Given the concern there rightly is about mental health problems in the young I am not as sanguine as you about legalising a substance where there is credible evidence linking it to very serious - and lifelong - mental illnesses when it is consumed by the young.
Saying that the government should not police what we do with our own bodies is a slogan. Not an argument. We strongly discourage smoking because of its long term harm. Why then introduce another substance which causes just as much harm?
The drug laws are a mess and inconsistent. A proper study is needed. But the effect of drugs on the young brain are pretty harmful - not just some youth being a bit spaced out at a party. And that harm needs to be taken pretty seriously, not dismissed or minimised just because decriminalisation is now the coming fashionable option.
"Strongly discourage" is quite different from outright ban, and stronger still from "will lock you up if you are caught with a pouch of it on you".
Far from being a slogan, the right to self-soverignty is a moral imperative. If you don't believe in it, you don't believe in individual rights -- your freedom of action is merely the largesse of the state. People make bad choices all the time. We don't lock them up for it.
Drugs are bad and most people realise that as they get older. Being free to make your own choices, even your own mistakes, is a vital part of being an adult. If we locked up everyone who makes dumb life choices, we'd have to build a lot more prisons.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
We try to rationalise it with arguments about reducing harm or reducing crime, the medicinal benefits or the old "prohibition doesn't work" line when what it all comes down to is one simple thing: my body, my choice.
If tomorrow I decided to commit suicide, take heroin, etc, so be it. It's when I decide to off myself by driving my car in front of a train, or snatch an old lady's purse to buy heroin that it becomes society's problem. It should never be the government's role to police what we can and can't do with our own bodies.
Given the concern there rightly is about mental health problems in the young I am not as sanguine as you about legalising a substance where there is credible evidence linking it to very serious - and lifelong - mental illnesses when it is consumed by the young.
Saying that the government should not police what we do with our own bodies is a slogan. Not an argument. We strongly discourage smoking because of its long term harm. Why then introduce another substance which causes just as much harm? ...
Because it’s already out there ?
The current criminal regime does little to limit the supply of cannabis - it just creates a lot of criminals.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
I can never get my head around how a professional team can't be good at free kick. The ball isn't moving, it is surely just a matter of practice, practice, practice.
In comparison, golfers are amazing from 50 yards, crickets are brilliant at throwing down the stumps for run-outs, rugby place kickers these days rarely miss from anywhere etc etc etc, because they are repeatable tasks that you can improve by just hours and hours of practice.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
No. As my post made clear.
Did it? I thought you were saying we shouldn't double up on the mistake of making alcohol legal? So why -do- you think one should be legal and not the other?
One already is. And I can see no good reason for criminalising it.
The other isn’t. So the question is: should it be? No easy answer here. I am not prima facie in favour of making it easier for young adults to get hold of something which can cause them serious health problems.
They would have been slaughtered if it had been a draw. Undeservedly so. A good first half, dug in for the second, never stopped trying. The worry for me is the defence. Walker is not a centre half.
They would have been slaughtered if it had been a draw. Undeservedly so. A good first half, dug in for the second, never stopped trying. The worry for me is the defence. Walker is not a centre half.
I think we all know that the defence is an issue and against a world class team they are going to score at least once during the game. Stones, Walker and Maguire don't / wouldn't get in any of the top premier league teams at centre back.
And we aren't Brazil, who one expects to score with ease. England scoring more than once against good defences is always going to be a struggle as we don't have that special creative midfielder in the middle of the park.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
I can never get my head around how a professional team can't be good at free kick. The ball isn't moving, it is surely just a matter of practice, practice, practice.
In comparison, golfers are amazing from 50 yards, crickets are brilliant at throwing down the stumps for run-outs, rugby place kickers these days rarely miss from anywhere etc etc etc, because they are repeatable tasks that you can improve by just hours and hours of practice.
