₦airaland Forum

toyemz:
sorry
this one is off point
for you guys that were in Germany last week
and it took just 1 hr to get there
and it cost only £100
pls do you need visa to go there?
thank you

if you have a british passport, you need no visa to go there.
if you have eu passport, you need no visa to go to germany
with a naija passport and a schengen visa, you need no visa to go there.

if you have nothing on your passport for now. . . . apply at the nearest german embassy - you should get their visa - i heard getting it is not too stressful

nateevs:
So City can potentially start with a forward 3 of Silva, Tevez, Aguero next season. That's is very scary.

hernandez rooney berbatov combination is scarier!

debosky:
It is an indication of a player with misplaced priorities - his attitude was wrong and this was just another example of it.

his attitude was wrong for buying himself a benz? is that illegal in london? is he constantly broke as a result of the car he bought?
how does this affect anything? buying a ford fiesta and buying a benz is the same ish. both players bought cars at a tender age.
that's the crux of the matter.

Tim Cahill is the best Australian player and a consistent high performer in the EPL. As a result no one cares what he spends his money on.
Players more interested in spending money or chasing hos than applying themselves consistently to football will always get criticized.

cristiano
romario
nani
anderson
tiger woods

all ho chasers - but ridiculously successful.

debosky:
At his age I heard Cesc was driving Ford Fiesta while JET went to buy Mercedes (which he crashed). That boy is the definition of money miss road.

what has this gotta do with anything? because ibime said so now means it's true.
what is to say jay-emmanuel thomas paid full cash for his mercedes. what is to say it wasn't a pay monthly scheme? he earns good money, he bought himself a nice mercedes and that means na money miss road? tim cahill must be a money miss road too then for being the only football player with a bugatti in the whole united kingdom - and he's not even in the top 100 richest players in the premier league.

this is delightful for us transfer muppets. . .

david gill:

"So we've made three signings. We're looking at one more player to bring in.
Nothing's happening - nothing imminent - on that at the moment, but we'll see what happens when we get home.
We've made three signings. We're looking at one more player to bring in. "
We've been looking at a particular position and two or three players in that position, but nothing's imminent at the moment.

"The important point to understand, and Alex has made it clear, is that we need someone who's going to improve the quality of the squad.
We've got a great squad and to get into that squad you need to be a world-class player. There's no point, if you can't get the players you want, in buying someone for the sake of buying someone.
But you never know - there's often movement in August. I'm not sitting here saying I'm working on anything specific because I'm not, but that situation could change quickly when we get back to Carrington."

Sagamite:
God, I am loving this!
This is really how to prove someone is a person! 
So everyone not presently is jail is law abiding?

according to the laws of the land. . . . someone with no criminal record can vote and can stand as a witness in the court of law. if you have a criminal record, you don't stand that chance cos you are not credible. i expect a buffon like you to know that but your brain processes information slower than a slug. . . . .and the reason many statisticians don't include institutionalized population in their survey is because they don't trust them enough to say the truth in the questionnaires. . . .but on the issue of drug usage(they should have been included).

now, this survey targeted people who have never had their hands dirty - it simply means the stats will be skewed towards minimal drug usage in the continental united states because the people who are more likely to take the drugs were excluded. emphasis on more likely(cos it seems you just want to make your own argument) after you have run out of things to say.

Even if they have been to prison before? Or they are on trial? Or they have never had enough evidence to prosecute them? 
And because of this they law abiding they will not take marijuana?
Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

see this cockstain . . . . .if you have been to prison before, isn't that a criminal record? any conviction is a criminal record including fines, suspended sentences, community service, etc why are you so foolish? like i have said, you got old too soon and smart too late. whoever said law abiding citizens don't take marijuana - i said the institutionalized population are more likely to take marijuana than the population your survery interviewed. why is comprehension such an ambiguous task to a silverback ape like yourself?
babu sense, babu iq.

Now lets for a few seconds assume that incredibly moronic logic, and for the sake of your Silverback thinking level assume those in institutions are the drug takes and they take marijuana every 15 minutes, what is the population of people in institutions? 100m? More than 5m?

how is this relevant to the discussion? 67,500 people were interviewed from the other divide and was used to project on 300 million american residents. it simply means only 5% of the 67,500 persons interviewed took marijuana every day. if you interview 67,500 prisoners, are you so dumb to think only 5% of them take marijuana everyday. the percentage will probably be 60%. now if this 60% projection is based on the total population of america, it means 180 million americans use drugs everyday. that is my argument. . . . .i know you are moronic but this shouldn't be too difficult for you to grasp!

