RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this the start of the decline and the fall of the Ferguso

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this the start of the decline and the fall of the Ferguso

    Is this the start of the decline and the fall of the Ferguson empire?

    Sir Alex Ferguson is a keen student of history. In his interview with the gut-wrenchingly sycophantic Alastair 'I support Burnley and Manchester United' Campbell for New Statesman magazine last week, he banged on about how much he loves reading about, and picking up tips from, such great leaders as Abraham Lincoln.

    So I'm sure Sir Alex won't mind me also turning to past events to try to glean some insight into what is going on with Manchester United.

    Until two weeks ago, Sir Alex's empire looked unbeatable in any competition.


    Their squad appeared to be the biggest, most powerful army of men ever assembled on a field of combat.

    I, like many, was convinced they had a real chance of winning the first-ever quintuple

    But history tells us that when any empire reaches that point of virtual global supremacy, equally total ignominious collapse usually lies never far away. So it seems with United.


    Thrashed 4-1 by Liverpool, then stuffed 2-0 by Fulham, they now find themselves engulfed in self-doubt, bitter recrimination, civil unrest and that decaying stench that follows the gloriously intoxicating aura of invincibility.


    We Arsenal fans know all about that. After going through the 2003-04 season unbeaten, our own Invincibles disintegrated faster than former RBS boss Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin's smirk after the vandals struck.

    For United, though, the parallels with the Fall of Rome are a more obvious analogy.

    One of the best history books ever written is Edward Gibbon's The History of The Decline And Fall of The Roman Empire, an enormous series of tomes that charts in vivid detail how and why the seemingly unstoppable Romans went belly-up.


    In a nutshell, the demise began with too much money and arrogance, leading to a breakdown in the phenomenal discipline that had made the Romans omnipotent.

    Overpaid, and overfed, the star soldiers grew lazy and took their eyes off the ball.


    This led to stupid mistakes, a loss of their all-important fear factor and, as a consequence, increased levels of confidence in their enemies. Sound familiar, Fergie?


    I watched the United games against Liverpool and Fulham and could scarcely believe what I was seeing.


    Cristiano Ronaldo is a limp shadow of the goalscoring machine of last season.

    Wayne Rooney showed once again the petulance that has blighted his career.


    And as for Dimitar Berbatov, he is displaying all the commitment and fighting spirit of a diseased aardvark.


    But for me, the defining moment that signified the possible beginning of the end of the Ferguson empire came when Fernando Torres made such a muppet out of Nemanja Vidic.


    For the country's best defender to be humiliated on the biggest stage in such a way was a hammer blow that seemed to suck every vestige of imperialistic life out of the hapless Serb and his colleagues.

    I wrote a few months ago that if Steven Gerrard and Torres stayed fit, then Liverpool could win the league.

    And, as virtually every other football pundit still maintains that United will recover and prevail, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I believe Liverpool will win - IF, and it's a crucial 'if', those two phenomenal players remain injury-free for the rest of the season.


    On a more positive note, I suspect that the decline and fall of the Ferguson empire would not have quite as catastrophic an effect on civilisation as the decline of the Romans had.


    That sounded the death knell - for centuries - for literacy and education, sophisticated architecture and the rule of written law.

    I can't quite see the departure of Mr Rooney, the Theatre of Dreams or United's shocking disciplinary record leaving quite the same vacuum.


    And to all those United fans who will mock me when they read this, let me remind you that on their shirts, your players still have the letters of their sponsors, AIG.


    Which is ironic really, because at the time that deal was struck, AIG were the Roman Empire of global insurance - a supremely successful, seemingly unbeatable entity at the top of their game.


    Today, within just a few months, they have become a disastrous laughing stock, brought to their knees by greed and laziness.

    They were a bunch of Berbatovs - very expensive but averse to due diligence.


    Blips in football are nothing new but to blip at this particular time of the season, in this alarming way, just when your most ferocious rivals hit the form of their lives, may not just be 'squeaky-bum' time for United and Sir Alex.


    It might be Time, period.
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  • #2
    Karl, well thought out and well written. But you are not going to fool me. Until you wake up and come clean about Friedel fouling Torres, I will continue to certify you as a mad man.

    That said, I caution you to write Manu(re) off at your peril. They have hit a bad patch, but they still hold a game in hand and a point on Liverpool. Liverpool needs to win ALL their remaining games AND hope for a United loss and draw or two draws. Very unlikely. I think that two draws is possible...but improbable.

    However, as we say in football...the ball is round...so we will see, but to write off United at this stage would be ill-advised.

    No go back and watch the video of Friedel fouling Torres. I think after about 100 times, you will finally get it.
    "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

    X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
      Karl, well thought out and well written. But you are not going to fool me. Until you wake up and come clean about Friedel fouling Torres, I will continue to certify you as a mad man.

      That said, I caution you to write Manu(re) off at your peril. They have hit a bad patch, but they still hold a game in hand and a point on Liverpool. Liverpool needs to win ALL their remaining games AND hope for a United loss and draw or two draws. Very unlikely. I think that two draws is possible...but improbable.

