Elampiro's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Elampiro's Profile › Elampiro's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 (of 561 pages)
[quote author=afrodoc]@Elampiro I see that you have remained silent on your assertion that Butt was preferred to Scholes in big games in the 98/99 season ![]() [/quote I never said that. However if you insists, you can conclude that he got the two biggest games. Juventus in Turin and Bayern Munich. But generally, you missed my point or you failed to read my comments in details. Even though I wrote it in a hurry, I knew I never implied what you accuse me of now. |
Fabville: In that 2007/08 season Man Utd played mostly two-man midfield. Yes, we played three-man midfield in some few games and in some Hargreaves didn't feature at all.We can see things in different ways sometimes, so I wont argue with you too much. However, argument here so far have revealed that SAF always added a third man midfielder to Scholes and Carrick. I still stand by my opinion, United need a midfield ball winner which I think we now have in Mr Afro. You cannot have it all, otherwise I need such a player with speed. To me a midfield player who is a ball winner and with creative attributes is also needed in a team to help the shadow markers. At least one. |
Fabville: I don't seem to understand you when you post things like these and when people corrects you, you still keep on posting false in formation. We are no longer in dark ages when there are no records to rely on. Hargreaves wasn't out for three months. There was NO MONTH that Hargreaves did not feature in Man Utd team right from August 2007 till May 2008.So to you, someone who was only able to play two or three full games from 1st September to almost November ending was fit? He was being managed and playing through pains. |
dademola: oga, ur #4 point is null and void. Hargreaves played RB dt dai, cos brown had to play CB due to vidic being injured. Stop making it seem as if fergie made a big decision by dropping a particular playa. U cant just come here and start making things up anyhw jare....Everyone knows Oshea was the traditional back up for Brown after Neville got injured. Skipping Oshea to play Hargeaves meant so much. |
coogar: you lack cognitive reasoning.....[b]1. Barca has never been able to disgrace Chelsea. That is the difference. United will always be lucky to run away with two goals deficit and also heavily losing in possession againt Barca. Chelsea always gave a deserving fight even with Ramires and Meireres 9is that the spelling?). Intr Milan also gave a deserving match against Barca. 2. The excuse that Scholes was on the bench due to a yellow card is a story that should be told to kindergarten pupils. We needed to cross that hurdle badly and were going to the lions den. We needed the best men on the pitch. If we had won heavily in the first leg, that would have been a good reason. Moreover, we SAF had always risk men on yellow cards in penultimate games to the finals. 3. You keep saying Hargreaves was to protect West Brown. I take that as a credit to Hargreaves bacause Nani could have been used. But SAF knew only Hargreaves could kill the threat from that side where Cole, Malouda and Lampard used to explore opponents. This just reconfirm my point. 4. That SAF comment has nothing to do with what happened on the night where United hosted Barca. If Hargreaves was still in the team, SAF would have said better things about him how he clipped Messi, Iniester and Eto, and how he would have used him again. But the baba had to be focus on the he had available. 5. I didn't bother looking at that Kagawa stat because everyone knows he cannot mark or win 50-50 ball, we don't even have to go to aerial duels. [/b] |
afrodoc: Butt preferred to Scholes in big games? u r really hilarious.1. I never said Butt was preferred in big games. You guys are twisting my comments. I was trying to show you that Butt was preferred in the games against Juve which were crucial. Perhaps Scholes was too soft for the speed and strength of guys like Davis. Butt was the one too who played final against the tough Bayern. 2. Are you serious? Was it Scholes who played against Bayern? Please clear me well. If I were the one making this mistake you guys won't hesitate to shout 'liar' 'liar'. We are all humans after all. 3. Those other matches you mentioned, did Kean not play along Scholes? |
dademola: and stop comparing hargreaves to sneijder cos dey r entirely different players in different positions!!I did not compare them. I only said United suddenly needed a midfielder after the departure of Hargreaves. Then everyone was shouting vacuum, vacuum, etc. Some suggested Sneijder and some other names were also mentioned. |