How does that significantly change the stats that only 15.2m take marijuana every month to your moronic assertion over half of Americans take marijuana every day?
Dumbshit! 

it does unless you were born a vegetable. the survey did not include the serial drug abusers and the projection included them in the statistics. that is a flaw unless you have a dead brain. you might need to thaw the 2 cells in your brain.

Alpha and what? . . . . . . . . .Say it!

you are my man-servant. . . .forever you shall be. intellectually, you are nothing. coming here to produce irrelevant statistics. coming here to tell us marijuana is poison when the people of california are pushing for cannabis to be decriminalized. little did this slowpoke knows cannabis is free to use in some western european countries. in holland and spain, cannabis is like alcohol with public cafes where people can go in and puff weed.

sagamite, you are a consummate simpleton - accept it!
i know you must feel bad that you have been serially battered but take it like a man.
beg the supermods to delete your account, get a new one and start afresh. with the number of uppercuts and jabs i have rained on your head - if this was boxing, the referee would have stopped the bout.

slymm:
@Bashy, you are so funny. Unless you got married under a tent in bar beach or in one of those unknown churches, then you have nothing to worry about. What so many men and women fail to understand is that getting married in a church duly licensed to carry out marriage rites is the same thing as getting married in court, your certificate will still be submitted at the registry, and your marriage is still bound by the matrimonial causes act applicable in Nigeria. So stop beating your chest about a matter you really do not understand, if you got married in a catholic, Anglican and many other authorized churches, you are in the same boat as your friend, do not get it twisted. What are you so afraid of anyway?

divorce, child support and the fact that he is liable to split his fortunes 50-50 with a despicable and obnoxious woman.

he's not alone in such thinking. simon cowell is in that boat too.
i dunno if bashy married in nigeria or in america. if it's in nigeria, the 50-50 rule applies not. he can do as he pleases if the wife decides to leave him.
but if he married in the states, then he's bound by the laws of the state he resides in - which means his wife can kick him out of his/their house - brings her boyfriend in whilst the divorce is being sorted and other bullshyt!

i would be scared of that outcome as well.

Sagamite:
You are reetarded!

you are a tool!

How moronic can you be to assume anyone not in jail is law abiding?

if you are not convicted, you are innocent.
innocent until proven guilty - this is america we are talking about not your village in nigeria where everyone is not law abiding.
republicans would have obviously targeted citizens with no criminal records - to prove their regime did well in curbing drug/alcohol usage.
i mean - who leaves out institutionalized population when the topic of debate is hard drugs? isn't this obvious the people behind this survey were purposely trying to skew the statistics that the bush administration did a good job in reducing the number of substance abusers to the barest minimum?

How moronic can you get to believe only criminals and dregs take marijuana? 

criminals will definitely use more than the others. some of them became prisoners in the first place under the influence!

person, is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?
I told you this would be casual.

sagamite is now clutching at straws o. . . . .
lemme list my points - and you will agree the article you religiously hung on to has no relevance to this debate.

the dregs of the society were not included in this article.
juvenile delinquents were excluded in this article(majority of them are substance users)
the dregs of the society are more likely to use marijuana than the people interviewed by this survey!
the article itself is inconclusive as this is the first report of their survey
the sampling of 400,000 folks is too small to project on 300 million people(california's institutionalized persons alone are more than the sample size)

saga-dumb. . . . for credibility's sake. . . .look for another statistics to drive your points home! the one you provided can never be relevant in this debate. you know it, the people reading this thread by now know it. i am sick and tired of exposing your folly to all and sundry. in a twist of event, i am the one actually helping you to search for what is appropriate in this debate.
you claim to be knowledgeable and yet your periodic brain-farts keep exposing your irrationality.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi

debosky:
Coded
The issue was comparing individual achievement of Cesc vs Hargo . . . .dunno why your fellow scumtwats are defending an ex Utd player either.

of which hargo's credentials shame cesc's
meanwhile, i need your onitsha support on ezeuche's thread.

Sagamite:
Oh, cretin, so if the official stats does not back you up, then it is wrong.

