₦airaland Forum

I need analysis from heavyweights in the house. . . .


Does the ministerial list engender confidence of Jonathans good intentions?

Any incompetent corrupt buffoons on the list?. . . and why?


The floor is open. . . .

mukina2:
we know you copped 98 points

I thought everybody did. . . this week was awoof.

mukina2:
Kokomaster
your juju don work . .i am suing for match fixing

So you knew you were playing kokomaster (my closest rival) and you didnt approach me for tips?

Bandely, you try well well, but no one defeats MEND FC at the Yenagoa township stadium. 

If Yankee doctors are unhappy with their wages under Universal Healthcare, they should feel free to travel to Canada, UK or France

Or better yet, they should all open up Private clinics whilst Nigerians and Indians rush in to take their former jobs.

debosky:
That blows away your fallacious claim that He was trying to replicate Milan at Chelski - when did Carlo ever employ that type of formation at Chelski??

Note you left out Pirlo in that count, which would imply a 5 man midfield, something definitely NOT seen at Chelski.

Really?. . . . whats our current formation?

We do have a 5 man midfield since January. . .

For Seedorf and Kaka, read Malouda and Anelka/JoeCole/Deco

debosky:
Those are two DEFENSIVE players in midfield - If Carlo was trying to imitate Milan, he'd have played Essien and Mikel consistently together. Did he do that?

hmmm. . . . lemme guess. . . . so Gattusso and Ambrosini are DMs and Pirlo is an AM?


Pirlo is the deepest of Milan midfield if you dont know. . .

Ambrosini is LCM and Gattusso is RCM

Seedorf is ALCM and Kaka is ARCM

I saw Ballack really struggling to recover against Barca in UCL.

debosky:
I don't see Chelski being forced to play like Milan - Pirlo and Seedorf are PRIMARILY creative players and aren't set out to 'press fullbacks' so that is a wrong accusation to level against Carlo.

And how about Gattuso and Ambrosini?


Market is good, but Im surprised no asked!!!

Nice play boys. . . .

insideview:
Seriously, is this exchange to be based on a point of view championed by the "Renaissance Professionals" whose position on issues relating to recent events in the Banking sector is well known (& advertised)? I believe the lawyers call it "after the fact". I call it "crying over spilt milk".

How I see it:-

1. Soludo appointed CBN Guv (as the sun rises)
2. Soludo consolidated (in good faith) but failed to regulate (motive unclear)
3. Unprecedented boom in asset prices occured (fueled by easy American credit)
4. Exponential rise in Oil price (our major forex earner); Banking Cowboys (most of them) went wild & took advantage
5. Crash follows (natural consequence of bubble; Oil price crashes, party's over)
6. Soludo opens EDW (in good faith i believe)
7. Sanusi appointed CBN Guv (things change)
8. Sanusi did what he did (stuff happens, premeditated or otherwise)
9. Renaissance Professionals among those sent to graze on "greener grass on the other side"
10. Banking sector saner & more reflective of reality (purely personal opinion formed from balance sheets viz economic activity)

This is the most sensible post on here by far. . .

YES WE CAN!!!

America now joins the rest of the civilised world in having universal coverage.

This is what change looks like. Haters can go suck on a fat one.

I think Arshavin is scared of Gordon Browns new 50% tax regime which comes into effect next month, hence he will say any and everything to piss Wenger off, so AW will sell him to Spain and Italy where he can pay considerably less tax.

I disagree with comments about Chelsea underperforming cos of the age factor. . .

Without discounting the age factor completely, what we see from Chelsea this season is lack of pace being exposed, not necessarily old age. . . . this is especially poignant in the case of Ballack (the oldest and most accused player), who has struggled against faster players trying to cover that Chelsea rightflank. . . from day one in the community shield, we see him having to resort to clothesline against Patrice Evra, otherwise Evra leaves him for dead. . . . whilst Ballack has been slow from day one at Chelsea, I dont think his energy level has declined to a level where he can be written off as old. . . . y'all can check Opta stats.

We also see Mikel and Terry struggling against pace on counterattacks. . . . are they also old?

Without holding brief for any player, I posit that Carlotti must play to his players strengths, or drop them completely from the line up. . . otherwise we start to see holes appearing.