Amazes me for corners even more. At least free-kicks are taken from different places. The number of corners which don't beat first man or goes to the goalie is frankly astonishing.
The equivalent would be the kick-off in both codes of rugby. You almost never see it go straight out, or not go 10m.
They would have been slaughtered if it had been a draw. Undeservedly so. A good first half, dug in for the second, never stopped trying. The worry for me is the defence. Walker is not a centre half.
Pretty play doesn't amount to a good first half.
Scoring goals when you create chances does.
England wasted a lot of chances in the first half.
You don't get marks for either technical merit or artistic performance in football.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
I can never get my head around how a professional team can't be good at free kick. The ball isn't moving, it is surely just a matter of practice, practice, practice.
In comparison, golfers are amazing from 50 yards, crickets are brilliant at throwing down the stumps for run-outs, rugby place kickers these days rarely miss from anywhere etc etc etc, because they are repeatable tasks that you can improve by just hours and hours of practice.
Amazes me for corners even more. At least free-kicks are taken from different places. The number of corners which don't beat first man or goes to the goalie is frankly astonishing.
The equivalent would be the kick-off in both codes of rugby. You almost never she it go straight out, or not go 10m.
Well quite. We were talking last night about how amazing pro golfers are at pitch shots. Anything less than 50 yards they expect 9 times out of 10 to put it stone dead on a flat green. How a footballer can't deliver a corner to a precise location in the box is beyond me.
Beckham made a career out of this stuff, and it was clearly hours and hours of practice.
Also, these days they play with identical ball throughout a season / tournament, and I am guessing they are all inflated to exact pressures.
Given the concern there rightly is about mental health problems in the young I am not as sanguine as you about legalising a substance where there is credible evidence linking it to very serious - and lifelong - mental illnesses when it is consumed by the young.
Saying that the government should not police what we do with our own bodies is a slogan. Not an argument. We strongly discourage smoking because of its long term harm. Why then introduce another substance which causes just as much harm?
The drug laws are a mess and inconsistent. A proper study is needed. But the effect of drugs on the young brain are pretty harmful - not just some youth being a bit spaced out at a party. And that harm needs to be taken pretty seriously, not dismissed or minimised just because decriminalisation is now the coming fashionable option.
"Strongly discourage" is quite different from outright ban, and stronger still from "will lock you up if you are caught with a pouch of it on you".
Far from being a slogan, the right to self-soverignty is a moral imperative. If you don't believe in it, you don't believe in individual rights -- your freedom of action is merely the largesse of the state. People make bad choices all the time. We don't lock them up for it.
Drugs are bad and most people realise that as they get older. Being free to make your own choices, even your own mistakes, is a vital part of being an adult. If we locked up everyone who makes dumb life choices, we'd have to build a lot more prisons.
The right to self sovereignty is a moral imperative. For adults. For children we rightly take a different view. We aim to protect them from harm.
If there is good evidence that cannabis causes irreparable harm - of a particularly long-term and debilitating kind (and one moreover which causes considerable harm to the young person’s family) - we should be thinking very hard indeed about whether it is wise to decriminalise such a substance and thereby give the impression that it is ok to take it.
Quite a lot of thought is needed. I don’t pretend to know what the answer is. But it’s a bit more complicated than “Oh look, cannabis oil helped one small boy so cannabis should be made legal and anyway you can’t stop it.”
There are lots of things we can’t stop. If that were a relevant test, there would be no crimes at all on the statute book.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
Believe Ronaldo's was his 45th free kick shot at goal in major tournaments. First goal. He's particularly good at them, so your % age probably ain't far off.
Why would I want to watch the matches in VR? Did tv companies not learn from the flawed 3D tv idea...People don't want to sit in their living room with a pair of wank goggles on to watch live sport.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
Believe Ronaldo's was his 45th free kick shot at goal in major tournaments. First goal. He's particularly good at them, so your % age probably ain't far off.