So the statisticians that will do such a survey for the US government will not know how to do Sampling and make sure it is reflective of the society?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the statistics sample utilised by professional statisticians is unlikely to be reflective of the US society but the institutionalised population is likely to?

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

person! When education is poor is when people make such moronic challenges like when you were also challenging the well known concept of Power.

This is intellectual flogging! 

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

your genetical wiring is distorted. . . . .i am not even sure you reason well. . . .this is why there are more smileys in your post than the message itself.

the statisticians that will do a sampling for the united states government will not know how to sample? this is the most idiotic comment i have ever read on this forum. sagamite. . . .thank you for exposing how ridiculously moronic you can get. of course, it depends on the kind of conclusion the government want them to produce. this is why it's called statistics. . . . .it can be manipulated to say anything.

crikey me, these statisticians sampled non-institutionalized folks in the states. . . .the law abiding citizens who have probably never seen marijuana before. they left out the real dregs of the society. the ones who were actually influenced by marijuana abuse to commit crime. . .the ones in the police station, the ones who are receiving medical help for their substance abuse. . . .and you expect me to take this report of yours seriously?

saga-dumb, use your head na. . . . . .then again, this report is inconclusive. it's the first report of the whole survey. i don't have an idea of the number of reports they intend to release to tell the full story of their dodgy survey. a survey brilliantly doctored to let people think americans aren't drugs heads. you have to be born brain-dead to take anything reported here seriously. the number of institutionalized persons in the state of california alone is more than all the people that have done the interview on this survey - that alone should tell you this particular link is irrelevant to the debate.

mr saga-dumb. . . . .think. don't use your smileys to distract others that are following this thread.
intelligent people don't abuse smileys - when i see more smileys than texts, it simply tells me the author has nothing credible to say.
if you want to waste bandwidth - go ahead but your mind will be a terrible thing to waste.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi.

smootheb:
[color=#770077][/color]

I agree with you and that's why I'm asking. Really for all of those who have replied on this thread who are offended by the question and think that I'm implying that all Nigerian men are scammers I'm sorry and I know it might seem offensive. But there are only a few things that could give me a greater sense of security in this whole situation and meeting his family could be one of them so I would like to know how big a deal that is.

Not being all that familiar with the culture, I'm just curious as to whether people think the family could/would be willing and capable of covering up for him. If it is acceptable to force someone into sham marriage, just to "save face" to me that is quite deceptive, maybe not as deceptive as lying about being married but still pretty shady.

But before the naysayers on this thread start jumping up and down, again I'm not saying that all Nigerian men are bad, or that this type of stuff doesn't happen in other cultures. I have plenty of male family members who are straight up dogs and terrible husbands to their wives. There are bad apples in every bunch.

i really dunno what you are trying to achieve here. . . . . .you want people of this forum to help you ascertain whether your man is a fraud or real?
how would they know when it's obvious there are good people and bad people. we could all say your man is a fraud and we could be wrong saying it. by the same token, we could say your boyfriend is an angel whereas he is trying to scam you.

the truth is your findings have no answer until you see things for yourself. relationship is a risk. you are either stay in it till the end with faith or back off now before your fingers get burnt.

Sagamite:
You are a cretin!

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel (which admittedly is next to the surface)?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the stats exclude institutionalised people?

And your point is?

There are 100m people in US that are institutionalised? Or a few thousands?

How does your moronic point potentially change the facts significantly?

How will it move it from only 15.2m take pot every month to 15.2m take pot every day? Before we even talk about half. 

Ode!

Intellectual flogging!

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

i knew it. . . . .lord sagamite has turned it into comedy central. daft mind, slow mentality, lack of exposure et al.
must the population of institutionalized uns be 100 million to skew your stats. the stats surveyed 67,500 persons per year. . . .you don't know how many years or how many people were interviewed

you don't know the kind of people that were interviewed(the ones with criminal records or law abiding citizens) and yet your foolish self wants us to take your stats as the gospel. these stats will only be excellent for employment rate or what you will normally not expect prisoners or people in detention camps to take part in - as for the usage of drug - it's a fail.

you can laugh from here till you enter your grave - the link you provided is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of discussion - drug usage!!!
like i have said - you are the microcosm of what i am intellectually.
you disgusting pederast! when your creator was distributing intelligence - you were hiding in the bathroom.

edit. . . .survery covered(2002- 6 yrs (67,500 X 6 =405,0000) less than half-a-million to project the drug usage of america of 300 million people?

saga-dumb is a tool! the number of institutionalized people in california alone is close to 500,000. . . .while i wouldn't expect all those to be using - at least 60-70% of those would be using adulterated marijuana every day. surely, sagamite is a charlatan!