What we see is Chelsea being forced to play like Milan, but if you look compare the strengths of the Chelsea midfield personnel to Milans, you see a lot of square pegs in round holes. . . .

@ Akola,


Scolari say Chelsea will go through season unbeaten. He believed in the team.

Carlotti say he will walk naked through Trafalgar square if he has to sign any new player in order to be successful. He believed in the team

Inbetween Scolari and Carlotti, Hiddink proves that their belief in the team is not unfounded.


In last 4 years, Chelsea never lost the league by consistently dropping points throughout the season. They lost the league by dropping points during short concentrated periods of crisis. . . (tactical crisis, political crisis, and JM injury crisis in 06/07)

If players are bad, they will consistently drop points throughout the season, unlike Chelsea where they play very well most season and lose the league over short period of crisis, usually in December.

Is the team good enough?. . . . . maybe not in a year or two years time. . . . but this year and previous, IMO the team has been good enough.

Y'all dont need to bash Pat Utomi just cos you disagree with his views on SLS reform . . . . both are good men trying to take the country forward. . . .

BTW, I wonder why these articles do not tell us whether Dangote's loans from South Africa were collaterised or not. . . . . A lot of these guys see awoof opportunity to cut corners like cowboys in Naija, and when they are called out on it, they feel disrespected. . . hence "Dangote must not owe any Nigerian bank". . . . because they did not allow him to do "business" as usual. . . . but I assure you he will do business the proper way in South Africa.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1


Washington (CNN) -- President Obama won a historic victory in the struggle for health care reform Sunday as the House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill overhauling the American medical system.

The bill passed in a 219-212 vote after more than a year of bitter partisan debate. All 178 Republicans opposed it, along with 34 Democrats.

The measure, which cleared the Senate in December, will now go to Obama's desk to be signed into law. It constitutes the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.

A separate compromise package of changes expanding the reach of the measure also passed the House over unanimous GOP opposition, and is now set to be taken up by the Senate.

The overall $940 billion plan is projected to extend insurance coverage to roughly 32 million additional Americans. It represents a significant step towards the goal of universal coverage sought by every Democratic president since Harry Truman.

Most Americans will now be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. Larger employers will be required to provide coverage or risk financial penalties. Total individual out-of-pocket expenses will be capped, and insurers will be barred from denying coverage based on gender or pre-existing conditions.


The compromise package would add to the bill's total cost partly by expanding insurance subsidies for middle- and lower-income families. The measure would scale back the bill's taxes on expensive insurance plans.

The rare Sunday vote occurred after a long weekend of intense negotiations between the White House, House leaders and individual congressmen. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill Saturday to make a last-minute plea to the entire House Democratic caucus. He spent much of the last week trying to personally convince dozens of members.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, worked with administration officials to defuse a potentially fatal rebellion among socially conservative Democrats concerned that the bill won't do enough to prevent taxpayer-funded abortions.

She also brokered a last-minute deal among several Democrats worried about disparities in Medicare funding for individual states.

Republicans failed to stop the Democratic health care initiative despite utilizing almost every weapon in their legislative arsenal. GOP leaders repeatedly have warned the plan will lead to a government takeover of America's private employer-based health care system.

They have also argued it will lead to higher premiums and taxes while imposing harsh Medicare cuts and doing little to control spiraling medical costs.

Pelosi and Boehner make final comments

Shortly before the House voted on the bill, Pelosi said health care reform was necessary to end insurance industry abuses and bring greater economic stability to most Americans.

Congress will be "making history, making progress and restoring the American dream" by passing reform, she said.

It it time to "complete the great unfinished business of our society." Health care "is a right and not a privilege," she said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued that Democratic leaders had betrayed the trust of the public by pushing ahead with a bill that lacks broad public support.

"We have failed to listen to America and we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents," he said. "And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves and we fail our country."

He also slammed what he characterized as a legislative process marked by a lack of transparency and accountability.

"Look at how this bill was written," he said, his voice steadily rising. "Can you say it was done openly? With transparency and accountability? Without back room deals that were struck behind closed doors? , Hell no you can't!"