Nah, Eriksen has a pretty good conversion rate. 12% last season for Spurs I think, so one in 8. Ronaldo isn't that good at free kicks, but the ones he scores look spectacular.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
Rashford and Rose are no brainers for me. Sterling just never gives me confidence he will score if he gets a chance, where as Rashford looks like ice runs through his veins.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
No. As my post made clear.
Did it? I thought you were saying we shouldn't double up on the mistake of making alcohol legal? So why -do- you think one should be legal and not the other?
One already is. And I can see no good reason for criminalising it.
The other isn’t. So the question is: should it be? No easy answer here. I am not prima facie in favour of making it easier for young adults to get hold of something which can cause them serious health problems.
Isn't the reason for criminalising it the same as the reason for criminalising cannabis? That it potentially harms young people?
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
Believe Ronaldo's was his 45th free kick shot at goal in major tournaments. First goal. He's particularly good at them, so your % age probably ain't far off.
Nah, Eriksen has a pretty good conversion rate. 12% last season for Spurs I think, so one in 8. Ronaldo isn't that good at free kicks, but the ones he scores look spectacular.
Suppose on PB I should challenge your sample size, etc. . But fair enough.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Yeah, best in class is about 15% conversion, I seem to remember. Not minimal at all.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
Rashford and Rose are no brainers for me. Sterling just never gives me confidence he will score if he gets a chance, where as Rashford looks like ice runs through his veins.
Spot on. See my preferred team yesterday. But England were class tonight. Entertaining and enterprising. We go again on Sunday.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
It's very difficult to play your natural game, David, when the referee is crooked. Professional players would have known this one was pretty early on, as would those of us who have ever officiated at a decent level. I thought England played well in the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how they do against better opposition and on a level playing field, if they are allowed one.
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
There. Is. No. Brexit. Dividend.
Of course there will be. Explain how between 2025 and 2030 we will still be paying into the EU as now
I said ‘Is’. Not ‘will be’ or more truthfully ‘might be’.
Explain how we will have this bespoke, close, full relationship with the EU for free. While paying the farmers. While building our own version of Galileo. While sending our kids on Erasmus trips. While setting up and running a complex customs partnership scheme.
You really are the most gullible of people. Quite charming in its way.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Yeah, best in class is about 15% conversion, I seem to remember. Not minimal at all.
Yeah Beckham was 1 in 5 some seasons. Absolutely amazing.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
There is compelling evidence that tobacco is lethal, that alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs put together, it is absurd to look for rationality in our laws on this. If making cannabis illegal was working I would support it. It isn't. If making heroin illegal was saving lives I would support it. It isn't . Our current policies may make some of us feel better about ourselves but it is causing carnage as well as huge criminality.
Of course I would support controls on the sale of cannabis to those still in their teens. Do you think that Boots or even Tesco would do better at that than your local drug dealer? Damn right they would. We need to get real about this. Too many kids are dying.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
It's very difficult to play your natural game, David, when the referee is crooked. Professional players would have known this one was pretty early on, as would those of us who have ever officiated at a decent level. I thought England played well in the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how they do against better opposition and on a level playing field, if they are allowed one.
That ref was shocking. And FIFA in their wisdom doesn't think that an EPL refs should be selected. The only English ref is a part-timer who has only ever ref'ed in the "elite" New Zealand league...you know that league that has all the top players and watched by billions around the world and where there are more sheep spectating than humans.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Aside from the fact that he isn't in the England squad he seems to have scored the grand total of six goals from freekicks in 171 appearances for Spurs:
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Aside from the fact that he isn't in the England squad he seems to have scored the grand total of six goals from freekicks in 171 appearances for Spurs:
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Yeahbut... unfortunately Eriksen is not English.
Indeed. I think Kane would do a better job than Young though. Dier as well. Not sure if Henderson would be able to.
