₦airaland Forum

Ibime:
If Gazzetta de la Sport is saying we deserved to win, I take their opinion over yours anyday.

We did not lose, Barca did. So stop arguing out ya backside. Show me one newspaper article that says Utd deserved to win?

end of.

Gazzetta de la Sport has over 10 football journalists,did they all tell you Chelsea were the better side? You did not lose?What a tit. . . .I guess Chelsea and Utd are joint European champions.

The better side can lose a game of football.When Utd lost to Pompey in the FA Cup,were Pompey the better side? Stop arguing like a schmuck even though you are one.You can't claim to be the better side when all the indicia shows you didn't dominate the game.

Next you will tell me that Japan's Asahi Shimbun said you were the better side.

Ibime:
I repeat:
All the 'neutrals' I know said we were the best team so I am not going to argue semantics with you. Let the nuetrals be the judge.
end of.

Anytime someone hasn't got a clue what they are talking,they will tell you some vague collection of folks share their opinion. Ibime has now become a polyglot who knows what the newspapers in Europe's 30+ nations think of Wednesday's match.

@Ibime,Abeg,what about the Japanese and Chinese,do they also agree with you?

Ibime:
We had possession in the areas that counted. Plus we had 19 shots total in the whole match. Anyway, Europe is saying that the best team lost so whatever you say its all bla bla bla. Teams have different styles of play. Would you say Barca was the best team because they swallowed you whole in the possession stakes? Abeg stop chatting shit.

Had possession in the areas that counted? What sort of drivel is that? You didn't dominate possession in any area of the pitch apart from your own half-unless your half is "the area that counted"-and waywardly shooting from long range doesn't make a side the better team.

If 2 teams play and one dominates possession 90/10 while the other adopts a shoot on sight policy,I guess you will claim that the latter is the better side because they had more shots.

What is 'Europe is saying'? The better team doesn't concede possession 58/42 or manage only 3 shots on target in 120 mins of football.The so-called better team hasn't won a trophy since Jose left.

Unlike Barca,you lost but at least Barca managed to dominate possession and managed more shots on target.They have a better claim to asserting that they were the better side against Utd.

In 120 minutes of football,Chelsea had possession for 42% of the game and they are supposed to be the best team?

42% possession with only 3 shots on target,1 every 40 minutes,now makes Chelsea the best team on Wednesday.

When teams lose on penalties,people try to find a silver lining because its felt that its a cruel way to lose.The reality is that a team that managed only 3 shots on target and conceded possession for most of the game can't be described as the best team on the night

Everton did it 3 years ago and Spurs came very close 2 years ago.

I'm sure the Big 4 won't retain their stranglehold exclusively.Spurs,Villa and Everton are likely to break through,albeit briefly,over the next few years. Man City also looks good.

This just confirms what we have always said,Arsenal fans know as much about football as a goat knows about the theory of relativity.

Any person who watches Ligue 1 will know that Nasri is no where near world-class at the moment.Someone even noted that he has been tagged "the next Zidane" . . . . . so also where Steed Malbranque,Bruno Cheyrou and Anthony Le Tallec.

Folks google things and pretend they know what they are talking about.Nasir may well turn out to be a world-class player later in the future but at the moment,he is not a solution to Arsenal's problems in the short-term.

What has Avram Grant won? Jose's immediate predecessor and successor won nothing in their "final" seasons.

Do people still think Jose's successes were fluky?

Imani:
Dr Doom and Gloom, you said Totenham will finish above us in the recently concluded season too.

I said Arsenal will finish 3rd and surprise everybody.Remind me again where you finished.

I have never been to South Africa,don't intend to go there,but I was amazed when listening to the BBC World Service some years ago to hear black South Africans complaining about "these Africans" in their midst. They said it as if they were Europeans and "these Africans" were from a different race.They seemed to look down on fellow Africans as backward. . .not in the least surprised with this development.

The meltdown in neighboring Zimbabwe,with refugees pouring in, was always going to cast a shadow on the World Cup.Its not too late for FIFA to review its decision.If this had happened in Europe,the backlash would have been resounding.

Samir Nasir is not even on the level of Anderson.That being said,Anderson was brought in as part of a midfield already filled with top quality players.

If Arsenal are to win the League next season,they need a massive injection of new talent.Bringing someone on the level of Mikel Arteta or Steed Malbranque in Nasri won't make much difference in the short term.If Arsenal are not careful,they will slide back to 4th place.

