Bristol City Message Board
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Aug 29, 2011 09:24 Flag
I've been saying for years the Wenger needs to be fired! 5 stars emek b!!
Arsenal have not won any silverware since 2006 & don't seem likely to in the coming season either.
It's the Alf Ramsey syndrome; AR was a great England manager who brought World Cup winning glory to England in 1966 & was knighted for it but when we made an early exit from the 1970 World Cup it was Ramsay's fault, he substituted out our best players in the game against West Germany & we lost. Then we failed to qualify for the 1974 World Cup & he was sacked.
Arsene Wenger is Arsenal's Alf Ramsey - good during his early years as Arsenal's manager but now out of touch & not knowing any longer what it takes to make Arsenal a trophy winning side again. The club should sack him!
I believe its time for Arsenal to sack Arsene Wenger.
The fact that AW was good for Arsenal in the past, say pre-2005, isn't questioned. His success was evident in the silverware he brought to Highbury.
The issue here is, that football evolves, and the difficulties & challenges in gaining silverware in 2010 are different to those of 5 or 6 years ago. AW doesn't seem able to adapt to this new reality.
I believe Arsenal should get out of European competition as soon as possible then concentrate on English silverware - the Carlin cup, the FA cup & the League. By getting out of Europe, they would be freed from excessive midweek match pressure during January to March that would mean less injuries. AW clearly don't hold to this philosophy.
Just as Alf Ramsay started his managerial career well by enabling Ipswich to win the League Championship & then leading England to their 1966 world cup triumph, he eventally lost his direction & following England's failure to qualify for the 1974 world cup, he was sacked. Arsene Wenger should be treated likewise.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Dec 21, 2007 17:09 Flag
All out for 81 - what an amateur performance. What is MORE amateur however is that this score included two unnecessary run outs. When a team has their back to the wall and they are struggling to score the maximum possible in the maximum time possible - why take risky singles?
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person May 12, 2007 17:05 Flag
I seem to post here just once each year! As a BCFC supporter who lives a long way from Bristol, I congratulate the team and faithful supporters who gave the club loyal support over the last year.
Let's make sure that we don't become complacent but recognise the tough competition that we will face within the Championship.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 3, 2006 16:23 Flag
cric_tatz - I think you make a very valid point. Yes, it is 'too symbolic to lose Test Status', it can always attract big crowds and it is the world's most famous cricket ground. It does, however, have a pathetic playing area (combined wicket and outfield) and this point must not be forgotten or swept under the carpet.
I admit that I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here but I would like to read your opposing arguements
Lords has a much smaller playing area that other test grounds. A batsman who mishits a hook and who might get caught well inside the boundary at other test grounds, scores a six at Lords.
The wicket is not flat neither is the outfield flat.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Aug 12, 2006 12:57 Flag
Seems that the selectors were justified in bringing Read in for Jones - easy to talk after the experiment has been undertaken, not so easy to critically examine the suitability of the change before the 'surgery'.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Aug 5, 2006 15:59 Flag
My father used to say 'it is bowlers who win matches, not batsmen' - he was especially strengthened in that opnion through living in Surrey during the 1950's when Locke and Laker ruled.
To elaborate on my father's point - it is wickets that need to be taken more than runs being scored. Chris Read was out yesterday for an adequate 38 though he should have been able to have defended the ball that lead to his dismissal, would GeraInt Jones have done any betTer?
More importantly however, how will Read perform behind the stumps? Will he be able to take a similar brilliant stumping as Jones performed in the Old trafford 2nd innings? Will he be able to take a similar number of catches? WICKETKEEPERS SHOULD BE JUDGED BY HOW THEY PERFORM BEHIND THE STUMPS NOT BY THEIR BATTING ABILITIES.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person May 12, 2006 15:30 Flag
I admit that I know almost nothing about baseball (except my knowledge of rounders from Junior school) but would I be a bigot if I said that baseball doesn't use intelligence but relies on shear power and on coordination?
Think abou how Andrew Caddick a few years ago bowled a bouncer at Nathan Astle the ball after he reached 100. Caddick hoped Astle would sky a catch to the boundary which he did. Caddick knew that Astle would have been overjoyed by having reached his century and was very likely to throw caution to the wind. Caddick showed there that in addition to having power and strength, he was clever.
There are, of course thousands of other examples where captains have changed their bowler, have delayed the new ball, have made adjustments in the field. This is in addition to the individual decisions made by bowler and batsman within there own personal dual.
I suggest that what chess is to draughts, so cricket is to baseball only more so!