Can't find a Dimbleby replacement market yet .I fancy the beeb will think a woman would be the sexy to do.I guess the person in mind is on the radio and telly a lot and is not Isabel Oakeshott ,and possibly writes for The Economist so there'll be no worries from MI5.
Just back from my friend's house. I think the question is who was supposed to be wrestling Kane to the ground at that corner. He really should have had at least 2 penalties. But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
It's very difficult to play your natural game, David, when the referee is crooked. Professional players would have known this one was pretty early on, as would those of us who have ever officiated at a decent level. I thought England played well in the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how they do against better opposition and on a level playing field, if they are allowed one.
That ref was shocking. And FIFA in their wisdom doesn't think that an EPL refs should be selected. The only English ref is a part-timer who has only ever ref'ed in the "elite" New Zealand league...you know that league that has all the top players and watched by billions around the world and where there are more sheep spectating than humans.
In fairness I would say that the quality of refereeing has been pretty high in this WC. In particular a lot of theatrical diving has just been ignored, way more than disrupts the play in the EPL.
The ref tonight had a really poor game. He was not helped by his VAR squad either. But I don't think I saw evidence he was actually crooked.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Yeahbut... unfortunately Eriksen is not English.
Indeed. I think Kane would do a better job than Young though. Dier as well. Not sure if Henderson would be able to.
Kane would do a better job than Young but at the cost of him not being in the penalty area.
Dier would be a better option (IIRC he scored from a freekick in Euro 2016) but he doesn't seem likely to be in the starting team.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Aside from the fact that he isn't in the England squad he seems to have scored the grand total of six goals from freekicks in 171 appearances for Spurs:
Not all of those are shots on goal, Eriksen takes the indirect ones as well.
How many direct freekicks outside the box are there on average in top-flight games? I'd say 2 or 3 per side... on which basis I'm struggling to see how Erkisen scores 1 in 8. Must have taken 200+ direct free kicks in 171 apearances for Spurs. For 6 goals. And we all agree he's very good.
Nope - managers should make their teams work on other moves for direct free kicks. Short pass just to one side of the wall with a striker running onto it must be very hard to defend.
48 years ago tonight the polls were about to close in the 1970 General Election. Quite a few commentators subsequently suggested that Ted Heath's shock defeat of Harold Wilson in defiance of the polls owed a lot to England's departure from the World Cup four days earlier after losing to West Germany in the Quarter Finals!
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Aside from the fact that he isn't in the England squad he seems to have scored the grand total of six goals from freekicks in 171 appearances for Spurs:
Not all of those are shots on goal, Eriksen takes the indirect ones as well.
How many direct freekicks outside the box are there on average in top-flight games? I'd say 2 or 3 per side... on which basis I'm struggling to see how Erkisen scores 1 in 8. Must have taken 200+ direct free kicks in 171 apearances for Spurs. For 6 goals. And we all agree he's very good.
Nope - managers should make their teams work on other moves for direct free kicks. Short pass just to one side of the wall with a striker running onto it must be very hard to defend.
Indeed.
When you have 5/6 in the wall it means there has to be space somewhere else.
And if you try something different it will force the defense to reduce the wall at subsequent freekicks thus making it easier for a direct shot on goal.
The predictability of the same old shots on goal make it easier for your opponents.
To add to the responses below, very poor refereeing tonight - we had two stonewall pens not given while Tunisia’s was very soft. Regarding free kicks, @anotherrichard is right. Young should not be taking them. Rashford if he is on the field, or Dier, if we insist on going direct. But actually, we should be more imaginative - better to float a few in rather than having a dip every time.
Without Googling it, I assume you know the origin of the word soccer?
Ha, I didn't until I Googled it. Aposite!
So, annoyingly, the Americans are right to say soccer. The word football belongs to none of the sports that claim to be it.
I was thinking more of this.
'THE WORD "soccer" is simply a diminutive of association, as in As-soc-iation Football, with "er" added. It was, apparently, all the rage among public schoolboys in the mid to late nineteenth century to bung "er" on the end of a butchered word. '
I didn't realise that it was posh boys who came up with this and, presumably, rugger.