The $875 billion bill now headed to Obama's desk is projected to cut the federal deficit by $118 billion over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

If the compromise plan clears the Senate, the bill's total cost will rise by $65 billion. Projected deficits, however, will be reduced by another $25 billion.

Key details of the bill

The plan, according to CBO projections, will cut budget deficits by over $1 trillion in its second decade.

It will subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

It also creates a series of health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

Medicaid will be significantly expanded, ensuring coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

The bill cuts projected Medicare spending by roughly $500 billion, in part through reductions in the Medicare Advantage program. Democratic leaders have promised the reductions will not affect service to Medicare recipients.

The bill hikes Medicare payroll takes on families making more than $250,000. Starting in 2013, it also imposes a 40 percent tax on insurance companies providing expensive "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it's one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. However, many Democrats oppose taxing such policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous health benefits.

If the compromise bill becomes law, the threshold for imposing the Cadillac tax will be raised to health plans valued at over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax won't kick in until 2018.

Buy insurance or pay a fine

Under the plan now headed to Obama, individuals are required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of their income -- whichever is greater. It includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Companies with more than 50 employees that don't provide coverage are required to pay a fee of $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

The compromise package would drop the individual fine to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater. The fine on companies failing to provide coverage would jump to $2,000 per employee.

Federally funded abortion coverage for people purchasing insurance through the exchanges will be banned under the bill now passed by Congress. Exceptions will be made in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

Individuals receiving federal assistance who want abortion coverage will have to purchase the coverage using private funds.

Illegal immigrants will be barred from buying insurance in the health insurance exchanges.

Parents, however, will be entitled to keep their children on their health care plans until age 26.

While passage of the Senate bill is a major win for Democrats on a major party priority, Pelosi had to take a number of steps in recent weeks to assuage House members unhappy with the measure.

A deeply unpopular special exemption for Nebraska from all new Medicaid expenses -- known as the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- would be eliminated under the compromise plan. The federal government will instead assist every state by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage between 2014 and 2016, and 90 percent starting in 2020.

The speaker also tried to sweeten the deal for some progressive members of her caucus partly by adding additional subsidies and a major student loan reform measure to the compromise plan.

The reform measure -- a priority for Obama -- would end the practice of having private banks offer student loans and would expand direct lending from the government.

Closing the "doughnut hole"

In addition, the compromise plan closes the Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" by 2020. Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual's out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550.

Senior citizens stuck in the doughnut hole this year would receive a $250 rebate.

A key group of anti-abortion rights Democrats was reassured by a last-minute promise of an executive order from Obama stating that the provisions in the health care bill comply with the 32-year-old Hyde Amendment, which sharply restricts federal funding for abortion.

Several fiscally conservative Democrats, meanwhile, were assuaged by the CBO's estimate of the bill's long-term impact on the federal deficit.

The speaker considered trying to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill. Numerous congressmen had advocated passing a rule that would have deemed the Senate bill approved once the separate package of changes had passed.

GOP leaders objected furiously to the so-called "deem and pass" maneuver. House leaders backed away from the idea on Saturday.

Republicans are still fuming over Democrats' decision to use a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, which will allow the compromise measures to clear the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-seat supermajority in January with the election of GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Republicans contend that reconciliation, which is limited to provisions pertaining to the budget, was never meant to facilitate passage of a sweeping reform measure such as the health care bill. Democrats point out that reconciliation was used to pass several major bills in recent years, including George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

House Democrats have been continually reassured that the compromise package will be approved by the more conservative Senate. Pelosi said Friday that "when our members go to vote, they will have all the assurances they need" that the Senate will approve the compromise plan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, attended the Saturday meeting between Obama and House Democrats. He presented a letter indicating that the Senate would use reconciliation to pass the House's changes.

"We believe that health insurance reform cannot wait and must not be obstructed," the letter said. "We support an up-or-down majority vote and will vote to make these improvements."

The letter was not signed, though Reid told the House members a majority of the Senate now backs reconciliation.