Sagamite:
Mooron, that was suppose to read less than 50%.

Where did you get your cretinous claim that 50% of Americans take marijuana a day when stats show less than 50% take it every month in 2008!

Only 15.2m took it in one month. How did your mooronic projection come to over 50% take marijuana every month?

In your failed education, is that how you demystify?

You projected like a buffoon?

when i called you a cuntbucket last night, many thought it was too harsh.
did you even read the pathetic article of the link that you posted?

The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older.

i am sure you are mega-daft to understand what that means. . . . .it means the survey excluded institutionalized population(correctional facilities, detention centres, immigration camps, juvenile institutions, etc) and these lots are more likely to use marijuana than the other divide.
of course in 2008, at the twilight of bush's administration - the survery would have been doctored to dumb down the use of illicit drug use in united states so those bastardo republicans would get a chance to compete with obama!

i can understand using the statistics of noninstitutionalized population for employment rate(as prisoners are not expected to work anyways), but using this same stats to do a survey on drug and alcohol abuse is logically obtuse. null and void. the bulk of the people using drugs/alcohol are in the institutionalized population. the statistics you plucked basically catered for the more law abiding citizens of america - not the people who actually use!

then again, the survey said it interviewed 67,500 each year. . . . .i won't be surprised if this 67,500 persons are all squeaky clean(no criminal records). the people with criminal records in the states are not regarded as citizens. they don't vote, they can't get a job, etc. if you have any common sense at all, this should tell you the statistics will be skewed towards the barest minimum rather than the true value as the people who are normally expected to use have been excluded.

sagamite, like i have been telling you. . . .i am your rabbi. . . . . .stupidity platelets ran through your veins and you went and pluck some dodgy report on the internet to flash in my face. i laugh in sagamite.
you are the microcosm of what i am when it comes to intellectual debates. go home and learn the difference between institutionalized and non-institutionalized population and then apply it in the topic of discussion, you ruminant animal.

i am sure the sodomite will come here now and say he knows what institutionalized population was and yet he had based his stats on the total number of people living in the states - letz see how asswipe sagamite digs himself out of this grave. saga-dumb, over to you.

smootheb:
[color=#770077][/color]

It's not that I want to have doubts, why would I want to allow the seeds of doubt to creep into my mind? What normal person would want to be in that position? I would prefer if it's either black or white. Either he is being truthful or he isn't. Unfortunately I'm stuck in the gray. I would be happy if I didn't have any reasons to question his motives. But the fact of the matter is that I do, and I'm aware that something about his story isn't quite right. It is not just because of stereotypes, nor do I think every Nigerian man is out for a green card or is a scammer.

life is a risk - you are into this already, have faith he's for real. . . .and if he isn't, life goes on.
no one can be truly sure of what he/she is getting into. we all take risks.

[quote author=Mr_TA link=topic=716327.msg8794547#msg8794547 date=1311702713]All this rubbish arguments.can't wait for the season to start.although baba is messing with me not buying a midfielder oh.when was the last time we signed a midfielder? [/quote]3 weeks ago - ashley young.
come to think of it - ashley young can do the scholesy role!!

ronkebp:
Don't bank on that one my dear, infact if you were my hubby and i catch you cheating on me, apologies will not cut it now, i gat to deal with you in my own way, before i leave anyways, infact when you see the likes of me,  (woman/ lady), in future you will take to your heels, e easy like that? just pack my load and leave, ?na beans? infact, who does that now, ? don't think that happens now, babes are more wiser now ooooo,

i was responding to armyofone. . . . . .and other babes with the same mentality of if my man cheats on me, he's a goner!
goner? what makes her so sure i want to stay with her till eternity?

ronkebp:
you think so

of course. . . .
much better than the other way round. . . .if the man wants the woman to be guilty. . . she might accept her guilt and start begging, tears, running to the guy's friends, family, etc and eventually, the guy might yield to her pressure. . . .

but when i am guilty and you expect me to come begging and i don't come. . . . .what do you do?
isn't that the end of the relationship?
2 weeks later, you will see me in the company of another sexier chic in the mall queuing to buy ice cream.