      However, as we say in football...the ball is round...so we will see, but to write off United at this stage would be ill-advised.

      No go back and watch the video of Friedel fouling Torres. I think after about 100 times, you will finally get it.
      ...no not my article!
      ...but I agree it is a good article!

      Two or more losses my BoyU would not be a surprise. At least 4 of the 9 teams they shall play will be coming at them 'hard'!

      --------------

      Look the Friedel/Torres...would have the ref considering whether or not Friedel had a legitimate right to be positioned where he was when the players came in contact?

      I say Friedel had that right.

      The second question would then have to be a determination if Friedel did something in contravention of the "The Laws"...e.g. stuck out a foot and tripped Torres...or punched Torres or any of the actions that would require an indirect or direct free-kick.

      Soooo...OK! What did Friedel do?
      - Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!

      So where is the foul?

      Do not make ythe mistake of thinking that after two players come into contact and one or both falls there must necessarily be a foul?
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Karl View Post
        Look the Friedel/Torres...would have the ref considering whether or not Friedel had a legitimate right to be positioned where he was when the players came in contact?

        I say Friedel had that right.

        The second question would then have to be a determination if Friedel did something in contravention of the "The Laws"...e.g. stuck out a foot and tripped Torres...or punched Torres or any of the actions that would require an indirect or direct free-kick.

        Soooo...OK! What did Friedel do?
        - Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!

        So where is the foul?

        Do not make the mistake of thinking that after two players come into contact and one or both falls there must necessarily be a foul?
        Karl you are confused as you clearly state the obvious yet deny it anyway.

        Karl Asks: "What did Friedel do?"
        Karl Answers: "Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!"

        CORRECT!!!!!!!!

        But you left off a LIKKLE BIT to make it perfectly clear, the answer more properly would have been:

        "Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!...but in so doing, ended up rolling into the path of the striker thereby blocking the player's path to goal and therefore created the foul"

        YOU DID IT!!!

        Now just to make DOUBLY SURE what we are NOT saying...we are NOT SAYING THAT he "twisted his [motionless] upperbody" because as you know, you can't "twist" and be "motionless" at the same time - right? Now I know some of the granny dem dat you a deal wid at Shady Pines might be able to do that, but not in this case - okay?

        "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

        X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
          Karl you are confused as you clearly state the obvious yet deny it anyway.

          Karl Asks: "What did Friedel do?"
          Karl Answers: "Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!"

          CORRECT!!!!!!!!

          But you left off a LIKKLE BIT to make it perfectly clear, the answer more properly would have been:

          "Twist his upperbody so as not to be hit full-frontal!...but in so doing, ended up rolling into the path of the striker thereby blocking the player's path to goal and therefore created the foul"

          YOU DID IT!!!
          You certainly know how to use your imagination! ...rolled into the path of Torres?


          Now just to make DOUBLY SURE what we are NOT saying...we are NOT SAYING THAT he "twisted his [motionless] upperbody" because as you know, you can't "twist" and be "motionless" at the same time - right? Now I know some of the granny dem dat you a deal wid at Shady Pines might be able to do that, but not in this case - okay?

          Motionless as per his position on the ground? Not that he was not breathing!

          My God, Paul you'll do anything in your attempt to disprove what your pictorial post showed!

          http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...805#post157805

          That's attempting the impossible!
          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

          Comment


          • #6
            wait deh? you thought that....NAH!

            Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

            Comment


            • #7
              and you will say anything...including contradicting yourself. amazing

              Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

              Comment


              • #8
                I was HOPEFUL
                "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

                X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Karl View Post
                  You certainly know how to use your imagination! ...rolled into the path of Torres?
                  Motionless as per his position on the ground? Not that he was not breathing!
                  My God, Paul you'll do anything in your attempt to disprove what your pictorial post showed!

                  That's attempting the impossible!
                  Karl, this is my last attempt (I don't know why I am doing this - I think I am just stunned). Okay, take a look at these last pictures as they address each of your assertions.

                  "rolled into the path of Torres? Motionless as per his position on the ground." Look at PICTURE 2 and PICTURE 3. Do you see the difference? In Picture 2, Friedel is right of Torres' hip (from Torres point of view), in Picture #3, Friedel's *shoulder* is planted in the man's hip and he is half a body width more to his right (Friedel's) than in Picture 2. The keeper is not motionless and is breathing. Do you notice that Torres line has NOT CHANGED in 2 or 3, only Friedel's. His body has shifted COMPLETELY into the striker's path.

                  Note also that in Picture 1, the direction of Torres is different to Picture 2 and 3. That is because he played the ball into the trajectory shown in 2 and 3; Friedel was no longer in lined up with the ball after Torres played his second touch.

                  Now Karl, if you want to prove your point, please use science, not fiction.

                  Lastly: "My God, Paul you'll do anything in your attempt to disprove what your pictorial post showed!" - Really? Karl, look in the mirror my friend.

