http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30571411 "It was a solid performance from the Sunderland skipper at the heart of their defence and it needed to be in the intense atmosphere of this North East derby. The longer the game went on the more it looked like Newcastle were likely to score and but for the calming influence of John O'Shea it might have been a very different result."
Positive discrimination, that's why he's employed by the BBC, not because he's black but because he's extremely ****ing gormless and the BBC are all for equality, as shown by Savile, showing that children are equal to adults. Their quota of gormless ****s does appear to be bursting at the seams mind.
Without shadow of a doubt, Sunderland were the better team and created numerous gilt edged chances. We have started to look like a team that understands how to play football, fluency, resolute defending and good movement off the ball. newcastle did have 20 minutes where they were driving forward but Sunderland defended very well and they were reduced to a few pot shots and a couple of close range efforts that the keeper took care of very easily. Costel made a few good saves, moussa shot was skimming the bar so wouldnt have been a danger, but if it had not been for Costel tipping it over the bar they wouldn't have a corner, from which we scored. The Costel masterplan.
Crooks is the reason I cannot stand watching final score on the BEEB he irritates the hell out me - his drivel is worse than Lawrenson's
That's the top and bottom of it, really. Newcastle dominated the game 2nd half for the most part, but that doesn't mean they were the better side in that half. Sunderland resolutely defended their area and that includes their goal keeper, Newcastle attacked and left huge gaps at the back. Fair enough, chances came whilst they were a man light for the opposition, but they weren't limited to that period. To say a team played better based solely on attacking intent, overlooking the defensive side of the game, is naive, it sounds like something Rodgers would come out with after Chelsea beat them last season.
Apart from the first 15 minutes I thought that Sunderland controlled the game, very unlucky not to score on at least three occasions, but who am I to comment, I've only been playing, admittedly on an amateur level, and watching the game since 1957, obviously these so-called pundits are seeing something I must have missed.
You obviously missed O'Shea playing centre back, something only the oversized eyes of an expert, like Crooks, are capable of spotting
I think the point here us that Crooks, blissfully unaware that JOS was playing at left back, did not even bother to watch the game at all , if I am wrong I stand corrected.
Well I must admit, the opinion of Crooks has really put a dampner on our last minute winner over the smelly ones.
Great idea, yearly membership is £49.99 and you get a free "Keep Calm and cricket bat Garth" T-shirt and entry into the yearly raffle to have a free punch at Garth at the Christmas charity auction. As you can see, I won last year (being the only member) and he's been left in quite a bad state.
Could I propose myself as life-long vice-president, at a small salary + any freebies available, and of course the only punch I could manage would have to come in a glass.
I couldn't believe when I read it. He's put someone in his team of the week and he hasn't even watched the ****ing game. O'Shea played Left Back not Centre Back. This is what I was on about on the other thread Terry. Pundits=Jobsworths
You beat me to it smug. I just clocked this latest act of idiocy and came on here to point it out Surprised he got Pantilimon's position right An absolute embarrassment to the bbc
I'm 100% sure he doesn't watch games, just the odd highlight. Most of his team of the weeks consist of goal scorers.
