Liverpool's favourite. Sent off Mane in the City 5-0 and gave us two penalties at Anfield, which is more than our previous total ever, probably.
Today, Fernando Torres has announced his summer departure from Atletico. It brings back the good old days....... When Chelsea used to fling around a fortune on Spanish strikers who couldn't cut it and The Mousers used to have to sell their best players....
Saw this article today and whilst I've certainly not given up on Aurier yet, these stats don't make positive reading........ https://extratimetalk.com/serge-aurier-spurs-fooled/
Not really a fair comparison, in my opinion. He's being compared two players who are/were playing regularly and settled at the club and in the country. He joined late in the window after not playing for months at PSG and hasn't had a run in the side. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Aurier has done well for us so far, by any means. Compare his first season with those of Trippier and Walker though and I doubt it'd be as clear cut.
Lies, damn lies and statistics is what came to mind when I read this article. Agreed, he has been massively meh most season but is in his first year, had zero pre-season to settle in (as per bloody usual with our signings) and hasn't been helped by being constantly rotated in and out of the team. Some of those figures are just bizarre. Who pray tell decides what the 'intended target' is for a cross? This is football, not snooker. It's not as if Trippier will shout 'Harry!' when crossing the ball but then if Alli gets there first the people at Opta sit tutting about 'unintended targets'. Most of these figures are a load of bollocks.
Safe seating - I'm confused I've heard quite a bit of the debate over the last few days since WBA had their application rejected by "the Government". I may have missed anyone actually clearing this up, but I think it was an obvious question that I didn't hear asked. The question is that since Celtic have the rail seating, then presumably their application was approved by someone - and while they are in a different league they are in fact under the same government as WBA. So while I hear pundits say things like "the government isn't ready to discuss this yet", to which I wonder if they will ever be ready considering how much time has passed and the innovations now available BUT I am mainly thinking - how the hell did Celtic get the rail seats then? Surely they had permission from the Government? Other considerations are (1) rails seats are clearly safe as has been demonstrated by many clubs using them for quite a while (2) rail seats I would think are safer than people standing in an area of "normal" seats, which happens all the time and the big one (3) the people died at Hilsborough only by standing indirectly WHAT KILLED THEM IS THAT THEY WERE FENCED IN LIKE ANIMALS AND HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPILL ONTO THE PITCH WHEN THE CRUSH HAPPENED. Why is this not continually mentioned? Of course there should be criticism and prosecution of those that ****ed up on the day at Hilsborough, but the people that put the fences on the grounds have surely got away with it - it should have been obvious what might happen as crowds had spilled onto pitches before, and it wasn't all down to thuggery. Just by removing the fences made the stadiums 99% safer regardless of making them all seater!!!
From what I've seen the removal banning of standing in football stadiums would need a change of law in England that didn't or doesn't apply in Scotland. I've seen Celtic thanking the Scottish Assembly for their help. As usual, Westminster governs in the best interests of the sitting MP's, who have no interest in doing anything that could be painted as controversial by twats like Rees-Mogg or the Daily Mail. Whilst May is in power, there's no chance of safe standing being introduced. I've got to say that I'm disappointed that West Brom went for this, at this time. Incidents at and around football matches have been on the rise in the last few years. That trend needs to be reversed and we need a football friendly PM, of an administration with a significant majority before this gets approved, as I'm sure it will be, if Liverpool fans can reign it in and West Ham fans keep off the pitch.
I love people with a sense of humour!! The only PM I can recall having any interest in sport at all was John Major and that was cricket!! Wrong class group, old boy!
Blair and Cameron were happy to appear football friendly and bid for World Cups. Their supporting Newcastle and Villa may have been fake but they were relatively football friendly. Corbyn supports 'them'. They are out there but it ain't May. She's not doing anything to support football whilst it still has anything approaching the slightest whiff of controversy around it. The Tories are still to shake off Hillsbrough and any social progress under Cameron will regress in this Brexit-fuelled return to yesteryear.
Just don't ask them any tough questions, like what colours do your teams play in? Seriously, there isn't a senior politician ever likely to become PM in our lifetime whose interest in the game extends beyond party politics, to even consider decisions that might benefit the game and supporters. Olympics and World Cups are kudos only - opportunities to big themselves up on a global stage. Politicians otherwise now only see top level football as a tax revenue driver - and only pass laws that will limit their exposure with health and safety concerns. Unfortunately, the safe standing argument doesn't yet cross their risk/reward thresholds and it's easier to do nothing to affect the status quo. ('Other tired 3 chord guitar groups are available' ).
Here's another angle to explain why several generations of politicians have outright refused to bring in safe standing for the Premier League: because doing so might reveal that the Taylor Report was essentially using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and plenty of people were more than happy to go along with it. At several times during the report Lord Justice Taylor states that terracing had nothing to do with the Hillsborough disaster happening, rather the combination of an unsafe stadium that didn't even have a valid safety certificate since 1979 (and this never gets brought up, presumably to avoid 96 lawsuits landing on The FA's doorstep) coupled with South Yorkshire Police's response to the late arrival of several coachloads of fans being about as well-planned as someone trying to put out a fire by dumping a can of petrol on it - yet his recommendations almost literally say that all-seater stadiums are just the quickest and easiest way to address these problems instead of introduce safe standing. It's also worth noting the report predicts that, within twenty years, fans will grow to accept sitting at football matches...and how's that worked out? Or, to look at it from another other angle, people focus on the all-seater aspect to avoid looking at the other recommendation Taylor made: mandatory ID cards for all fans.
Mandatory entrance id of some form for adults might be useful for inside stadium aggro (who was sitting in which seating sections etc when aggro kicks off etc) .
One of the many things that I don't like about him. It's about the only arsenal that he's not opposed to.
