₦airaland Forum

honeric01:
^^^^

He's not special, yet the champions of Ukraine paid millions of euros to buy him, the Ekpos and Okonkwos of this world are struggling for recognition nor do they even play regular football (Okonkwo).

And didn't Okonkwo play too?

I ask again, is selection based on "i know u, u know me" or on he's on fire and really performing?

Outstrip:
Quite a large number of the American population sees death penalty as barbaric. I am just interested on what evidence they have against her. is it just poisoned candy that they have or is there any other compelling evidence. The guy who was executed in texas bludgeoned a kid to death. There was more than enough evidence there. This case is not so clear. I'd hate to see an innocent person die because people are blood thirsty

obailala:
Are u are smarter than the trial High Court the Appellate Court and the 7-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court? Or do u think this your arguement is superior to the arguments tendered by her lawyers who fought her case up to the supreme court?

lastpage:
Even the U.S just hanged a Mexican man who violated and killed 16yr old lady, TWO DAYS AGO stars (lol) have a warped sense of justice and fairness?
mtchw all of you!

[size=15pt]Barcelona 3-1 Arsenal: Barca press and progress[/size]


Arsenal didn’t manage a single shot, as Barcelona go through to the quarter-finals.

Pep Guardiola chose Eric Abidal and Sergio Busquets at centre-back, as expected, though there was a surprise at left-back, where Adriano started over Maxwell.

Both Cesc Fabregas and Robin van Persie were fit to start. Arsene Wenger decided to play Tomas Rosicky on the right, and Abou Diaby got the nod over Denilson.

The game was very strange – neither side played as well as they can. Arsenal could barely string more than four passes together, and whilst Barcelona dominated the game, they were tremendously wasteful when they got into the penalty area.

Despite appearing extremely comfortable in the final ten minutes, Barca were somehow only a Nicklas Bendtner shot away from being dumped out, in what would have been one of the unlikeliest progressions in European Cup history.

Arsenal stand off

Arsenal played very differently without the ball, compared to the first leg. In London they pressed relentlessly at the start of the game, but here they stood off more, and focused on getting into a good shape.

The fitness of van Persie an Fabregas may have contributed to this tactic (Fabregas, in particular, was clearly not fully fit) – but Wenger probably also accepted that it’s not possible to press for 90 minutes away at the Nou Camp, and so Arsenal stood off.

Barcelona strategy

Barcelona’s tactics were not markedly different from their standard approach. The full-backs hugged the touchlines and were very advanced – often pushing Rosicky and Samir Nasri back into a back six – and the three forwards took it in turns to come towards the ball and then spin in behind. Arsenal still defended relatively high, but they were deeper than at the Emirates, and therefore were less prone to the ball over the top.

Messi was a threat throughout, and often received the ball in space, but was guilty of trying to do too much – he overran the ball when entering the penalty area on more than one occasion. Take the Arsenal back four against the Barcelona front three, and Arsenal were doing OK – the problem came, of course, from the movement of Barcelona players from deeper positions. Daniel Alves played an especially advanced role and was always on for a diagonal pass when Xavi got the ball in central midfield.

Barca pressing

The key feature of the game was something we all know Barcelona do well – pressing. Their energy and bravery in winning the ball back high up the pitch is now very well established, but tonight was a particularly good case study. The constant harrying meant that Arsenal were simply unable to work the ball up the pitch, and almost the entire game was spent in their own half of the pitch.

https://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5769/intercept.jpg

Fabregas’ backheel was a ludicrous decision, but Barca’s pressing can take some of the credit. Not just because there was a player closing down and intercepting at that moment, but because the pressure for 45 minutes had created the backheel. A backheel is something that you try on the edge of the opposition box, when you’re under pressure and need to do something ‘clever’ to get past an opponent. Fabregas is far from a silly player, but Barcelona were pressuring so much that he felt he had to do something ‘clever’ merely to complete a pass on the edge of his own penalty area.

Second half

It’s not often a side scores a goal despite not having a shot in the entire match, but Busquets’ mistimed header from a corner gave Arsenal an unlikely lead in the tie. Three minutes later, the situation changed again with van Persie’s red card, and from then on, Arsenal could only dream of winning a corner kick.