On second thought, I think David Mark was correct!

ok

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=362607.msg5739553#msg5739553 date=1269209778]@Ibime
You where spot on on your assessment of Ancelotti he kinda is an average Joe. He may know how to win cup ties but definitely not league titles but i think you have to admit that Lampard's game has dropped massively and this goes beyond just any tactical formation he has been piss poor all season or at least most of it.[/quote]To be fair to Carlo yesterday, the lads had no urgency or killer instinct . . . they thought they were in control and could score any time. . . .before they knew it, Blackburn equalised, then they started scrambling to score the winner.

I dont know if Lamps (Mikel, Terry, Ballack and Anelka's) poor form is due to himself (themselves) or tactics. . . I prefer not to embroil myself in ambiguous tactical quagmire lest traducers use my own ambiguity against me

Anyway, check my profile pic, and figure it out yourself. 

follypimpi:

I think the diamond Formation is not working for Lampard,his backtracking of maicon pederson denys him of creating chances for drogba/anelka to put away.

Tell me about it. . .

nateevs:
No problems man. . . small thing. .
I don dey look this £200 thing. . It dey look like real oooo  

I hope you wont face foreclosure because of it sha!  

expect ANYTHING from Chelsea these days. . . we are living in strange times. . .

@ Nateevs,

My unreserved apologies for our vosciferous exchange of views and curses. . . . I hope our bet is still on sha, make I use something console myself out of all this calamity. . .

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=415771.msg5737773#msg5737773 date=1269192534]@Ibime
Where is Di Santo?[/quote]Im sure hes not allowed to play against his parent club. . . besides I havent seen him play for Blackburn for 2 months or so. . .

Ferreira got done there!

hahaha. . . so Rooney got deducted 2 points for missing a penalty?

Ivanovic looks serious. . . lets hope we get him back before Villa. . . cant see Ferreira carrying that rightback position in the big games.

Phucking hell Nateevs. . . its over bro. . . lets save the stories for another day. . .

hehehehe. . . . lets have our own Nateevs interview. . .



Nairaland: So Mr Nateevs, please tell us why Chelsea lost the game.
Nateevs: It was Lampards fault.


Nairaland: So what do you need to win the game
Nateevs: We need a player like Robinho


Nairaland: So Mr Nateevs, now that Robinho is discredited and back in Brazil, which way for Chelsea?
Nateevs: Diego is the way to go. Sell Lampard, buy Diego and we're winning every game.


Nairaland: So what is your view on Diego's contribution to Juventus so far?
Nateevs: Well Im sorry, but whoever it is, someone needs to replace Lampard.


Nairaland: Can you suggest any names?
Nateevs: Yeah. . . erm. . . erm Fabregas.


Nairaland: No, hes already taken
Nateevs: OK, Xavi


Nairaland: Sorry no show
Nateevs: Iniesta then?


Nairaland: Sorry no show
Nateevs: Well I suggest Joao Moutinho then. I know he hasnt got a good record, but he has the skill. . . and he does some fancy tricks. I believe when he joins Chelsea, he will up his assist ratio from 3 assists a season to 18 assists a season


Nairaland: But Lampard is already copping 19 assists?
Nateevs: Yeah, but they're all from corners.


Nairaland: So Malouda doesnt take corners?
Nateevs: Yeah he does, but all his corner assists are credited to Lampard.


Nairaland: So whats your real gripe with Lampard?
Nateevs: His technique is poor. . . but actually. . I mean. . . the main reason is that he's old


Nairaland: Which one is it?
Nateevs: You choose one


Nairaland: But OPTA stats indicates that Lampard still covers more mileage than most Premiership players.
Nateevs: Well you know, age is a spiritual thing. You might be feeling physically fit. . . I mean, the flesh is willing, but the spirit is weak.


Nairaland: OK. . . . moving on. . . so you say there is no space behind our fullbacks?
Nateevs: None at all.


Nairaland: I hear Mourinho will try to play Eto and Pandev on the wing tonight.
Nateevs: Yes, I expect him to do so to try and exploit the space behind our fullbacks.


Nairaland: So why did you lose at Stamford Bridge, something you havent done for years.
Nateevs: It was Lampards fault as usual. . oh and lemme add, its Guus Hiddinks fault too.


Nairaland: Why so?
Nateevs: Not only Guus Hiddink, but Avram Grant and even Mourinho himself are to blame.


