Monday, November 06, 2006
i'm starting to think if the sports analysts are getting easy money.
They're getting so predictable and some even write rubbish.
This particular line frm 'The New Paper' read, "Who needs David Beckham when you have Lennon?"
This guy obviously knows nuts and is just trying to show off his lack of knowledge by just 'going with the flow'.
I bet whn the day Lennon playes badly for England, this writer will be the first to say 'Bring Beckham back. England needs him for his superb crossing. He provides something different for England blah blah blah.."
If the opposing team keeps 10 players behind the ball against England, will Lennon still be effective?
this guy thn again shows off his stupidity whn he says 'It was Lennon who taught Keane a thing or two about the art of finishing'. Then shouldnt it be "who needs Rooney whn you have Lennon" instead. DOH. He's thinks wingers are strikers. nice one.
came across another article. The headline read "27 shots, 0 goals". It was about Arsenal.
Im sure the football analysts this week will go "Arsenal is guilty or trying to find the perfect goal". i've heard that a thousand times. but that isnt the point. Few weeks back, Arsenal were chalking up wins like nobody's business and i remember them saying "Thsi is Arsenal at its best. This is how football should be played. Simply beautiful." DOHHHHHH.
and Liverpool rotated again didnt they? Why isnt anyone talking bout his rotation policy anymore. Oh, i've forgotten, they're just waiting for the day whn Liverpool loses 1 after say....5 straight wins. then go,"I dont understand why he's still insisting on rotation." :s. For sure.
Man.
and you start to get worried whn journalists start writing things like, "thrown by a
stupid fan in the first half." Wow. Amazing.
HAHAHA. ok bye.
luck = birds
4:43 PM
------
