Allardyce is an improvement. He's tactically aware, won't pick on reputation or the club that someone plays for and doesn't have time for people who take the piss. He's not going to win us the World Cup but the nonsense of the McLaren, Cappello, Roy years will be swept away and I might watch England believing we have half a chance for the first time in a decade. He'd be a good manager for our England boys.
According to the BBC, David Gold says Allardyce would make a good England manager, so that's good enough for me!! Only the BBC would put the thoughts of a corrupt pornographer on the front Sports page and keep a straight face.....
An improvement he might be, but that's not exactly an achievement in itself bearing in mind the recent lows...... Not a big fan of his football and if he's not going to raise the chances of winning the WC then what's the point? Looks like Klinnsman is still in the frame and he (with Hoddle or maybe a young coach like Howe alongside?) would probably get my vote. Has coached successfully at the very top level and has shown that he will never be an FA 'yes-man'.
A man is threatening to throw himself from the top of the 210 ft crane on the site of our new stadium. Look mate, it's nowhere as bad as when Gross or Ramos were managers. Janssen will sign and Hugo's not going anywhere! Come down you silly sausage!
Celtic in CL action tonight v Lincoln Red Imps All these little teams deserve their chance to progress - but how did a U.S baseball team get in?
It says so much that they have a marginally better CL record than Celtic in the last couple of seasons...
So they're named after a place in England and they play at the Victoria Stadium on Winston Churchill Avenue? I suspect that they're going to have more British starters than any other team in the Champions League, too.
Was magical. Seeing Murray win was the highlight of the summer. In pure sporting terms it will take some beating, the 4th best player winning his 3rd title.
I think he was probably injured/ill. There is no way a journeyman big server would beat a fit Djokovic. But it doesn't matter. Nobody can be in A1 condition all the time. Injuries/illness cost all performers in all sports at some time.
As a former (mildly) competitive player, I would respectfully disagree. The fun in tennis is that every player faces tests of nerve continually in most matches. And the slightest tremor is all it takes to lose. I watched Nadal choke away his first Wimbledon final against Federer with interest. He’d been winning points like clockwork by hitting deep forehand approaches to Federer’s relatively weak high backhand (which is funny, incidentally. If Federer had ever figured out how to whack a high backhand, he would have been unbeatable for a decade, the rest of his game was so good. And plenty of pedestrian players can whack high backhands.) Well, this time, it was the point that would have put Nadal up a break in the decisive set, and effectively beaten Federer and won Wimbledon for the first time. There was just the slightest deceleration of the racket head over the ball as he hit it, there was not quite as much topspin as usual, and it landed a few inches out. More than half of all tournament sets are decided by a single break of service, which means the winner effectively was better on only two points out of 60: the point he broke on and the break point he held. The dominant champions are only two points out of sixty better than the nobodies, and only those two points better, often enough, in two sets out of three, or three out of five. The nervy moments fly so thick and fast that the results paradoxically tend to become fairly predictable: the players with slightly better nerves win time after time by being able to hold their nerve a bit better on the biggest of the big points. The game tests nerves so frequently that the luck of the infrequent event rarely tells and the better nerves almost always win. It couldn’t be a starker contrast to football, where a striker might have one chance to show his mettle, or fail to, in two or three weeks. Match after match Djokovic lately has been that two points better in the deciding set. But let the slightest ray of doubt creep in, the result of an unsettling thought, a moment of bad luck, or an unexpectedly brilliant shot by an opponent who has forgotten that he shouldn’t win that crucial point, and the top player goes crashing out to the nobody. Knowing how tight sets really are, I’m never surprised when the favorite loses. It’s the way some of them win tournament after tournament that seems bizarre. Of course, sometimes, in tennis or boxing or other 1 v. 1 sport, the cause may be a slight cold, a muscle pull, one or two extra beers, or a heavy meal the night before. Sometimes it’s a tactic. Nadal simply hit high kicking forehands to Federer’s backhand time after time. Sometimes it’s a matchup oddity. Djokovic may have had trouble with this particular big serve on this surface. But more often it’s the slightest flutter of nerves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36781992 No idea which 16 year old work experience kid came up with the algorithm determining the answers, but I'm just grateful I didn't get Wenger. Glenn Hoddle for me