dademola: scholes was a yellow card away from missing d final.considering his disciplinary record, him starting on d bench shudnt be too difficult for even a learner to comprehend!!If United had won 3-0 at home, then I could have agreed with you. We have had players who went into a penultimate matches to final carrying yellow cards. Keeping Scholes on the bench was pure tactical, no coach will put his best midfielder on the bench. Perhaps SAF saw the speed and power of the Juve midfield, but I can't say for sure. You know Davis. |
More and more things to respond to. It is like we mostly now going round circle and we can never reach a compromise. Let me read and respond though. |
Ubenedictus: that is simply a hyperbole, and truly despite our best effort we sin again, please read in context, go back and check the reading of the day.If the Pope knows there are press men out there who like to misinterpret him, why does he keep speaking in parables? Even if it is true we sin again despite the resolve not to, the Pope should not give express tickets or lay the foundation for people to indulge in sins without remorse. That is more like what he has done. Like we cannot help it because it is in our nature. Hope you will not have to defend the Pope the day he will make massive changes that could reduce the Church to a social gathering? |
Ubenedictus: again the pope didn't say anything about going to heaven, the secular press did. the doctrine he preached there is called universal atonement, if you are a catholic you should know it. universal atonement state that on the cross christ objectively atone for the sins of the whole world, even the bible says so. christ has made sufficient atonement for all men what remains is the subjective appropriation of the fruits of that atonement is what remains. if i go further i'll be talking theology, are you a catholicIs universal atonement a substitute to conversion? If you were a priest and you had the opportunity of addressing people who don't believe in God, is it more appropriate to preach confusing theology to them(laymen) than telling them about God? Jesus said we should go and preach the good news and baptize the people. He didn't say we should keep God from them while preaching good deeds. God first before good deeds. Good deeds without God is not christianity. What is a good deed to an atheist? Someone who performs abortion everyday may even think he is doing good in helping humanity to avoid poverty from over population. Then he donates a peanut from his abortion earnings to beggars. That sounds good. |
Ubenedictus: please bold the part where the pope said ''if you do good you arw redeemed. again that is a misinterpretationWhat did he mean here? "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” - Pope Francis, May 2013 ............ If someone said he is an atheist and he doesn't believe in God. What is the correct response or preaching to such a person? Is it to tell him to do good or to believe in God's existence? Which human being does not do some good already? Pope Francis is undermining christianity. He is discouraging conversion. |
chuqudy: Just like I said, metaphorically speaking, our sins are Jesus' "sins". It does not mean that Jesus is a sinner. When you say Jesus is the lion of the tribe of Judea, it does not mean that Jesus is a lion or beast or animal. If I were the Pope, I would stop speaking in idioms and metaphors. People are out there to highjack, misinterprete and misunderstand his words. Also, not every body has the ability of deep thinking. There are many people in the world with low IQ. That is why I like Pope Benedict. He will tell you the simple fact in a clear terms and he no send anybody. I miss Pope Benedict very much. However, I am drawn closer to the church now because of Pope Francis. I can also see that many people are drawn closer to the Church since Francis became Pope. Nothing pursues a sinner from God more than when you try to Judge a sinner first for his sins. But when you present love and forgiveness first to the sinner, the sinner would start to show interest in the church and gradually drops all his sins. I think this is the tactics Francis is using. But it would not work on everybody especially the "I too knows", "hipocrists", "holier than thous" and the bigoted minds.Does Pope Francis not know of the implication of his words? Is he so incompetent as to be always been misinterpreted? Did we hear so much of issues like this in 25 years reign of John Paul II? As far as I am concern, he is pleasing the world by twisting the truth. |
christ is comin: Celibacy isn't a natural way! We added somany thing to the rule of GOD..... Nicea conferences stuffs, The preist now make everything confusing.Celibacy was tailored towards Mathew 19:12. Only those fit were meant to enter the Priesthood. |
Celibacy dates back to the 4th century and it is also supported by Mathew 19. Fourth century The Council of Elvira (306) is often seen as the first to issue a written regulation requiring clergy to abstain from sexual intercourse. Its canon 33 decreed: "Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office."[36] It is disputed whether this canon mandated permanent continence or only, as is the practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church even for the laity, periodical continence before partaking of the Eucharist.[37][38] and Maurice Meigne even interpreted it as meaning: "It was decided to forbid keeping back from one's wife and not producing children".[39] In 387 or 390, or according to others in 400, a Council of Carthage decreed that bishops, priests and deacons abstain from conjugal relations: Source: Wikipedia |