C.f. “rugger” (for rugby), “Twickers” (Twickenham), “Singers” (Singapore), the naval game of “uckers“. In fact quite a lot of naval slang does the -er or -ers thing: icers [cold, superlative "harry icers"], redders [hot], roughers, shippers, four [or nine] O’clockers, sippers, gulpers, homeward bounders, limers, snorkers.
The posho slang for waste paper basket used to be Wagger Pagger Bagger. I jest not.
Really? I always thought that was a euphemism for the 38th position!
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
Just been in a London pub throwing beer in the air. Shame on you.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
Blimey Sean, if England failing was likely to lead to Brexit collapse and 2nd referendum, you might just as well give up now - cos it's only a week or so away (sadly).
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
So you'd support making alcohol illegal?
No. As my post made clear.
Did it? I thought you were saying we shouldn't double up on the mistake of making alcohol legal? So why -do- you think one should be legal and not the other?
One already is. And I can see no good reason for criminalising it.
The other isn’t. So the question is: should it be? No easy answer here. I am not prima facie in favour of making it easier for young adults to get hold of something which can cause them serious health problems.
Isn't the reason for criminalising it the same as the reason for criminalising cannabis? That it potentially harms young people?
It’s been tried and failed.
With cannabis and other drugs we are starting from a different position. I do not know what the answer is. I note though that as a society we are doing everything we can to discourage the smoking of tobacco. So I merely ask whether it is sensible to do something which may, inadvertently, encourage the smoking of an equally noxious substance.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
I think that's a bit unfair - they are just hoping the English economy tanks to prove them right over Brexit not the England football team. Although the St George flag is seen as a bit racist in liberal remoaner north London circles. Was the MP for Islington south watching tonight?
Still the drama all starts again next Sunday lunchtime - just after the Sunday politics show finishes. Let's hope they won't be Grieveing by 3pm.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
Just been in a London pub throwing beer in the air. Shame on you.
Ignore them (Casino Royale +1 his post), it’s not worth it. Only this site could make the game about Brexit, as if this site doesn’t half talk about it enough.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
Absolutely agree about free-kicks - I wish more teams would try a short pass either side or dinked over the wall I'd love to see the stat on the % of free-kicks from just outside the area that go in. I bet it's only 1 or 2 %.
If you don't have a DFK taker then yes, bit England have Kane who is pretty good. Not as good as Gerrard, Lamps or Becks but definitely better than Young. Dier is pretty handy as well.
If Kane is taking free kicks he'll not be in the penalty area and that's where he belongs.
For direct free kicks it's not such a big deal being in the box. For indirect then, yes, let Henderson or Young take them.
I disagree.
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
It's not minimal, Eriksen scores one in eight for Spurs.
Aside from the fact that he isn't in the England squad he seems to have scored the grand total of six goals from freekicks in 171 appearances for Spurs:
Not all of those are shots on goal, Eriksen takes the indirect ones as well.
snip
Nope - managers should make their teams work on other moves for direct free kicks. Short pass just to one side of the wall with a striker running onto it must be very hard to defend.
Indeed.
When you have 5/6 in the wall it means there has to be space somewhere else.
And if you try something different it will force the defense to reduce the wall at subsequent freekicks thus making it easier for a direct shot on goal.
The predictability of the same old shots on goal make it easier for your opponents.
Exactly right. The conversion rate on free kicks from 18-25 yards in what might be termed first class football is woeful. More imaginative plays might bear more fruit.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
As I said before, ignore him. Some on this site have been calling Remainers ‘traitors’ now for sometime so this is unsurprising in some respects. I guess behaviour such as what we’ve seen tonight provides yet explanation as why so many of my generation don’t have a good image of the Conservative Party.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
I think that's a bit unfair - they are just hoping the English economy tanks to prove them right over Brexit not the England football team. Although the St George flag is seen as a bit racist in liberal remoaner north London circles. Was the MP for Islington south watching tonight?