[quote author=bashy_demy link=topic=710353.msg8794370#msg8794370 date=1311701239]@coogar you na bad guy[/quote]

tunnytox:
you too bad sha   sharp guy  

that's the surest & quickest way to get rid of a woman. . . . .
[b]make them feel you are guilty [/b]and it was your fault, not theirs. . . . .

armyofone:
my ikokore, and you think it is fair to be phocking outside your marriage alone? why not let your wife do the same. and if she is doing the same no vex if you catch her  .
to the one who thinks he is a smart asz guy, play on. just as you are doing the phocking secretly, maybe your madam is enjoying her own too. two can play that game.
i wouldn't cheat on anyone. but if you cheat on me, you are a goner

i love girls with this mentality. . . .
to get rid of you, all i have to do is just cheat or pretend to have cheated on you. . . .isn't it? perfect!!!

as soon as i am tired of you. . . .i will deliberately get a friend to send me a sassy message. . . .leave ma fone where you can see it. . .you rant, fight, scream while i feign some guilt and then you tell me it's over. . . .and i leave you with my tail between my legs, as soon as i am out of your sight. . .i jump as high as i can,  punch the air with the biggest sigh of relief.

perfect!!!!

duduspace: There is still a player that Capello is yet to call up and that is Jack Rodwell of Everton, that chap is ready to step up for England big time. I also think JET should make it into the U21s sometime during this season, some of my friends are already tipping him to ultimately push B52 out of the Arsenal squad. I think he can be better than Roy Andy Carroll, Delfouneso and Welbeck, he is obviously already better than Theo as a striker IMO.

i am tired of duduspace on this forum. . . .

debosky:
The quality of footie is only part of the appeal - the glory of winning with your national team is peerless, on the World Stage.

if the quality is better, i don't see how the glory of winning something quality will not be better than the substandard quality.
you are not arguing like the debosky i know - probably because you are barking a wrong tree.
if the quality of my job is better than yours. . . .mastering that job will give me more glory than yours - it's simple logic.

Don't confuse your enjoyment of those competitions with them being the pinnacle. There is no greater prize in World Football beyond the World Cup.

false!
the world cup is a marathon, the champions league is a sprint. . . . .
now tell me, which has more quality. . . .more glory. . . .more memorable!

The issue is not expecting him to win the WC - if he can't win the WC, he is automatically not in the class of the VERY BEST. The VERY BEST win World Cups.

the beauty of it is - these days, you don't have to win a world cup to become the best player on the planet.

Despite Weah's incredible success at club level, no matter how much he tried, success couldn't be brought to the Liberian national team. Weah is seen as the patron saint of The Lone Stars, having not only played and coached them, and spent upwards of $2 million to help finance their quest for glory. 

how does this criticize george weah?

When you compare like with like the differences appear - as you say, all the best players play for the best clubs. So what sets them apart? Producing the same genius to propel their national teams to victory - that is what marks out the VERY best.

the national team has to be a big football nation in the first place. . . . .this is why van basten, platini, cryuff couldn't win the world cup in spite of their winning ballon d'or thrice in their respective careers. the country of birth has to be solid for a player to produce his ingenuity in his club for his national team.

in a nutshell, if we have 2 equally gifted players with one playing for brazil and the other playing for northern ireland. . . . the player from brazil has more chances of winning the world cup than his counterpart from belfast!
this is the logic!

Agreed, but there remains a possibility that an excellent player chooses to remain in his home club which isn't a big one. That is the point I was making.

cite one example!
maldini? his ac milan have won 7 champs league, countless league titles, etc. . . .where else would he go to?
scholes-giggs? man utd is the most successful club in all the english speaking countries in the world. . .where else would they go?
who else? del piero? his bottom ceiling is lower than players like messi, cristiano, fat ronaldo, etc so the big clubs did not sniff his bum.

This is silly - Cesc provided the pass that won the WC, and that means he was instrumental to that goal being scored. Being instrumental does not mean he single-handedly delivered the trophy. Learn to recognise the distinction. I never said Cesc won the cup alone, I said he was instrumental.

cesc owed that world cup to being a spanish citizen than his football brilliance. spain don't need cesc, cesc needs spain!! you can't say that about the other world cup winners or players that have won it. your logic is saying cesc has achieved more than messi? really? debosky - can you back that up?