Blackteeth: This is a welcome development. How does getting married affect the perfomance of a priest discharging his duties? If presidents who are very busy can live a married life then why cant priests? Priests are not even busy people in the real sense of the word. The decision by the catholic church to ban priests from getting married doesnt make any sense at all.Mathew 19:11-12 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” |
afrodoc: OgaThe second leg sent us into the final not the first leg. Those who started in Turin have the credit. |
coogar: 100%? it's easy to score 100% when you have a one-off season like hargreaves did. how come hargreaves did not win the CL in every season he played at bayern munich if he's so good?[b] 1. I accept the error- Kean didn't play final. However, it just but boost Hargreaves again. He is on 100%. Had he continued for us, we should have added at least one more. But Scholes too was missing in the important games of 1999. To drive the point home, Kean and Butt started ahead of the shadow marker Scholes. 2. You said if one plays 10 Hargreaves against Barca one will still be disgraced? That is a lie. Why did they not disgrace Inter Milan and Bayern? How many times have they beaten Chelsea? United were beaten in scores and possession hands down. 3. Whether Kean won nothing for 2.5 year didn't matter. What matters was that he benched Scholes in Turin in their biggest match ever. Why did SAF play Kean and Butt ahead od Scholes? 4. Hargreaves playing from the right back against Barca meant the threat from Messi, Iniester, Eto were far reduced. These were the guys who love to attack from the side into the box. That was a big decision SAF took that helped us. 5. Don't even compare Kagawa to Sneijder in winning balls. [/b] |
afrodoc: so according to elampiro[b]My football analysis is in order. You guys just don't want any contrary opinion to the ideology of opinions already planted on this thread. 1. I may have made a mistake in the 1999 statement on Kean, but fact remains that he played a pivotal role in the massive win in Turin against Zidane led midfield. He and Butt did a nice job and Butt did it again in the final against Bayern. I guess you know Scholes (the shadow marker) was not involved. 2. On Hargreaves, how many times do you want me to shout that he was given special roles, otherwise he was picked ahead of the rest in the midfield. The midfield role he played in Moscow was very vital for us that day and some papers felt he was our man of the match, even though it was officially given to CR7. I stand on the rest of my statement. I wonder why you people cannot see the value of a ball winner. You people accuse of of using articles, I want to tell you guys my opinion is not odd as many have same believe as I do.[/b] Would Hargreaves Have Made a Difference v Barca? As Manchester United stood on that Wembley pitch at the end of a long, tiresome, punishing 90 minutes, their knees would have been quivering and their teeth gritted at the sight of Barcelona once again lifting the Champions League trophy at their expense. Of course, United accept that the Spanish Champions deserved it and were better on the night, but they would have been wondering as they stood there with bitten lips and exhausted bodies, what exactly they could have done differently. The battle, the pundits said, would be in the middle, in the midfield. Whoever wins that battle would win the game. On paper there was only one winner, and in practice that proved to be too true. Michael Carrick and Ryan Giggs are very good footballers in their own right, but if Manchester United wanted to prevent Messi from weaving his magic as well as Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Pedro all wreaking havoc, they needed some players, or at least one player with the capability of breaking it up before the last line of defence. It was just unfortunate that possibly the only man in the Manchester United team who could have done this job effectively and to a high standard had not played 90 minuted in the United kit all season and had recently been confirmed as released by the club because of his fitness. Yes, that man is Owen Hargreaves, and yes, I believe that if he was fully fit and deployed in his defensive midfield position behind Carrick and Giggs, the game would have panned out differently, and possibly better for Manchester United. The fact of the matter is, Lionel Messi had too much time and space to unleash the shot for his goal and Barcelona's second and effectively, their winner. It killed off an already weary United side who had