Originally posted by tommyg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Sensational Youtube Glen Johnson video
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by saj View PostYou can't question his attacking abilities. That's one of the reasons why Portsmouth used him as a winger towards the end of the season. In fact in that clip, he has 5 shots on goal in a match against tottenham (I think) - in that game he was used as a winger. He's not great defensively, but in a team like Liverpool he'll be OK as he'll have enough protection from the likes of Kuyt and Mascher (if he doesn't leave). I can guarentee personally he'll be a success at Liverpool - my track record speaks for itself. I've previously said that Torres would be a flop and Mark Gonzalez would go on to be one of the best wingers in Europe.

When first reading that I thought 'he's a bit sure of himself' then got to the last bit.
Personally i think he'll be a great success for us. We've needed an attacking right full back for some time now. Delighted with our first piece of business.
'Religion is killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend'
Comment
-
Guest
Stig Inge Bjornebye was also very attack minded. Search for him on youtube and watch his compilation videos.Originally posted by Levi View PostObviously everyone looks good on Youtube
but I never realised he was that attack minded. Looks very quick and very strong - has a good left foot too. Though could've done better with some of his efforts on goal 
Needs to sort his hair out. We've enough dodgy 'dos here
Comment
-
Originally posted by Levi View PostWhat's your point?I think he meant it in existential terms, as in, "what's the point of you?" It's a very good question.Originally posted by fredo View PostThat you can show whatever you want in a short youtube clip. You normally will see the flashier side of a player. Nobody cares about tackles and the likes..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fredo View PostBut in existential terms, if there's 'no point in me' why should people bother replying to voids ... vacuums or whatever?.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Guest -
Whooosh.Originally posted by fredo View PostYou still hit that submit reply Doggie. Epic fail again..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Well yeah, I know that - and everyone knows that - fool. That wasn't the point I was making.Originally posted by fredo View PostThat you can show whatever you want in a short youtube clip. You normally will see the flashier side of a player. Nobody cares about tackles and the likes.
I see no need to compare him with Stig Inge Bjornebye when you could've just said 'Everyone looks good on Youtube etc etc etc'.
Comment
-
Guest
Stig Inge was a cult hero, so why not? Fool.Originally posted by Levi View PostWell yeah, I know that - and everyone knows that - fool. That wasn't the point I was making.
I see no need to compare him with Stig Inge Bjornebye when you could've just said 'Everyone looks good on Youtube etc etc etc'.
Comment
-
Why have you started signing your posts? NeilOriginally posted by fredo View PostStig Inge was a cult hero, so why not? Fool.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
Comment