Football Focus

[Mick Mac]

Well - I have not seen it.

Anyway - there are a lot of idiots watch football - it is often an intimidating atmosphere - don't think anyone will argue with that.

[Narnia]

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I support Man U, Matthew. I also love rugby.

> One

> > doesn't exclude the other. However there tends

> to

> > be more idiots involved in football than rugby

> > IMO.

>

> I think just as many idiots follow Rugby it's just

> footy is more intense and perhaps brings rowdy

> behaviour quicker to the fore.

Matthew, how the hell is footie more intense than rugby on the pitch, which is where you presumably are talking about. Off the pitch footie is more intense due to the fans being intimidating. But on it you would just have to have looked at any of the matches this week-end to see that the nancy boy footballers wouldn't last 5 minutes in rugby because if they fell over their bootlaces looking for attention the game would just continue whilst an A&E site was built up around them on the pitch. They would soon realise it's a game and not a pantomine.

[kpc]

Declan Wrote:

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

>

> They would soon realise it's a game and not a

> pantomine.

Think 'bloodgate' qualifies as pantomime myself.

[Narnia]

kpc Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm not aware that there has ever been

> > violence between rugby fans - compared to the

> > history of violence between football fans -

> surely

> > that says it all.

>

> I was part of a group of Moseley fans attacked by

> Leicester fans at the Cup Final at Twickenham as

> far back as 1979!! And from talking to colleagues

> who go to games regularly, it does seem to be

> creeping into fan behaviour as the game tries to

> attract a wider audience.

I find this difficult to believe but if it happened it happened. I doubt they were 'Leicester' fans though. I watched several games over the week-end. Last night for example in a poor but intense match with a lot at stake, once again the home fans showed what they were worth by keeping quiet when the opposition were taking kicks at goal.Stuart Barnes peed me off at one point by implying that the Munster fans were hissing before a kick when it was obvious to me as a TV viewer that they were hushing the one or two fools who were making noise.

[Narnia]

kpc Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > They would soon realise it's a game and not a

> > pantomine.

>

> Think 'bloodgate' qualifies as pantomime myself.

Got to agree with you there.........a very badly acted one though!

[kpc]

Wonder if sales at the Clapham joke shop increased?

More seriously it seems that some players deliberately set out to injure opponents (gouging, raking, dangerous tackles) and see the risk of a lengthy ban as an occupational hazard (OK, there have been occasional documented cases in football) - I just can't understand this.

[Bluerevolution]

Rugby the violence is ON the pitch, football it's not. Lived in Leicester for many years and followed the Tigers all over the place- there were a lot that weren't nice to be around

[Narnia]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> Rugby the violence is ON the pitch, football it's

> not. Lived in Leicester for many years and

> followed the Tigers all over the place- there were

> a lot that weren't nice to be around

Do you mean Dean Richards? Seriously though are you comparing it to being around football fans?

[kpc]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> Rugby the violence is ON the pitch

As The Specials said, it doesn't make it alright.....

[Bluerevolution]

Dean Richards was a police officer and a Rugby player, of course he was not nice to around !

[mockney piers]

Funny you should say that MM. I've had several texts suggesting that foisting my team on poor Rory is child cruelty. And they kind of have a point, but ultimately supporting a team like the hammers is good for the soul I reckon.

[Roll Deep]

Wont help his confidence though. Always so close, yet so far.

[mockney piers]

And sadlyv there won't be much euphemising for a little while meponders.

[mockney piers]

True enough mr deep, but we can always dream, and it's the act of dreaming that matters, not tin trophies. It's rarity that lends value remember.

[Roll Deep]

Season ticket holder, by any chance?

[mockney piers]

No, just deluded fool :)

[matthew123]

Declan, what I meant by intense was it only takes a second to score goal et al whereas with rugger it is almost like a coach party of geriatrics making their way up and down the pitch. Sure there maybe the odd interception try but by and large the emotions do not go up and down like a yo-yo watching rugby (i.e. the best team in rugby are more likely to win than the best team in football).

What I find sour about Rugby is that many of it's followers will not accept it is a dirty sport. Surely bloodgate, spear tackles, eye gouging has nothing to do with sport and yet it's defended by having a go at footy as if they invented these underhand tactics.

[Jah Lush]

Our you indulging in some afters? This is the football thread isn't it? Get to the Rugby v Football thread if you want to argue about the pros and cons of the two sports. Sin bin for Declan and a red card for you Matthew.

[Mick Mac]

Yeah - Ger off my land!!!!....eh I mean thread.

Jah (its my thread you know) Lush. :))

[ratty]

5th Round!

[Jah Lush]

Quite so Mac. I'm orf to get my gun. Damned rugger buggers will rue the day.

[????]

I'm with Jah. Get thee away egg chasers

[Narnia]

Not fair Sir.....I didn't start it!

PS Nor did I mean to send this comment by PM, apologies

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Our you indulging in some afters? This is the

> football thread isn't it? Get to the Rugby v

> Football thread if you want to argue about the

> pros and cons of the two sports. Sin bin for

> Declan and a red card for you Matthew.