Baggio couldn't deliver in a WC final - Cesc did. That is incontrovertible.

messi's never played in a world cup final. . . cesc has. . . .cesc has achieved more?
i am sorry for this kind of logic.

Just as the crucial moments from all the useless English players has not won a rusty penny since the 60's

wrong analogy. none of the english players had 6 different attempts to win the world cup. . . .that would be 24 years - without factoring the years england didn't qualify. the most any player could get is 4 attempts. cesc had six!!
cesc had 6 consecutive attempts to win a league title. . . six! six!! six!!!

You haven't disputed anything I've said - you've simply tried and failed to run off track.
The winning WC is the pinnacle of footballing achievement - Cesc has won that title while Hargo will never win it.

i have disputed the basis of your argument: that the world cup is the pinnacle of football achievement! it is not!!!
had messi won it without the champions league, his criticism would be far worse than what he's getting now. as a player, you just have to win the champions league. it has eclipsed the world cup. because of money, players are actually more loyal to their clubs than their national teams so they give in their best for their clubs than the world cup where the football has been rubbish in the last 5 editions.

barcelona vs spain? who do you think would win?

Instead of wasting my time, make DVDs of his youtube performances and go and market them to clubs on  his behalf.

hargo has won more than cesc. 2 champs league, 4 bundesliga, 1 premier league. . . .
hell, hargo has done more than any player in the history of arsenal.

debosky:
Quality of football may be a valid point, but the World Cup remains the pinnacle. You play in the world cup not for money but for pure glory. It is the peak of footballing achievement.

what glory are we talking about if the quality of football is substandard?
debosky, argue with me like you do with your supervisior, abeg. . . . .i need you at your sharpest this hour.
stop raising watery points.

The frequency and multicultural nature of club football makes it easier to associate with and follow, but it can never replace the glory of national teams competing at the World Cup.

the frequency and the multicultural is the single most important factor why the champions league is better. . . .the european champions league surpassed the world cup when it was refurbished, more money invested in it with superb coverage. the quality of football is peerless and more teams participate in it than the world cup.

The fact remains that it is the pinnacle - CL has more publicity these days, but the WC remains the peak. Messi still misses that greatest prize - he needs to get it to cross over into immortality.

where did you get this fact? can you show me where it's written the champs league is the pinnacle? of course, messi will miss it because like i said, everyone expects players from brazil, argentina, germany, italy, etc to boss world cup competitions. if you are the best player of any of these countries, it is expected of you to win a world cup. now just imagine messi was born in switzerland for a second, would you expect him to win a world cup?

whoever mentioned nations cup as a missing medal in george weah's portfolio? no one could do that because we all know liberia is never a footballing country. kanu - africa's greatest football ambassador will never be judged for not having won a world cup. no one expects an african country to boss the world cup. if kanu was from brazil, the media would have crucified him for not winning it. the saying goes - to whom much is given(country of birth), much is expected.

Right - but what if you're a blessed and gifted player like Totti who chooses never to leave his hometown club - does failing to win the CL take anything away from his brilliance? I think not.

totti is not in the same class as messi. he's blessed & moderately gifted - not as the same as messi. the moneybags never looked totti's way because there were better players than totti ready to jump at the opportunity of playing for big clubs. kaka, bergkamp, zidane, rivaldo, etc were better "number 10s" than totti and they were all snapped by big clubs. . . .who is totti? if madrid had splashed the same amount they did on zidane on totti, you think roma's president won't put totti on his back and dash to madrid?

That's why we must objectively separate a player's abilities and brilliance from winning trophies. The fact is that you can be brilliant and excellent but still not win IF you don't play for a big club.

if you are brilliant and excellent, the big clubs will always come for you. why has barcelona been flirting with fabregas all these years? they recognise his brilliance and without the ambiguity in cesc's contract with arsenal, he would have probably won the european double with barcelona 2 months ago. there's no way a brilliant and excellent player won't be lured into a big club. money rules the world. there's no loyalty - football players are mercenaries. with all the songs of loyalty wenger has been singing. . . .if man city spreads £100 million on cesc tonight, wenger will sell cesc.