Still the drama all starts again next Sunday lunchtime - just after the Sunday politics show finishes. Let's hope they won't be Grieveing by 3pm.
No. I'm quite serious. I think a large majority of Remoaners - most on here, for instance - are actual traitors, who are secretly hoping their country is humiliated in any way possible - economic, sporting, whatever - so that we, the voters, will meekly reverse our democratic decision in a seizure of low self esteem, and they get us to Remain.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
Really David: that is just too trite. There is evidence that cannabis seriously harms the brains of developing adolescents and can be linked to mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.
One sick boy apparently benefiting from cannabis oil proves nothing and is certainly no basis for decriminalisation.
By all means study whether cannabis may have some medicinal use and, if proven, use it. But permitting a potentially very harmful substance to be sold to the young without controls is a bloody daft idea. And, yes, I know we do it with alcohol. But just because we do does not mean that we should double up. After all, heroin and cocaine were (may well still be) used for pain relief (the Brompton cocktail) but that doesn’t mean we should decriminalise those.
There is compelling evidence that tobacco is lethal, that alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs put together, it is absurd to look for rationality in our laws on this. If making cannabis illegal was working I would support it. It isn't. If making heroin illegal was saving lives I would support it. It isn't . Our current policies may make some of us feel better about ourselves but it is causing carnage as well as huge criminality.
Of course I would support controls on the sale of cannabis to those still in their teens. Do you think that Boots or even Tesco would do better at that than your local drug dealer? Damn right they would. We need to get real about this. Too many kids are dying.
As I understand it the consequences of taking strong cannabis affect those in their late teens and early twenties. The sorts of mental health issues affecting the young affect them in the years to ca. 23/24. The 18 year old dividing line is a fiction which does not correspond to underlying reality. This should not be ignored when making policy in this most sensitive of areas.
And if harmless cannabis is sold by Boots, do you think drug dealers are going to stop selling the stronger stuff? We do need to get real about this.
Our current laws may not work. That doesn’t mean that decriminalisation is the answer and won’t have different - but equally harmful - consequences. There may well be no good answers to these problems.
The “oh let’s decriminalise because what we have doesn’t work” brigade are being a bit too pat and superficial in their analysis and prescriptions. Always easy to criticise what we have. A damn sight more difficult to come up with something better. And change is not always - or even necessarily - for the better.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
Just been in a London pub throwing beer in the air. Shame on you.
So you're not just a traitor, you're a lying traitor. You secretly wanted us to lose and pretended to be a fan. Well done.
Comments
Far from being a slogan, the right to self-soverignty is a moral imperative. If you don't believe in it, you don't believe in individual rights -- your freedom of action is merely the largesse of the state. People make bad choices all the time. We don't lock them up for it.
Drugs are bad and most people realise that as they get older. Being free to make your own choices, even your own mistakes, is a vital part of being an adult. If we locked up everyone who makes dumb life choices, we'd have to build a lot more prisons.
The current criminal regime does little to limit the supply of cannabis - it just creates a lot of criminals.
"Four people have been injured in a shooting in the Swedish city of Malmo.
The motive for the shooting is unknown, police said, and there is no indication it was terror-related."
https://news.sky.com/story/four-people-wounded-in-malmo-shooting-11409127
Rashford and Loftus-Cheek were far more threatening.
Two points better than Brazil.
Three points better than Germany.
Can't ask for more than that.
Tunisia were a very negative and poor team.
When you're well on top as England were in the first half you need to get at least TWO goals ahead.
England's corners are good and their free kicks crap - if you haven't got anyone who's good at long range shots then try something else.