Is South Africa safe enough or the appropriate place to host the 2010 World Cup?

Samir Nasir is not yet top notch quality and won't be so for at least 2 years.Its the equivalent of signing Mikel Arteta. . .a good player but not the world class player that will win you the league or the UCL.

If its from Martin Samuel,then it must have a strong element of truth:

Roque Santa Cruz, the Blackburn Rovers and Paraguay striker, is the man Arsenal want if they lose Emmanuel Adebayor this summer. Santa Cruz scored 19 league goals in 37 appearances in his first season at Ewood Park after a £3.8 million transfer from Bayern Munich. He was given a four-year contract on his arrival in July 2007, but Arsenal believe that they can tempt him, and Blackburn, if a leading European club come in with a serious offer for Adebayor.

That possibility is increasing with rumours that the Togo forward has caught the eye of Josep Guardiola, the new coach of Barcelona, who is planning a clear-out in the summer. Adebayor has insisted that he is happy at Arsenal, but his wage remains in the region of £35,000 a week and the club would be incapable of competing with Barcelona financially, if pressed.

Only last week, Adebayor said that he was flattered by reports in Spain of Barcelona’s interest, alerting Arsenal to a potential problem, having already lost Mathieu Flamini to AC Milan. Despite 30 goals in all competitions this season, Adebayor has not always been a positive influence at Arsenal and his relationship with Nicklas Bendtner, his striking partner, including a very public clash during a 5-1 defeat away to Tottenham Hotspur in the Carling Cup, is difficult. With Eduardo da Silva not back from a broken leg and dislocated ankle until near Christmas and Robin van Persie struggling with a series of injuries this season, Arsene Wenger knows that he cannot afford to go into the next campaign without a top-grade striker and was impressed with the way Santa Cruz, 26, quickly adapted to the combative style of the Barclays Premier League.

Blackburn would ask serious money for the Paraguayan if Mark Hughes, the manager, entertains selling at all. Wenger is adamant that if Adebayor leaves, he needs an established replacement in order to keep pace with Manchester United and Chelsea.
Related Links


Much now hinges on Barcelona’s potential bid. Adebayor is aware of the situation and when asked recently about it by L’Equipe, the French sports daily, said: “It pleases me, because it is very flattering for a young Togolese who is only 24 to see Barcelona following him. For the moment I’m very happy at Arsenal, but we’ll see what happens next.”

Wenger also has his eye on off-field matters this summer and hopes to use the power vacuum created by the departure of Keith Edelman, the former managing director, to facilitate David Dein’s return to Arsenal. The Frenchman remains close to the man who took him to the club 12 years ago and has championed his cause to Peter Hill-Wood, the chairman, and Danny Fiszman, who has a 24.11 per cent stake and is the most influential man at the club.

Wenger has received little formal encouragement but has not given up hope of securing a remarkable return for Dein, particularly as Arsenal have not found anyone to replicate his functions since he left in acrimonious circumstances last year. The former vice-chairman was forced out 13 months ago because he tried to bring Stan Kroenke, the American billionaire who owns 12.19 per cent of the shares, into the club. Dein’s cause has been helped by the departure of Edelman, who was his most vociferous opponent on the board.

Many at the club have come round to Dein’s view that further investment is required if they are to compete with Manchester United and Chelsea. Hill-Wood has softened his attitude to Kroenke from “not our sort” to someone he is willing to work with as a bulwark against Alisher Usmanov, the Russian billionaire who has acquired almost 25 per cent of the shares. Unfortunately for Dein, he has since teamed up with Usmanov, selling him his 14.58 per cent stake last year and becoming chairman of his investment vehicle, Red and White Holdings, but he may be willing to resign if it helped him to secure a return to the club.

Wenger played a bigger role in the departure of Edelman than is commonly known. The pair often clashed over money and matters came to a head after the club did not invest during the January transfer window.

Wenger is frustrated at a lack of funds and has been told that any improved contracts for players this summer must come out of his £50 million transfer kitty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article3958825.ece

@Rampant

What did you do this time?

The Sly:

Funmi. . . .You have 2questions waiting for you Ooo. . .

She has logged off to engage in some vigorous scratching.

I remember one dude when were in sec school who caught something,he used to go to a quiet corner with a brush in one hand to engage in some frantic scratching.

OsunAmazon:
Darling, you want to help me? why not make it tonight because my veejay is itching?

