Especially as there are other alternatives, I don't understand people who fork out what is it 30 quid a month or whatever for matches they mostly dont watch and movies they've seen a thousand times. Footy used to be an event on Sky, but now there's games on 3 times a week most weeks its watered down trash with ever boring over analysis
Never had it and would not watch much sport anyway. It's either fixed, predictable or boring. The film channels are a joke as everything is available free if you know where to look.
I've never had Sky either, never even been tempted, I could not bring myself to buy into the evil empire which has, I would suggest, polluted the essence of every sport it has touched. Made plenty of millionaires mind, but grass roots have to rely on charity and hand outs to survive
I've never had Sky either, never even been tempted, I could not bring myself to buy into the evil empire which has, I would suggest, polluted the essence of every sport it has touched. Made plenty of millionaires mind, but grass roots have to rely on charity and hand outs to survive
I've never had Sky either, never even been tempted, I could not bring myself to buy into the evil empire which has, I would suggest, polluted the essence of every sport it has touched. Made plenty of millionaires mind, but grass roots have to rely on charity and hand outs to survive
yes, my feeling too.
The trouble is that the whole slimy tribe of presenters, bloggers, pundits etc benefit directly or indirectly from the infusion of money into sports. Yet it seems to me self-evident that massive amounts of cash in everything from F1 to football and cricket encourages corruption, diminishes (or at least narrows) compettiton and creates a bar to entry.
I've never had Sky either, never even been tempted, I could not bring myself to buy into the evil empire which has, I would suggest, polluted the essence of every sport it has touched. Made plenty of millionaires mind, but grass roots have to rely on charity and hand outs to survive
yes, my feeling too.
The trouble is that the whole slimy tribe of presenters, bloggers, pundits etc benefit directly or indirectly from the infusion of money into sports. Yet it seems to me self-evident that massive amounts of cash in everything from F1 to football and cricket encourages corruption, diminishes (or at least narrows) compettiton and creates a bar to entry.
My thoughts entirely, you only have to look at our beloved Millers position to see how the 'bar to entry' works. I also feel that the element of sportsmanship and integrity has diminished ending up with a wishy washy international squad. I'm old enough to remember watching the '66 World Cup Final, all those guys played for the love of the game, pride in representing the country and the wages were little more than a decently paid working man. But I will never forget my boyhood hero, the great Jimmy Greaves sitting on the bench,
I've never had Sky either, never even been tempted, I could not bring myself to buy into the evil empire which has, I would suggest, polluted the essence of every sport it has touched. Made plenty of millionaires mind, but grass roots have to rely on charity and hand outs to survive
yes, my feeling too.
The trouble is that the whole slimy tribe of presenters, bloggers, pundits etc benefit directly or indirectly from the infusion of money into sports. Yet it seems to me self-evident that massive amounts of cash in everything from F1 to football and cricket encourages corruption, diminishes (or at least narrows) compettiton and creates a bar to entry.
My thoughts entirely, you only have to look at our beloved Millers position to see how the 'bar to entry' works. I also feel that the element of sportsmanship and integrity has diminished ending up with a wishy washy international squad. I'm old enough to remember watching the '66 World Cup Final, all those guys played for the love of the game, pride in representing the country and the wages were little more than a decently paid working man. But I will never forget my boyhood hero, the great Jimmy Greaves sitting on the bench,
Deuce, I agree with everything and I, too, watched the '66 final and remember my father and elder brother's disbelief at the treatment of Greaves.
For me he was the greatest attacking midfielder ever to have worn an England shirt. The sad thing is they didn't need him, the young pup who took his place did the business
For me he was the greatest attacking midfielder ever to have worn an England shirt. The sad thing is they didn't need him, the young pup who took his place did the business
Greaves was an out and out striker, not an attacking midfielder with an incredible goals for game ratio...
You are right, K. Martin Peters was more the attacking midfielder. Not sure why Deuce said that as he mentions his replacement with an out-and-out striker. I hate to get bogged down in technicalities.
Greaves was an out and out striker, not an attacking midfielder with an incredible goals for game ratio...
You are right, K. Martin Peters was more the attacking midfielder. Not sure why Deuce said that as he mentions his replacement with an out-and-out striker. I hate to get bogged down in technicalities.
Sorry guys, just my take on it, I always viewed a No. 8 (inside right) or 10 (inside left) shirt as attacking midfield, or second strikers/playmakers . I'd put No.7 and 11 in that category too, all in support of the target man, No.9 as main striker, but I wouldn't split hairs and argue with anyone over it, as Greaves was without doubt a striker but from the field position of a No.10 (he also wore the No.8 too) thats just the way I've always viewed it. I do prefer the old style of numbered positions rather than squad numbers.