ion

Bright and sunny here in Yemen. Chances of precipitation low.

The 'eeze a c**t" thing I found amusing - first heard it at the Goodison derby, '93? (Mo f*****g Johnson) It coincided with the change in referees' kit to an array of jazzy colours - so no one could sing "who's the b*****d in the black" anymore, the most popular choral work of the day, so they were trying to come up with a new song, and of course that Ebeneeza s**** was doing everyone's heads in... so it seemed appropriate.

It seems to me that the wider point of the piece concerns freedom of speech, as others have mentioned. In that sense MacKenzie is entitled to his views, and equally entitled to the backlash he provokes. The more specific point the writer I think is making questions the policy of the BBC, which would seem to be: "We'll hire the guy until somebody notices/complains", which of course shows that they are willing to employ him but are also aware that he's a c**t. The "Free the Hillsborough One" comment I take as satirical, as the BBC through their policy are perversely making a martyr out of the c**t instead of doing the right thing by not employing him in the first place. If they are aware of his character they should stick by their guns and now get rid of him entirely. So it would appear that the BBC are willing to play ball with the devil for ratings, and will back down a bit when caught out. That's how I read the article, though I think on issues as sensitive as this the writer should make his viewpoint crystal clear. Poor editing, perhaps?

The most important point in the post, I think, is that players are of different value to different clubs. I remember we all squirmed at 17 million for Duff, but if my ever-fading memory serves me right, at the end of that season we failed to get into the Champions Lge by a couple of points. Given that 17 million at the time for Duff would most likely have benefitted the team over the season by at least a couple of points, simply from an accountant's point of view it would have been worth it. The price has to be balanced against what the player can bring to a specific team, and not some perceived hypothetical value based on how many keepy-uppies he can do.

All good points, to be sure, and food for thought to boot. Nice to see a thread at last where contentious issues can be openly discussed, without resorting to insults. Whilst I like the "small bombs" suggestion, I must confess to an inclination to the "shot in the face" method. If only to see how a player goes down when such a thing really happens to him... On a side note - would YNWA's esteemed posters be happy to see the same rules apply to women's football? Most cultures traditionally reserve different, and more often than not, more severe, sentences for the "fairer sex". Or would that be "unfair"?

You see, this is why I so vehemently oppose the death penalty. With the abundance of foreign players in the league, what's to say the referee won't mistake a player's polite and sincere inquiry for a barrage of abuse, due to the welcome person of inferior nationality using perhaps more vigorous gestures than those to which we are accustomed? And while the noble law enforcer is emptying his magazine into the wronged sportsman before him, staining the pristine lawn with his, albeit foreign, blood, the fans in the stands will be passing round Chinese whispers as to what was said, and the polyglot lip-reading experts (deaf Mancunians need not apply) on Sky will be telling the millions at home what was really said. Where's the justice? How will what was done be then undone? Will they allow a replacement susbtitute? Will they later compensate the club to the value of the demised member of playing staff? I doubt it. And it's us fans who will have to suffer, as usual... And what if the St John's have laid out the offender on the changing room floor, and the multi-denominational spiritual representative has administered the final necessities, only to discover that the referee, as so often occurs, has not carried out the sentence efficiently? Is the player allowed back on to the field of play? Is the responsibility for his complete extermination passed on to a less exalted official? Too many variables, as always, with capital punishment. The solution, of course, as with so many of football's current problems, lies in technology. Players wear recording equipment, and if there are claims that they've uttered something unmentionable, the information will be passed on, after the game, to a review committee. If the committee finds the player absolutely guilty, with no shadow of a doubt, then, and only then, can he be shot. So I vigorously disagree with the original, and frankly, irresponsible, poster. Some people are just too gung-ho these days, with little thought for the consequences...

Albino killer... Qu'est-ce que c'est? Marvellous. I go and read that just before I go to bed. Now that song's going to be running through my head all night, and possibly days. With random albino images thrown in...

Every time the issue's brought up the giving conflicting reasons for not using it... undermining the referee, taking the human element out of the game, the refs need more help from the players and clubs etc... Personally, I honest to God believe that it would simply mean a lot of work which the authorities don't want to do.

The beauty of using video evidence after games means that players know they will be caught. After a couple of weeks everyone will have stopped trying to cheat the ref and video evidence during games will have been rendered redundant except for the most minor infractions. Given that the ref will now have a lot less to watch out for, chances are he'll pick most of those up anyway..