This 'truck driver' has no class. . . na Oyb give you the itchy vagee?

As long as the Gov paid out of his pocket,no problem.

Ok,you women don't like Nigerian men.Tell us which men you like.

Talk about not knowing history.Obama dropped this gem of ignorance while responding to Bush's recent comments:

“This whole notion of not talking to people. “It didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s , When Kennedy met with (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/17/america/NA-POL-US-Elections.php?page=2


No,Mr Obama,Kennedy met with Khrushchev(3/6/61) 16 months before the Cuban Missile Crisis(Oct/1962) brought both nations to the brink of nuclear war. http://encarta.msn.com/media_461558316_761569374_-1_1/kennedy_and_khrushchev.html

This is simplistic pap.The problem with Nigeria cannot be broken down into mere "over-celebration". The least developed part of the country is the Hausa-Fulani North,don't tell me they are prone to over-celebration.

bawomolo:
popular will in the 60's was to continue segregation,

Nope,popular will was against the continuation of segegration by the 50s,never mind the 60s.

Instead of being angry that a Nigerian child,not a Swedish child,was put on sale,they are more angry over the perceived slight to our reputation by Westerners.

angel101:
@sheniqua
she has dual nationality nigerian and swedish. y would u rather call her nigerian?

Chai!Nigerians sef.If this woman won some award,we will be quick to claim she is Nigerian.

She doesn't resemble a Nigerian

Lets boycott ExxonMobil.

Thankfully,the people of California have a chance to override this ruling when their referendum is held to change the California constitution.

It is shameful that judges arrogate to themselves,law making powers to ignore popular will.

4 Him:
I think we need to look into this misconception that Obama is willing to just go talk to Iran without preconditions . . . i suppose his policy thrust is to talk to them ONLY when they are willing to come to the roundtable.
Bush has "talked" to Iran by flexing his muscles . . .

Obviously,unless one has a few loose screws in the head,you can only talk to Iran if they are willing to talk,otherwise you will be engaging in a monologue.I don't think Obama has reached that extent.

The question is;if and when Iran indicates interest in talking,should the US talk to them without preconditions? While you are busy talking,Iran's nuclear enrichment carries on regardless.Have you forgotten that an Iranian official noted that his country wants to drag out talks over its nuclear programme until the programme is completed?

Anybody with knowledge of history,has seen this happen before.A country bent on going nuclear carries on its programme while simultaneously "sitting at the roundtable" discussing how it should stop it.N.Korea did it to the last Democrat we had in the White House.

Here is an excerpt from the NYT on Obama's plans:

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html

Here is an excerpt from Obama's website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

If Lebanon is not a state then it can't be a puppet of Iran for there is no state to control.The Syrians,though cooperative with Iran and N.Korea,are no puppets

You still haven't explained what it is Obama will do for Ahmedinejad that will change things.The US already talks with Iran.The Clinton Administration also talked to Iran,so also did Bush 1 and Reagan.

How will Obama "change" Iran for the better? Obama himself has never claimed that the Bush Administration doesn't talk to Iran,claiming that will amount to a barefaced lie.Where Obama claims to offer a policy difference is that he will maintain presidential talks with Iran without pre-conditions.

I don't know about you,but I don't think the Iranian Mullahs are like a spurned girlfriend whose main gripe is that Uncle Sam won't talk to them.Their ideology is deeply rooted and cannot be negotiated away.It is the height of naivety to suggest that talking to them "without pre-conditions" is the elixir for their intransigence.

I'm glad you noted that it was Carter(any surprise that he loves Obama?) whose 'wonderful' idea of talking your enemy into submission that corralled Israel and not Reagan.Today,Carter's NSA,Brzezinski,is an Obama adviser.

Sandberg?She is obviously not Nigerian

Calling Syria Iran's puppet is ridiculous.Neither is Lebanon Iran's puppet.Hezbollah is but Hezbollah is in opposition to the Lebanese Govt which is pro-US.Hezbollah barely garners 30% of the votes in Lebanon.

Before you and I were even born,Ahmedinejad has held certain absolutist views on religion which he still holds.How is Obama going to manage to talk the Iranian Mullahs out of their beliefs about the Middle-East?

As someone pointed in the UK Times,he won't be surprised if Obama supporters believe Obama can heal the sick or walk on water.What is Obama going to offer to Iran that hasn't been offered them by various US Adminitrations?