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person May 12, 2006 14:52 Flag
John - yes, I would hardly call Boucher a night watchman. After all, he has scored a number of centuries by coming in to bat when he was due in. Gillespie, on the other hand is an established no. 10.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person May 12, 2006 14:43 Flag
After our terribly, terribly dismal start to the season, how incredible that we finished the season in the top half ... and there was even talk of us squeezing into the play-offs!
If we can maintain our form that we have displayed since Christmas for next season, then promotion - and even the League 1 winners, is a certainty.
Whilst acknowledging Australia have won and not lost, is this the biggest embarassment for Australian cricket ever? Or, does this represent Bangladesh's sudden emergence as a serious cricket playing nation?
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Jan 2, 2006 03:04 Flag
The fact that baseball (or to be precise, rounders - a variant of baseball) has traditionally been played by schoolgirls during the English summer term whilst cricket has been the preserve of schoolboys says it all!! Cricket is a tougher game, it involves intrigue and thought as well as muscle.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 29, 2005 01:23 Flag
maverik7 - thanks for those links. I read the one about Ichthyostega and started reading the other link also.
Re Ichthyostega, it seems strange that there are no reconstructions of either of these fossils to go with the article!! Most unscientific, eh?! Anyone would think from the article that Eusthenopteron and Ichthyostega were almost identical - each being on one side of the fish / amphibian divide. The fact is that I have seen reconstructions of these two fossils which, for both species, have been recovered from Devonian sandstones in Greenland. These sketches can be found in 'Palaeozoic Fishes' by Moy-Thomas and Miles (1971) - this book is written from an Evolutionist perspective. The animals are very different and Ichthyostega could in no way have evolved from Esthenopteron by genetic mutation - yet this is one of the evolutionists most compelling pieces of evidence!!
As for 'intelligent design', the writer completely misses the point. Also, quoting a catholic who doesn't even believe in creationism is hardly a good idea!! If we look at horses from an evolutionists point of view, then they gradually evolved from small, five digit mammals through the Cainozoic. If we look at horses from a creationist's perspective, they were created as horses by God. But God said that man should have dominion over the animals. Does it not seem rather amazing, even to an evolutionist, how biomechanically suited horses are for being ridden or for pulling carts, ploughs etc - things which could NEVER have had an influence in their 'evolutionary' developement!! Intelligent design is equally considered to be resonsible for the cows; ability to produce such large amounts of milk (for human conumption), sheep's ability to produce wool, camels ability to be a useful animal to mankind living in deserts and there are other examples.
I have a Consultancy contract coming up. I will be busy over the next three weeks and I am therefore unable to continue posting on these message boards. I hope these last two messages have given you further food for thought. Thanks for proving me with the challenge.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 28, 2005 16:30 Flag
Commentrybox's wife - it is quite normal for your husband to have a deep interest in cricket. The problem is that the time difference between Oz and the UK results in the action taking place in British unsocial hours - it is notthe same hearing or watching the highlights later in the day.
Commentrybox's wife - it is a temporary matter; once the test series is over, your husband will cease to be nocturnal.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 26, 2005 23:44 Flag
Philip - personally I refuse to use it. The last time I went to Paris, I took a train from London to Dover, a boat on to Calais and a train to Paris. I have a political objection to an umbelical cord linking the UK to Europe and I remain unconvinced that those 'few hundred feet' of rock between the Englsh Channel and the tunnel is sufficient to withstand the pressures and weight to maintain safe operation.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 26, 2005 04:33 Flag
I say flood the Channel Tunnel - economically it is a disaster and I am not sure from an engineering perspective whether it is safe with that enormous weight of water above it.
- veryconcerned_person veryconcerned_person Nov 25, 2005 15:58 Flag
Maverik7 - thanks again for your reply. Thanks also for those references for me to look up. i am particularly busy at the moment but will endevour to search them out over the weekend.
Your comments about Ichthyostega are very interesting - are you sure certain 'finger' and 'toe' bones didn't get misplaced? Of course, even if Ichthyostega experimented with different numbers of digits then it doesn't explain its well developed ulna/radius/humerus and tibia/fibula/femur compared to Eusthenopteron.
Some creationist palaeontologists have discovered trees within coal bearing formations in Nova Scotia, fossilised but still erect. These finds have been authenticated. How could this be possible if sediments are deposited at rates of a few millimetres per 1000 years.
On the issue of dogs, remember that a Great Dane and a Poddle can mate and produce a fertile offspring - unlike if a donkey and horse (separate species) mate?
What were nummulites? How did they arise? Were they single celled?
There are enormous problems with the theory of evolution and many evolutionist palaeontolgisys may admit to that. What I would also admit is that creationist palaeontologists also have many problems to answer and to simply turn to the Bible to deal with these problems is inadequate. The Bible deals with human salvation and does not say much about modern day science - correct as I consider it to be.