Out of interest, and given that they were supposed to have this Keegan-Toshackeque understanding, anybody know how many games they were actually played on the field together and in their favoured positions?

Met Digger and Rushie in a bank, not long after Barnes had made yet another injury comeback and scored a hat-trick at Crewe, I think. My mate went up to him and said: "You're John Barnes, aren't you?" "Yes..." he said, probably expecting the worst. Then all my mate could think of was, "My mum thought that back heel the other day was really good!" "Oh, thanks..." Met Nicky Tanner and Mike Marsh in The Philharmonic about two hours after they played in a drab win against Spurs, the days when there seemed to be 30 offsides a game... My dad said to Tanner, "How'd you enjoy the game today?" and he just looked at him like he was scum of the Earth... And Peter Beardsley, the day after he'd signed from Everton for Newcastle. He was coming out of the newsagent's on Mount Pleasant, loaded with tabloids, chocolates and crisps. I just said "Good luck Peter!", he said "thanks", and then went over and sat on the bus-stop bench opposite. A crowd gathered to watch him stuff his inimitable face and read his rags. We wondered whether he knew he'd signed for the Toon yet and wanted to see his face when he found out...

Sorry about that should have broken it up into paragraphs... but you get the point..

It's just a theory, but it's the way I think Rafa sees things... I think, despite the "take the next game as it comes" philosophy, that he's always looking at the longer term, particularly until he achieves his own squad. He's still weeding out players, and wants to see how they respond, not how well they play when we are 3-0 up at home, that tells us nothing, but how well they respond under real pressure, hence the substitutions of defenders in the final minutes of tight matches. He wants to see who can genuinely handle the pressure and take on what has been learnt in training immediately on the pitch and who can't. We all know he believes it's a squad game now, and so he's interested in finding out who his best squad is, not who his best 11 is. Hence the constant changes in defence when we are one-nil up with only minutes to play. Bear with me, it's just a theory, and I'd like to know how many agree... When we had to make up points to get us to where we are we saw far fewer changes, but now they are returning again. At the moment it would look like fourth would be a certainty at least. I don't know what value Rafa puts on second or fourth, but I suspect that in his long-term vision second is not a priority. Which leads me to two points: he'll still be testing out defenders in the moments of most extreme pressure, so we can expect more substitutions along those lines, in the last few minutes of tense matches, as he can use the points cushion to test these players... secondly the striker situation.. I think he believes that if Morientes can gain some confidence in front of goal it will benefit us more in the long-term, meaning the next couple of years, not necessarily as a first choice striker, but as one who can contribute... bringing us to Cisse... He obviously believes him to be a lost cause as a striker, for a miriad of reasons. It may be that bringing Cisse on last Sunday would have brought us another goal, as many have argued, but I suspect that Rafa is looking at the points difference between us and those below us and using it as a chance to test those who he thinks may have something to contribute in the future. In other words, we may drop, say, ten points, testing out the squad, but it will serve us well next season. And he may be thinking that the dropping of those points can be afforded, and will be rewarded next season when he has a perfect idea of who and who can't serve the club.

Mellor, wasn't it?... Anyway, one for the statos - given that Pongolle and Le Tallec were seemingly bought as a pair with great understanding on the pitch between them, how many games did they actually start together in their favoured positions? Just curious...

4-0 against the Mancs at Andield... Beardsley hat-trick. Other than that, memory's a bit hazy - slick passing move ending up with Beardo passing it into the net from about five yards? Everyone stops for offside, same man goes on to lob Schmeichel(?)... I know the suprstitious among us probably won't want to dwell on this particular game right now, but it seemed an appropriate moment to ask if anyone has more detailed memories of this righteous day... the game is never mentioned very often for some reason...

Funny that, I distinctly remember it being before the beginning of the second half. Flowers had taken a lot of abuse for turning us down in favour of a not unChelseaesque Blackburn, and still in those days (been a few years since I've been able to get to Anfield) all goalkeepers were warmyl welcomed on approaching the Kop, even Schmeichel... so everyone was wondering what was going to happen. It was quite bizarre what he did, in a way extremely big-headed, but he won everyone over with his sheer flambouyance.

Speaking of keepers, anyone remember when Tim Flowers had decided to sign for Blackburn instead of us, and came to Anfield in what must have been one of his last games for Southampton? First half he got loads of jip, and then for the second he came out before the rest of the teams, stood in the center circle, and raised his arms in the air as if he were champion of the world, bringing on applause from all sides... Or was it my imagination?