                  That's it. No more counseling for you . Mi done.

                  friedel-torres-5.jpg
                  "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

                  X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paul Marin View Post
                    Karl, this is my last attempt (I don't know why I am doing this - I think I am just stunned). Okay, take a look at these last pictures as they address each of your assertions.

                    "rolled into the path of Torres? Motionless as per his position on the ground." Look at PICTURE 2 and PICTURE 3. Do you see the difference? In Picture 2, Friedel is right of Torres' hip (from Torres point of view), in Picture #3, Friedel's *shoulder* is planted in the man's hip and he is half a body width more to his right (Friedel's) than in Picture 2. The keeper is not motionless and is breathing. Do you notice that Torres line has NOT CHANGED in 2 or 3, only Friedel's. His body has shifted COMPLETELY into the striker's path.

                    Note also that in Picture 1, the direction of Torres is different to Picture 2 and 3. That is because he played the ball into the trajectory shown in 2 and 3; Friedel was no longer in lined up with the ball after Torres played his second touch.

                    Now Karl, if you want to prove your point, please use science, not fiction.

                    Lastly: "My God, Paul you'll do anything in your attempt to disprove what your pictorial post showed!" - Really? Karl, look in the mirror my friend.

                    That's it. No more counseling for you . Mi done.

                    [ATTACH]98[/ATTACH]
                    I looked...and sure it is clear Torres tried to peel away. ...but that bears out my point that it was Torres who was running into Friedel and who actually ran into Friedel.

                    Cho Paul man, you have said so many times, in so many different ways that Torres ran into Friedel that it is not funny. Would have thought that by now you would have convinced yourself that that being the case Friedel could not have commited a foul?


                    Paul: If Friedel had run into Torres the FA would have agreed with the ref....and with your assertions.

                    ...as Torres was the one who ran into Friedel, respectfully I disagreed with the ref and with your effort at standing behind the ref's decisions...the FA agreed with me -
                    No foul!
                    No sending off!
                    No penalty!
                    Last edited by Karl; March 31, 2009, 02:45 PM.
                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gamma View Post
                      and you will say anything...including contradicting yourself. amazing
                      You know what is considered "material"? Right?

                      OK!
                      Where and how have I contradicted myself?

                      Have I not insisted that there was -
                      No foul!
                      No cause for a sending off of Friedel!
                      No penalty!

                      Have I not taken all - step by step - through my thinking on why that was my take on the incident?

                      The only incident that can be questioned ...more misintrepreted than anything...is my initial statement that Torres pushed to ball too far ahead when he was 22 - 28 yards from goal and that he failed to catch up with it.

                      So he touched the ball nano-seconds...'when under Friedel's arm pits' ...before he crashed into Friedel. So what?

                      If he had even touched it again at the 18th yard from goal it would still be him running into Friedel! ...and thus no foul commited by Friedel!

                      You have to get it through your head that no player can run through another without infringing "The Laws of the Game" unless his or her opponents moves into his or her path...and it matters not if he or she has the ball or does not have the ball.

                      You are not taking into consideration the difference between -

                      Impeding the progress of an opponent and moving into the way of an opponent.


                      ...and...

                      ...somehow you cannot accept that: All players have a right to their position on the field of play.


                      Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

                      All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

                      Impeding the progress of an opponent

                      Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.


                      All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.


                      Well if you keep holding to the thoughts that it was A-OK for Friedel to be run over...and Friedel had no right to his position on the field of play, let's just stop right here!

                      In fact, whether or not Brickie, Paul, yourself or the entire Massive think that 'holding' of those thoughts as correct is the right thing then it suggests we stop right here.
                      Respek, boss!
                      My brakes are drawn!
                      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Karl - give it up. The fact is that Friedel moved into the way of Torres, not the other way around. That is fact...your assertion is fiction. Look again at the difference between Picture 2 and Picture 3. It is there for you to see it, you just want to continue to live in your alternate reality. Notice that Torres is going in a straight line Karl? Notice that Friedel is moving to the right of the picture? It's there. You don't even have to look closely.

                        friedel-torres-5.jpg
                        "H.L & Brick .....mi deh pan di wagon (Man City)" - X_____ http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/showthread.php?p=378365&highlight=City+Liverpool#p ost378365

                        X DESCRIBES HIMSELF - Stop masquerading as if you have the clubs interest at heart, you are a fraud, always was and always will be in any and every thing that you present...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          United will looose or draw gainst Villa & spurs expect the odd result against Lesser teams , you underestimate what liverpool has shown the prem.That Man U is susceptiable to pace and power.
                          THERE IS ONLY ONE ONANDI LOWE!

                          "Good things come out of the garrisons" after his daughter won the 100m Gold For Jamaica.


                          "It therefore is useless and pointless, unless it is for share malice and victimisation to arrest and charge a 92-year-old man for such a simple offence. There is nothing morally wrong with this man smoking a spliff; the only thing wrong is that it is still on the law books," said Chevannes.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X