Jump to content

Ed25

Members
  • Post count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Average

About Ed25

  • Rank
    Reserve Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,675 profile views
  1. Looking for a tickets for today's game. Let me know if you would like to sell
  2. Everton Boxing Day Tickets Wanted

    Looking for a tickets for today's game. Let me know if you would like to sell
  3. Define 'multicultural'?
  4. Is it though? For me, these countries are again, not 'winners'. But Iceland, Wales, and Poland to some extent (they are better than the previous two) can draw on the fact they are not 'winners'. A lot of the players are no where near the top of the game and still have the drive to get there. Compare that with England who other than Bale and Lewandowski are probably man for man better than the 3 teams above, the players think they have completed. They have the fame, the money, the wife, the kids (maybe), the house. They are settled for being very good. They have settled to being nearly 'winners'. Not what a dominant German or Spanish side would do.
  5. Spurs are not a great team, and they - along with Liverpool - are no where near good enough to form half our squad. There should be chemistry - yes. But like I said, they need winners - that they are not 3rd place in a two horse race. And 3rd last season is far from a great season. Look at English clubs in Europe, we are no where near where we were 10 years ago. The best players in world football have had no interest in coming here since Ronaldo left
  6. And that is my point...they are SPURS players. They are players who have won zero. They get close to achieving something and fail every single time. Having five players from a good Spurs side, and having 5 players from a good United or Chelsea side 10 years ago are very very different things. 5 Spurs players - no winners. My point was you need winners with chemistry. We have neither
  7. My theory is there are two main reason: 1) No winners 2) No chemistry These two conflate...let me explain 1) No winners - Our squad: 1 Leicester; 2 Man City; 2 Southampton; 1 Burnley; 5 Spurs; 1 Chelsea; 5 Liverpool; 3 Man Utd; 2 Everton; 1 Arsenal 1 Premier League winner, 8 top four sides who were 10 points off the race, 4 (Chelsea and Utd) who play for underachieving big clubs; 10 (Southampton, Burnley, Liverpool, Everton) who play for irrelevant sides who would be delighted with a top 6-8 finish and a cup semi-final every other year. How do you expect a squad with no (1) winners to be able to go and win a tournament with some of the finest players in world football? Against players who win with ease and dominate week in week out. 2) No chemistry - Whilst I do not agree with all Roy's decisions, I think there is only so much an international manager can do considering how much time the players spend together. Look at the best teams in Europe....Germany: how many of their team does not currently or at least some point play for Munich? Neuer, Kimmich, Boateng, Hummels, Kroos, Gotze, Muller, Gomez - just the seven off the top of my head. Spain: how many players play for Barca or Madrid? Ramos, Pique, Alba, Busequets, Fabregas, Iniesta, Morata - again, seven starters off the top of my head. Even Italy, their defence of Buffon, Barzagli, Chiellini and Bonnuci play for Juventus week in week out. So you put a group of players together with no winning mentality, who never play together other than the couple of weeks a year they have an international camp, and shock horror...they win nothing. Yes, Madrid, Barca, Munich, and Juve are huge clubs and you have to be great to play with them, but guess what, we have those clubs too. Not long ago Chelsea had Terry, Lampard, Ashley Cole, and even Joe Cole to some extent. United had Scholes, Rio, Neville, Beckham, Rooney. I contend that it is no surprise whatsoever that since clubs such as United and Chelsea have taken a huge nose dive, as has the national team. More so United; they are our only global superpower, and since Fergie left look what has happened to not only them, but the Premier League, and English football in general. Coincidence? I think not... Feel free to disagree
  8. WWE.

    Literally about to say...the Leicester are a team of outcasts according to JBL
  9. WWE.

    So Daniel Bryan has retired today. I am hoping it is just part of some story, but it all seems so legit. Shame
  10. WWE.

    He wont get the Heavyweight title, and whilst being a big fan of his, I do not have an issue with that. I cannot see WWE putting him on top with the likes of Cena, HHH, Orton, Reigns, Ambrose, Lesnar all below. He will, however, get the IC or US title at some point. The titles mean literally nothing and if someone like Kalisto (who I do enjoy watching) can win it there is no reason they will no give AJ one. Whilst the title will still mean v little, the WWE will know that they will be able to give guaranteed quality title matches.
  11. WWE.

    Your points were: Rowdy actors Until 3 am Actors are no where near as highly trained as them. They are athletes, incredible ones at that. And my point about where you watch it simply shows it is not at the unsociable hours you claim. Your two uneducated points have been rendered just that, uneducated. If you have a hate for wrestling that's cool, the vast majority of people don't like it, which they're entitled to. But dislike it for a genuine reason, the two you've given are just invalid
  12. WWE.

    Terribly uneducated. Imagine not being able to appreciate the athletic ability of the individuals involved. What they do is literally terrific, and if you can't see that yes, you are uneducated. If you don't appreciate it because it is 'fake', like 99% of things you ever have or ever will watch, then you are a special case And the time is immaterial, their are 100s of websites you can watch the footage at any time you please. Return when you have any valid points worth reading, cheers
×