been chasing all game. Imagine if Hargreaves was playing, and imagine, would Messi have been allowed that time - the time he needed to pull his magic little foot back and pull the trigger? The shot was a pretty average one, and one that the retiring van der Sar will be slightly disappointed about not saving, but the answer to the question is no. Hargreaves would not have allowed Messi that time to shoot. Think then, about David Villa's absolutely beautiful goal to seal the victory. There was nothing the goalkeeper could have done about this one, unless he had stood next to his post as if somehow possessing the ability to see into the future to see where the shot was going. That goal was placed with finesse that sums Barcelona up well, but what sums Owen Hargreaves up is his gritty, hard-working, tireless attitude, and the definite ability to stop Villa from having that space to shoot. With a more compact midfield, including that defensive midfielder, which could have perhaps been played by the ever energetic young Anderson or maybe only in the second half due to illness, Darren Fletcher, Manchester United may have fared better than a few small bursts forward. United have excellent capabilities when attacking themselves, but after pressing, pushing and chasing for pretty much the whole game, the tired legs and tired minds against the energy of the greatly unchallenged defence and covering midfield, of Barcelona, only a very well worked goal could be managed. The endless chasing meant that when they had the ball, the only player left already up field was Hernandez, and so only a hopeful long pass was managed to him which got lost on the bounce or lost in the forest of Barcelona defenders. When United got the ball on the floor to pass it, Barcelona, who had not been pressing to the extent of United, could easily take the ball and press further down the pitch. With an insurance policy in the guard in front of the United back four, Sir Alex would have seen his side win the ball back faster and keep the ball more to allow for a better attacking and defensive option. What I am saying is, there were two very avoidable goals conceded by Manchester United, and if there were a defensive midfielder deployed in place of a largely ineffective Javier Hernandez, United would have fared better. The argument is based on "ifs" and "buts", however, "if" Sir Alex wants to come back next year and win the Champions League like he undoubtedly does, then he needs to find or nurture a player in that position. Barcelona were the better side, and overall deserved to win the prestigious trophy for the fourth time in their history, but they are by no means unbeatable. United and other top teams will come back fighting next year as Barca seek to defend their crown, and though it will take http://www.dbsfootball.com/2011/05/would-hargreaves-have-made-difference-v.html |
Fabville: The guy reads a lot of articles from bloggers and he believes so much in bloggers even if what the blogger wrote is totally in contrast to what he himself sees. The moment he posted an article to support all that he had said about Hargreaves, that confirmed what i was thinking that he must have been reading something from somewhere.I don't read football articles, I only do when you guys start mentioning 4-4-2 etc which I knew was not correct. We didn't play 4-4-2 in 2007/8 and someone here in a bid to support you guys in this argument has confirmed that we always used three man midfield whenever Scholes and Carrick played. It was in the process of trying to confirm if you guys were right that I ran into some of these articles. I only further used the articles to corroborate what I know is true. Another instance was when Coogar said Mourinho never kicked a ball, I was shocked. I had to quickly make reference. When you argue, you sometimes have to double check your opinion to ensure you are actually right or if it is the other party. |
dademola: .u forgot to add d most important one:HARGREAVES WAS OUT FOR 3 MONTHS IN THE 07/08 SEASON!!I will start from you. Hargreaves only manage to gain some fitness in the second half of the season. Hargreaves was out for three months in the first half of the season, what happened was that he would be managed in one game or half then his condition sends him out for another long time. We had similar case with Michael Owen, Fletcher and may be we can add Vidic too. Hargreaves was not fit at all. |
See many posts waiting for elampiro. I am coming, I need to find some times to quickly respond. |
Judas2013: I see gay people kiss on the bus almost everyday. Nothing is wrong with them.... Bleep god and his commandments, wasnt his son jesus gay? I hope one of ur kids turn gay and let's see what u will do.My kids cannot turn gay. Never! |
kimco: goes to show u how ignorant u are. Go sir and learn about them instead of going on about like the ignoramus that u are. Research....internet is ur friend.There nothing to research from articles published by Illuminati members and porn stars to corrupt the world and hand it over to Satan. Who am I to listen to in matters of faith and morals, God or internet articles? |