Wrong - he delivered the brilliant pass that set up the goal that won the WC. He was instrumental and participated in the most crucial moment in Spanish football history. There are millions of footballers that could've been taken to the WC, but Cesc went because of his quality, and he DELIVERED on that quality at the biggest stage of all.

so setting up a goal that won the world cup now means cesc was instrumental? if the others were duds, would spain have even reached the final for cesc to set up a goal that won the world cup? na assist you dey praise like this? you are a disgrace to all arsenal fans. . . .the burden still rested on the shoulders of iniesta putting it into the net. . . .iniesta won the world cup, not cesc!!! cesc could have laid 150 of that kind of passes that night with none of them resulting directly to a goal. . . .so where is this achievement you keep talking about? you are a twunt!

More talented players like Baggio could not deliver on their brilliance at the crucial moments, and that is something that sets Cesc apart.

that will be the same roberto baggio that was the star of italia 90 and a star of usa 94. putting teams away like it was getting out of fashion until brazil forced them into the lottery of a penalty shoot-out! it was cesc's brilliance at crucial moments that gifted messi the all important first goal at camp nou last season! crucial moments indeed. . . . .

weirdly, cesc's crucial moments have not win a rusty penny in 6 seasons. . . .
debosky, i didn't want to join in this debate before until the paragraph that set you for the fall.
argue intelligently on this thread. we are tolerant to let you guys come and have fun here. . . . we all do it but i implore y'all to do it intelligently and with credible facts otherwise. . . . . .

odiaero:
^^ I see the reason why, and me too was scared to toast a chick on the way, with all those police everywhere, u may be mistaken for Terrorist and get shot while toasting just because you are black

nothing like that happens any more. . . .spread your tentacles. . . .start toasting!

claremont:
^^^^
You of all people should know that Germany is just 1.5 hour by air from Stansted. Abi wetin dey make you scratch head?!

and cheaper too if you go by easyjet. isn't it less than 100 quid?

scantee:
Mohammad Ethar(madrid fan)

Yesterday , I read a statement said by Ronaldo which said : ''I cannot compete with Lionel Messi '' And from that moment on , the pathetic and disgusting comments started to appear . One fan says Messi is better , the other says ''no, Ronaldo is'' and I am really sick of this continuous and never-ending argument about who's the better player so I've decided to put a logical end for this thing , once and for all by speaking from from a neutral point of view .

Well,  I think that almost everyone realizes that Messi is the player with better ball-control,vision, and accuracy . So those terrific features combined with Barcelona's marvelous players make him an extremely deadly player .So yes I am saying that Xavi,Iniesta , and Alves help Messi a lot in order for him to shine . But no , I am not saying that Messi will fail in any other team so please don't get me wrong .

Now , it's Ronaldo's turn . Many people say that Messi gets much much more help from his teammates than Ronaldo do and that Messi always played in a squad that is superior to any squad Ronaldo took part in . Well,  sorry to disappoint you but no ,
this is completely untrue because if we took a thorough look at the players Ronaldo played with , we can see that he played with the likes of GIGGS , Scholes( Xavi's Idol),Evra, and Carrick . And now he plays with an even better squad , a squad that includes Ozil ( next Zidane), Marcelo ,Ramos , Di Maria , Xabi Alonso ,Lass Diara and least but not last Benzema . And if you ask me , Ronaldo gets a big deal of help compared to the one received by Messi . All what I want to say is that they are 2 different players with different characters and playstyles so it would be truly unjust to compare them to each other .

The conclusion is that Messi is a naturally talented player with splendid dribbling ability and exceptional vision skills while Ronaldo is a top-notch athlete who has good footballing skills but would absolutely fail if it wasn't for his miraculous athletic ability.

The better football player ( naturally talented ) : definitively Messi

The better athlete with great determination and drive : definitively Ronaldo


[b]My choice would be Messi [/b]because I am choosing a football player not an olympics participant ( Ronaldo has superb physique and is 100 % fat-free but no natural raw talent )

the person who wrote this is a buffoon. . . . .carrick, giggs and evra compared to xavi & iniesta(2 players who have been together for more than 10 years and play in the same team all the time)?  there's no basis for comparison until ronaldo plays for barcelona in messi's position. . . .not only that(there has to be a time machine that rewinds the clock and make ronaldo, xavi and iniesta play in the academy before graduating into the senior team). . . . .until then, comparing ronaldo(a nomad who hops from one club to another and playing with new teammates) to messi who is far more settled with his team-mates(who happen to be the best in the world) is tedious!