The sending off alone can not explain the Barcelona victory (20 shots to none is a ridiculous statistic) but it’s fair to say Arsenal’s strategy was compromised. Having dominated the final twenty minutes of both first legs in the past year, Arsenal’s plan may have been to wait until the final quarter of the game and then push on, especially as Barcelona had pressed so much.

Arsenal clueless

Instead, they were barely able to play football. Sky Sports’ commentator Martin Tyler summed it up inadvertently when he suggested that when Manuel Almunia had the ball in his arms, he was attempting to kick the ball downfield at an angle, so there was a chance a Barcelona player would head it out for a throw. What a miserable state to be in – a side famed for their slick passing football reduced to trying to win a throw on the half way line from a goalkeeper’s clearance. The chalkboard on the left shows how few passes Arsenal played in attacking positions.

https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6453/passx.jpg


Barcelona simply passed and passed and tired Arsenal. Xavi broke through for the second to round off a fantastic move, and Pedro won a penalty that Messi converted. Barcelona should have had more, but Almunia was making some good saves.

Changes

It was surprising that Wenger didn’t introduce Bendtner until the 77th minute – Arsenal clearly needed someone who could win the ball in the air from long balls, and also someone who could hold it up. The late chance was a bonus and came out of nothing, other than Wilshere’s determined closing down. He was Arsenal’s best player in each of the two legs.

Guardiola’s changes came after 80 minutes, and didn’t significantly alter the game.

Conclusion

Barcelona being good at pressing is hardly a revelation, and it hardly takes a genius to identify it as a crucial factor in this game – but it was the key feature. Arsenal couldn’t get the ball up the pitch, and Barcelona won possession in positions very close to the opposition goal.

Zero attempts on goal suggests that Arsenal ‘parked the bus’ – even Inter managed one shot in their semi-final last year – but they didn’t, they were simply unable to get past the first burst of closing down.

jay_getta:
@ChukaEze: "a lot of talking"?!lol. Come back in Sept./Oct and repeat same. Then again sha, uve pleaded that ure not an expert in Middle Eastern affairs.

lokya:
.what a dumb Question does it matter if he uses Govt money.

[size=14pt]Why Israel Hates the Egyptian Uprising[/size]

By Shmuel Rosne


Israel can be a spoiled brat. Constantly craving attention and assurances of undying friendship and commitment, self-centered and blind to the needs of others. Israel, unlike America, isn't a superpower. It isn't an empire. It doesn't have much of a role in world affairs other than taking care of its own little self. So, when Israel looks at the revolutionary forces in Egypt, it doesn't see "change," or "hope," or "democracy," or the "end of oppression." It doesn't see Egyptians rejoicing in anticipation of their new beginning. All Israel sees is trouble.

You can ponder the philosophical virtues of "democratization" versus those of "stability." Or you can quit being a wise-backside and learn from experience: In the last 40 years of Middle East political turmoil, all the significant changes related to Israel were for the worse—all except one: peace with Egypt. That's Mubarak's Egypt. (Yes, technically, his predecessor Anwar Sadat signed the peace accords, but it's the same old autocratic regime.) That same Egypt is now in danger of being toppled with the prodding and blessing of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Consider all the other presumably positive events besides peace with Egypt. Peace between Israel and Jordan? That was good but not nearly as important. Jordan was never a major threat to Israel; Egypt was. The Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat's Palestinians? We know how that ended. Lebanon's Cedar revolution? Ditto. The removal of Saddam Hussein? The jury is still out on that one, but in the meantime, Iran is getting stronger. The Palestinian changing of the guard and elections? That ended badly, with Hamas taking over Gaza. And these are just the changes that were initially thought to be good for Israel, not those we all knew in advance would be for the worse.


So, Israelis were stunned to wake up and discover that their American friend had abandoned Mubarak in favor of change. "The Americans brought disaster to the Middle East by calling for [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak to leave his country," said Knesset Member Binyamin Ben Eliezer, a former defense minister and one of Israel's most establishment-minded politicians. And he wasn't alone: Official Israel was uncharacteristically subdued in its public statements, but behind closed doors there was no shortage of criticism. Right and left, coalition and opposition, all but a very few thought poorly of U.S. policy. Everyone felt that the Obama administration had once again been "naive," or "hasty," that it didn't understand the region and didn't understand the Arab mentality. Israelis were stunned—and somewhat frightened. After all, if Washington has dumped Mubarak, maybe peaceful Egypt is gone for good. And if the United States could desert such a valued strategic ally, maybe we're next in line for the boot?