chuqudy: There are many websites there that are good in misinterpreting whatever Pope says. I was not taught to go to confession like you just quoted. So i would prefer to hear directly from Pope Francis who unfortunately for me speaks in Latin and not English. There is the possibility of misinterpretation. I know what the Pope was trying to say is that Christ bears our sins as if it were His sins. This is the only advantage of those who believe in Christ's salvific power. Christs caries your sins for you and metaphorically speaking, your sins becomes Christ's sins. But, the Pope should have added the popular words of St. Paul( which I believed the Pope must have sayed many times but which the media would not like to show you) which says "should we remain in sin so that grace will multiply? Not at all"That is not anyhow website. That was from the Vatican Radio and newspaper. Although it was also reported by all international media like yahoo news, nytimes, etc. |
kimco: you dnt think same would be done if it was racial instead? Then we blacks and the coloured must be protected by illuminati too. These gays are born gay....how is that their fault? I really want to know...explain hw being a homosexual is their fault, then i'll listen to u, no complaintsNobody was born a gay or lesbian. Never. It is not natural. Gayism is a habit. A bad habit mostly learnt from watching or acting porn. Secondly, a christian is meant to preach the laws of God as commanded by Jesus. Now in many places it is wrong to preach against abortion and homosexuality due to the influence of satanic leaders. |
Judas2013: The King of England King James wrote the bible not Kumuyi or Oyedepo. Perhaps they have realised most of the stories are inhumane so they have updated it . The Pope will soon tell you christianity is a fraud. But the problem is people like will will not listen. Jesus is a fraud,be warned!End time talk. |
Ubenedictus: u are preaching to the choir, i do not hate gays. But i do consider their sexual relations to be sinful and now if i dare preach that in the UK i'll be thrown in jail. Since when did preaching the immorality of a partcular act bcome illegalThe Iluminati leaders are making such illegal everywhere. The gays are highly protected in a bid by Satan to mock God via satanic agents. A photographer who refused to cover a gay event had his shop closed by authority just because he said his faith doesn't permit such. |
^^^ ^^^ That was the first one Pope Francis said in May which caused lots of controversies and the circular world was happy. Just after four months he made a similar statement. May and September. Who knows what he will say be December. Because he is building on his previous statements. |
Pedro Amada: . Atheist is talking well Admin misquoted the Pope you even misunderstood him just becos you need a lot of attention & contribution from your audience..... Responding to the three questions posed by the Italian journalist and writer, the Pope says the key issue for non-believers is that of “obeying their consciences” when faced with choices of good or evil. God’s mercy, he stresses, “has no limits” for those who seek him with a sincere and contrite heart.Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics May 22, 2013 Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists. During his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis emphasized the importance of "doing good" as a principle that unites all humanity, and a "culture of encounter" to support peace. Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark , Francis explained how upset Jesus' disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation” Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say: "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3320757 At Pedro Amada, what do you have to say about the above? Why is Pope Francis always looking for ways to please unbelievers? He wants the praises of the circular world and media. |
The Pope made a similar statement in May: Read the last paragraph. ................ Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics May 22, 2013 Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists. During his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis emphasized the importance of "doing good" as a principle that unites all humanity, and a "culture of encounter" to support peace. Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark , Francis explained how upset Jesus' disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation” Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say: "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3320757 |
Ndukwe007: what a pity, I had thought there is a grain of christianity in chatolimCool down man, that is not the Catholic Church's position on the subject. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 (of 561 pages)