[Narnia]

I'm waiting for you on the other thread. Jah's likely to have a hangover and not be in the best mood this morning so I don't want to be caught talking rugby on his footie thread.

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Declan, what I meant by intense was it only takes

> a second to score goal et al whereas with rugger

> it is almost like a coach party of geriatrics

> making their way up and down the pitch. Sure there

> maybe the odd interception try but by and large

> the emotions do not go up and down like a yo-yo

> watching rugby (i.e. the best team in rugby are

> more likely to win than the best team in

> football).

>

> What I find sour about Rugby is that many of it's

> followers will not accept it is a dirty sport.

> Surely bloodgate, spear tackles, eye gouging has

> nothing to do with sport and yet it's defended by

> having a go at footy as if they invented these

> underhand tactics.

[????]

Rod Liddle (again) but this time on West Ham (C&P)

West Ham fans should brace themselves for sexy football

Rod Liddle

THANK YOU, Santa. On Christmas Eve I hunkered down beside my bed and asked Father Christmas, please, could he fix it to ensure that West Ham United were bought out by a consortium consisting entirely of bankrupts, lunatics and half-wits. ?And if you can?t manage that, Santa, then how about Sullivan, Gold and Brady?? You see, the power of prayer should not be underestimated; it worked a couple of years back too, when they signed Kieron Dyer for about a billion quid.

I have to say, it did not occur to me to request that upon arriving, the fragrant Karren Brady would suggest renaming them ?West Ham Olympic?, or that David Sullivan would promise fans a Champions League place ?within seven years?. If the club are to be renamed, I think they need to reference both the Olympic Games and maybe one or two of the products you can buy through Mr Sullivan?s porno empire: how about West Ham Olympic Bedroom Frenzy? Do you think Bobby Moore and Ron Greenwood would approve?

But Schadenfreude is a sad state of mind, and the truth is that although, as a Millwall supporter, I have a moral and constitutional requirement to loathe West Ham (we still kid ourselves that we are their bitterest rivals, in much the same way that Liechtenstein thinks of Germany), I find it hard to do. A medium-sized club, they are less afflicted by delusions of grandeur than their London Premier League rivals, and their intensely loyal fan base is still drawn from the local area and not too far beyond. They may bang on about having won the World Cup for England single-handed and all that risible guff about the Academy of Football ? a boast that always sat uneasily, I thought, with the deployment of Julian Dicks ? but you cannot accuse them of being arriviste, or that carelessly deployed insult: plastic. Football clubs are resilient financially, and the most resilient are those with a strong fan base and a connectivity to the area from which they originate.

But I cannot believe that their supporters are entirely behind the takeover, and still less the flatulent grandstanding that has accompanied it. Sullivan has pledged, ? la Teddy Sheringham, that he is a lifelong supporter of the Hammers. I could check the cuttings and see if he said the same thing to the previous clubs with which he wished to become involved, or actually owned ? Birmingham City, Cardiff City, Watford, Bradford City, Leeds United, Tottenham Hotspur ? but it would be pointless. We know from his previous statements that he was sick of having to travel all the way from his tasteful Essex porno bolthole to the Midlands to watch the team that he co-owned, and that West Ham therefore suit his location, although Southend and Colchester will be heaving a sigh of relief. We know, too, from innumerable articles ? and indeed from his own website ? that David Gold was brought up in Dickensian (Charles, not Julian) poverty in the old East End of London, Gawd luv ?im, and dragged ?imself clear of the workhouse by the simple expedient of providing 90% polyester split-crotch panties and Rampant Rabbits via the Ann Summers chain to a legion of grateful women. And, you would guess, men.

It is difficult to argue that Sullivan and Gold are less suited to the fan base of West Ham than those weird-looking, terribly over-extended Icelandic people who can now not even afford to buy a packet of deep-frozen cod in prawn sauce for their suppers.

And you would have to concede that the new owners have not done a bad job with Birmingham City, a club with many similarities to West Ham, both being blue-collar sides residing in the shadow of more gilded neighbours who think terribly highly of themselves. Both clubs also shimmy between the top two divisions and try to convince themselves that they could do rather better than that.

And I suppose you might argue that a questionable dress sense and the recent sporting of a ponytail, plus a fortune that (as Crystal Palace chairman Simon Jordan put it) is ?half a billion pounds of masturbation money? are small crimes against the sort of people whom the Football Association consider fit and proper to run our clubs. Shady Middle-Eastern consortiums, blank-faced Russian oligarchs who own yachts with submarines attached, a Thai politician who is wanted in his own country on criminal charges, the cheat Flavio Briatore, and Ridsdale and Bates et al. Rather Sullivan and Gold than any of them.

Apparently, West Ham tried to buy Ruud van Nistelrooy, because Sullivan, with incredible perspicacity, has identified the need for a new striker. Good luck, you Hammers, and good luck, too, to Gianfranco Zola, a decent man. His job is safe for the moment, apparently, but you would not bet that it will remain so.