Of course, such fears are nonsense. Israel isn't Egypt, and its ties with the United States run much stronger and deeper. It will not be abandoned with such haste, and anyway, why would anyone want to abandon Israel? Still, there's something to these fears, because the Egyptian unrest emphasizes the extent to which American and Israeli interests in the Middle East can be different. The United States, for all its many faults, is a dreamer; and Israel is a cynical pragmatist. America wants to advance liberal values; Israel just wants peace and quiet. America, at least sometimes, thinks about the poor Arabs living under despotic regimes; Israel only thinks about its own people. And that doesn't mean that Israel is immoral or wicked. Being small, being vulnerable, being insecure, having to live with the consequences, Israel must prioritize security and stability over vague dreams of a better future—especially when, as I mentioned earlier, our previous experience is hardly encouraging.

Mubarak was good for Israel. Not great, mind you. The peace with Egypt was a cold one, and ties between people were rare and strained in many ways. But Israel—with its pragmatic way of prioritizing interests—got a good deal from the Egyptians. The southern border, which was Israel's main concern in its first 30 years, was quiet and didn't require much attention. Egyptians agreed to sell gas to Israel and to tighten security in Gaza. They opposed the advancement of Iran and its allies, and they prevented terrorists from infiltrating from the Sinai Peninsula. So, chaos or worse—for example, regime change that strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood or other radical forces—will be a headache for Israel.


And for what? So that Egyptians can have their "democracy"?


The Egyptian unrest provides a great opportunity to refute once and for all the ridiculous but still strangely common belief that Israelis or, even more commonly, "Likudniks" are the oriental equivalent of American neocons. Just Google Likudnik and neocon together, and you'll see it all: the "neocon-Likudnik nexus," and "Joe Lieberman the Likudnik," and "Likudnik neocons at the Pentagon," and "neocon Likudniks who don't care about American casualties." On and on it goes, from people who either don't understand neoconservatism, don't understand Israel, or, in most cases, don't understand either.

In recent days there's even been some talk of a neocon "split" with Israel, or vice versa. "The neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness," wrote Jeffrey Goldberg. If that's true, I'm not sure why they're so confused—the Israeli position is completely predictable.

Those head-scratching neocons should know—as I'm sure most of them do—that there's no such thing as an Israeli neocon. The Israeli establishment never believed in promoting democracy in the Arab world, and it still doesn't. It never much cared about Arab democracy, period. In Israel—if you feel an urgent need to make such comparisons—the establishment tends to reflect American pragmatic (some would say cynical) "realism." America's "freedom agenda" was anathema to Israelis, even when President George W. Bush—whom they respected and liked much more than they like President Obama—was in power. It was anathema to them not because Arab democracy isn't a tempting notion, and not because they want Arabs to live forever under Mubaraks and Assads and Husseins. They just think it's a pipedream, a wonderful idea that the people of Tel Aviv might pay a high price for.

fstranger1:
I agree!

Georgetown is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better

OR Cornell!

Sagamite:
Send them to a top university where they come out confident enough to tell gays like you to slit their wrist if they are offended.

medjai:
When was the last time a player came through ranks of the Castilla into the first team?
Just look at how many top talents you've thrown away because of your 'Galacticos policy' - Negrodo, Roberto Trashorras, Moreno, Juan Mata . . . I just pray Canales won't suffer the same fate. Now, you guys have Adebayor on loan and now is the perfect time to give one of the Castilla boys first team exposure. SMH

In Pellegrini's reign as coach, the highest points gap between us and you guys was 5 points, now under Mourinho, it's 7 points and it's very likely to increase.
Bottomline: Pellegrini is a better coach just watch how he'll save Malaga.

googles:
errrm. . . . . who are you by the way and by the bush ?

tpiah*:
can someone educate me on when promiscuity is a bad thing and when it's not.

when you say you no wan do, dem go abuse, say you dey proud.

when you say you wan do, dem go call you ashewo.