Nairaland: Why so?
Nateevs: Well, they played a style of football that our players are used to. Ancelotti has been trying to teach them a new style, but they are still stuck in their old ways.


Nairaland: So what do you suggest?
Nateevs: I suggest we get someone like Carrick, Seydou Keita and Abou Diaby who all have better technique than Lampard.


Nairaland: Really?
Nateevs: Yes, we would have definitely won that game if Carrick had played.


Nairaland: And that will help you win the game?
Nateevs: Definitely, Lampard is too uncreative.


Nairaland: But Lampard has scored 147 goals and created 117 assists in 460 games. Are you talking about creating goals or creating babies?
Nateevs: Im confused. . . infact, Ill get back to you on that.

hahahaha. . . for phucks sake man. . . you cant entrap me gramatically. . .  this is an open and shut case. . .


Ibime: Chelsea dominated the central midfield.

Ibime: If you think Chelsea dominated the game.


Lets use a real world scenario. . . for this, lets reference a professional journalist talking about the Chelsea-Arsenal game:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/drogba-double-takes-chelsea-back-to-summit_100316518.html#ixzz0io2oJDoD

Chelsea won comfortably in the end, less because they dominated midfield than because in Drogba they had a striker at the peak of his form.


So Arsenal dominated midfield, but Chelsea dominated the game.


Zidane dominated midfield, but his teammates Nateevs and Debo failed to capitalise on his good work. They lost 5-0, therefore Zidane's team did not dominate the game.


Its as simple as ABC. . . you cant misrepresent the intention of my statement, nor can you entrap me grammatically. . . case closed!


BTW, I have answered your 5 questions if you read above. Now try and answer my one question about Robinho. 

hahahaha. . . it is very possible for me to tell you we dominated the central midfield (implying possession), without implying that I think we are in control of our destiny. . . . and you dont have to get pedantic about it . . . my line of reasoning is always consistent, and thats what matters, not my choice of grammar. . . . my[i] long held [/i] views of the fallibility of Ancelottis possession football is enough proof of the true intention of both my statements.


The key word is domination of central midfield which refers solely to control of possession in midfield.



I can also get pedantic with you. . .


You claim that you were only speculating when you said that we will score 2 early goals cos we dominated in Milan:

nateevs:
You an a proper idiot. . .
Your are quoting posts of me speculating. . .

Yet when Debo said our domination in Milan counts for nothing, what did you say?

nateevs:
Your gut don't tell you nada. . . Your only hoping and speculating.
Why can't we score two early. .? Malouda was playing left back in Milan.

And if we don't stop them from scoring, what's to say we can't 3 ? or even four.

So who is speculating. . . you or Debo?. . .

Debo told you the truth about the low possibility of Chelsea penetrating Inter and you claimed he was speculating. . . only to come back and tell me you were only speculating about a Chelsea victory with 2 early goals. . . . . you're full of shite! 

You used the word speculated in two places and a perfectly contradictory scenario was established. . . speculate on that! 

BTW, who were you relying on to create those 2 goals since Lampard is so uncreative?. . . . . please name that player so we can blame him for the defeat! 


Forget about semantics bro. . . you dont wanna play this game! 




Look, lets agree to disagree on the tactical issue and call a truce. . . for the sake of peace, I agree. . . . Ancelotti got the tactics right, and Lampard and Ballack messed it up!

Yeah, they've qualified for the CL semi-final literally every year, but on this occassion, it was all their fault! 

They've never lost at home, but under Ancelotti and Scolari, it is all their fault! 




Ive been kind enough to answer your questions, now kindly answer just one of mine:


(1.) Would Robinho have won the game for us on Tuesday? 


These arguments arent new bro. . . .

hahahaha. . . .anyone can quote anything out of context and twist it to suit his argument. . . . I dont see anything contradictory in what I typed there. . .


Lampard, Anelka and Drogba were fails tonight.
At least we can excuse Lampard. . . virus and all that.
Malouda and Mikel killed it.
Ballack and Kalou had good performances.

CORRECT!



We dominated the central midfield despite Lamps being off colour. . . that was thanks to Mikel and Ballack mostly.

Dominated in terms of possession. . .

