contact me about going there and doing something. A couple of those clubs couldn't be further away from London" I presume then that's ICT and Aberdeen (although, maybe Dundee Utd). Impressive stats of 17 goals for the Cobblers last season and, in two years, an impressive 37 goals in 88 appearances. It appears though he wants to go to a London club.

Hmmm , good shout!

To think how close Arafat and Rabin came to a deal. I'm sure it was literally only months away from acceptance before the assassination. What a lot of wasted time and lives since then.

Looks as though it was on the edge of the table. If that's the amount of evidence that a paranormal investigator needs, how about rechristening yourself paranormal believer. To say that 'looks real' displays an enormous disregard for objectivity.

There's a great sight here that lists the patron saints: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm Some real beauties like the patron saint against caterpillars. That's AGAINST caterpillars. The mind boggles. Plenty of others, like who to pray to if you lose your keys, or are suffering from magic (actually the latter seems to be pretty good, I haven't heard of anyone being attacked by magic for some time). Would Drausinius be our patron saint? The patron saint of "invincible people" (or is that for just Danny).

So we have a Tory government that has significantly moved towards the progressive, with Labour shifting towards the left. Perfect outcome. Far better than supporting right-wing New Labour in a dead duck minority government, with the defeated Tories shifting to the right. I see New Labour as no more left-wing than the Tories. This probably our biggest disagreement. Blair's as much a successor to Thatcher as Cameron. A party that pushed for the Iraq War, let the banks do what they like unhindered and wants to introduce ID cards is right-wing. Whether the LDs chose one or the other is based on how progressive and meaningful a coalition. I think they got it right. And to add, I wish the LDs had gone into a coalition with the SNP. The two parties have probably got more in common than with either of the big two (in fact, I think Labour and Tory have far more in common than either have with the LDs). It's just that one big question that gets in the way...

SNP never said they would back Labour before the election. Quite the opposite! Yet, before the ink is dry, Salmond's offering himself up. Why? Because Labour had the biggest mandate in Scotland, just as Tory had the biggest in the UK. So why aren't you attacking SNP for not declaring their interest? I'm sure there are many people voting SNP as a means of dislodging Labour. LDs are and have never been in favour of unilateral disarmament. Trident was based both on cost and the outdatedness of the system (terrorism now not the Cold War). As it is, they LDs will NOT be voting for Trident under the pact. They have an opt-out. But it doesn't really matter what they do, as both the major right-wing parties, Labour and Tory, will vote for it. An overwhelming majority. No loss there I can see. If it was that, they wouldn't have joined the LDs in the first place. More chance of power with either the right-wing parties. It surely can't be lost on you that the LDs are in favour of coalitions. They're in favour of parties of all persuasions getting together. Their solution to the debt crisis was to get all three main parties together. LDs have as much in common with Cameron's Liberal Tories as they have under New Labour (Old Tory). But, they didn't join an SNP government when they had the choice. They didn't think it was in the country's interest. Perhaps that's your biggest gripe. LDs have got huge concessions from the Tories. Way more than I ever thought they could get. The only real concession was when to start cuts - and, to be honest - I don't think a government controls that. It's the markets. Trident, as I've said, is supported by both Labour and Tory so it's a moot point. LDs are in favour of referenda, so even though they desire closer EU integration, they also wanted a referendum on both Lisbon and Maastricht treaties. The SNP wouldn't have been able to persuade Labour to give a vote on independence - their core aim. Nor, others like abolishing the House of Lords or nuclear disarmament. So why not attack on the SNP for offering themselves up to their biggest rival? You're probably from the Thatcher generation like me. It stops me voting Tory as I remember the 80s but times change. I know people that still won't vote Labour as they remember the Winter of Discontent and the extreme socialists of earlier times. That's hardly Blair and New Labour. As it stands, much to my shock, I see Cameron as a bit of a Eurosceptic Liberal. More a cross between Heath and Blair than a successor to Thatcher. I also don't think there would be anything like as progressive a government if the LDs had stood back. Cameron would have been deselected and the Tories would lurch to the right-wing, probably winning a majority later in the year. No fairer tax system. No referendum on voting. No change to banking. No stable government in a time of crisis. It's best for both the Liberal agenda and the country. As it stands, I don't expect the Liberals to do well in the next election, certainly not the Scottish elections. But for now, they have more power than they have had in the last 80 years. And they're using it wisely. Here's another poll. YouGov conducted one which gives David Cameron?s approval rating as Prime Minister at +42, Nick Clegg?s approval rating is similar at +44 (believe me, those are high ratings - higher than either got in the vote), whilst 63% think the coalition partners are working well together.

Hmmm, yes, the pre-season games when everyone was raving about how great Eagle was but Hayes not up to scratch.