This means I agree that Mikel and Ballack fulfilled their role under Ancelotti system which requires them to dominate possession. It doesnt mean I agree with Ancelotti system of dominating possession in the opponents half.

They did what Ancelotti asked them to do. . . . and they did it well.

Meanwhile, Inter specialise in letting them have possession, as long as they are not free to run at Lucio and Samuel. . .

I dont need to start explaining to you that being allowed to dominate possession doesnt necessarily mean you are in control of the match, cos we were not having THAT argument (AN ARGUMENT WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY HAD MILLION TIMES BEFORE!)



Like I said:

Anyone thinking Chelsea dominated is deluded. Did it occur to y'all that Inter attacked when they wanted to, and allowed us to attack when THEY wanted to


This is no different from my consistent line of reasoning:


Inter allowed us to play, defending when they needed to and attacking when they needed to. . . .


No contradiction here. . . .


I dare you to pull up any quote of me saying we will beat Inter cos we are dominant in possession.

Unlike you telling Debo we will beat Inter cos we dominated the first-leg.



I will answer these for the last time, so you can drop it.

nateevs:
1. Was he doing so when we attacked as well? . . .
2. When he had the ball, did he pass on to a player and run to hug Maicon?. . .
3. Lamps has the ball in Midfield and Maicon in further back at least 10 yards most times. . How does that prevent Lamps from making a good pass. ?
4. Since Lamps was covering the full backs through out the game (according to you), does that not contradict the fact that they sat in their half through out and "not having holes in their back" . . How in this world are both events able to oocur simultaneously? . . .

(1.) NO
(2.) NO
(3.) What constitutes a good pass? Was Drogba able to get behind Lucio at any time? Or Anelka? Or Malouda? Where do you want Lamps to pass the ball to. . . to Julio Cesar? (Seeing how Lucio and Samuel were sitting on top of Cesar). You failed to get it through your head that football is about SPACE. When space is denied, it is up to the wingers to try and breach the defence through crosses. . . . which is why Im surprised you havent mentioned Malouda and Anelka. . . very naive. . .
(4.) When Arsenal play Manure, does Evra not form a shield on the edge of his box? Does he not also get forward to attack? A fullback knows to release himself by playing one-twos, then running beyond. As long as Lamps has to run with him, Lamps is in no position to counterattack any space he might leave behind. Therefore, whenever Lamps has the ball in Inter half, Maicon is already back home. If you wanna look at anyone who was supposed to eat that space whenever Maicon vacates, I expect you to know its[b] Maloudas [/b] duty.


Now answer my questions:

(1.) Why is Sneijder able to split the Chelsea defence with passes from the halfway line? (This happens 4 times in the match)
(2.) Show me the OPTA stats that tell you Lamps is not running more kms than other CM's. (You keep talking nonsense about age)
(3.) How is Diego doing at Juventus?




BlueDiva sums it up best:

BlueDiva:
CA is turning SB into a joke.
Soon Hull and Stoke will feel they can come to the Bridge and win.

Everything else is simply looking for excuses. Are these not the same players we have seen performing at the highest level year in, year out? Did they suddenly become incompetent overnight?

nateevs:
Your are quoting posts of me speculating. . .

Then why do you argue your speculations like its God's truth?




SIDENOTE:

I've just finished watching Inter-Palermo. I was hoping to see Sneijder perform the same wonders, but unfortunately, he was given no space by Palermo, unlike Chelsea.

Same has been the case for the last 2 months as Inter draw one match after the other.

Im a big fan of Sneijder. . . been following him from Ajax days. . . . unlike the ninnys you keep recommending, Sneijder is a genuine central midfielder who doesnt need anyone else to do his work for him.

However, you are blind if you cannot see one fact. . . . if you swap Snaijder and Lampard in that game, the result stays the same!. . . can you imagine Lampard with a whole half to run into and play through-balls into?

Any defence which is split continually by a through pass from as far back as the halfway-line has a fundamental weakness.

hehehehe. . . . looks like the writer is trying to show off as well. . . .

Anyway, can the writer prove that Obahiagbon was actively involved in sabotaging legislative processes that would have averted the recent constitutional quaqmire over Yaradua's health?

Typical Yoruba man.