In comparison, golfers are amazing from 50 yards, crickets are brilliant at throwing down the stumps for run-outs, rugby place kickers these days rarely miss from anywhere etc etc etc, because they are repeatable tasks that you can improve by just hours and hours of practice.
The other isn’t. So the question is: should it be? No easy answer here. I am not prima facie in favour of making it easier for young adults to get hold of something which can cause them serious health problems.
And we aren't Brazil, who one expects to score with ease. England scoring more than once against good defences is always going to be a struggle as we don't have that special creative midfielder in the middle of the park.
The equivalent would be the kick-off in both codes of rugby. You almost never see it go straight out, or not go 10m.
Scoring goals when you create chances does.
England wasted a lot of chances in the first half.
You don't get marks for either technical merit or artistic performance in football.
Beckham made a career out of this stuff, and it was clearly hours and hours of practice.
Also, these days they play with identical ball throughout a season / tournament, and I am guessing they are all inflated to exact pressures.
If there is good evidence that cannabis causes irreparable harm - of a particularly long-term and debilitating kind (and one moreover which causes considerable harm to the young person’s family) - we should be thinking very hard indeed about whether it is wise to decriminalise such a substance and thereby give the impression that it is ok to take it.
Quite a lot of thought is needed. I don’t pretend to know what the answer is. But it’s a bit more complicated than “Oh look, cannabis oil helped one small boy so cannabis should be made legal and anyway you can’t stop it.”
There are lots of things we can’t stop. If that were a relevant test, there would be no crimes at all on the statute book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdSgyZCbly8
He's particularly good at them, so your % age probably ain't far off.
England 1
Germany 0
But England should have won more easily than that. Tunisia were rubbish. How many times were not 1 but 2 England players left unmarked in the 6 yard box? Saudi apart, easily the worst team I have seen at this WC.
For me, next time out, the starting line up should have Loftus-Cheek for Henderson, Rashford for Sterling and Rose for Young.
Hopefully he taken plenty of immodium, and so won't replicate Lineker's other memorable achievement of the 1990 cup.
Watching England tonight I was reminded of Stodge's Third Law of Sport:
"To be the best you have to beat the best. Unless someone else does it for you".
The chances of a direct free kick scoring is minimal.
But you need your players with the best goal scoring instincts in the melee for any football pinball which happens.
But fair enough.
Explain how we will have this bespoke, close, full relationship with the EU for free. While paying the farmers. While building our own version of Galileo. While sending our kids on Erasmus trips. While setting up and running a complex customs partnership scheme.
You really are the most gullible of people. Quite charming in its way.
Of course I would support controls on the sale of cannabis to those still in their teens. Do you think that Boots or even Tesco would do better at that than your local drug dealer? Damn right they would. We need to get real about this. Too many kids are dying.
https://www.premierleague.com/players/4845/Christian-Eriksen/stats
https://www.premierleague.com/players/3960/Harry-Kane/stats
The ref tonight had a really poor game. He was not helped by his VAR squad either. But I don't think I saw evidence he was actually crooked.
Dier would be a better option (IIRC he scored from a freekick in Euro 2016) but he doesn't seem likely to be in the starting team.
Nope - managers should make their teams work on other moves for direct free kicks. Short pass just to one side of the wall with a striker running onto it must be very hard to defend.
https://twitter.com/MarcusBean/status/1008804305992929280
When you have 5/6 in the wall it means there has to be space somewhere else.
And if you try something different it will force the defense to reduce the wall at subsequent freekicks thus making it easier for a direct shot on goal.
The predictability of the same old shots on goal make it easier for your opponents.
"Kane scores against two different keepers in one world cup game. Is this a first?
With cannabis and other drugs we are starting from a different position. I do not know what the answer is. I note though that as a society we are doing everything we can to discourage the smoking of tobacco. So I merely ask whether it is sensible to do something which may, inadvertently, encourage the smoking of an equally noxious substance.
Still the drama all starts again next Sunday lunchtime - just after the Sunday politics show finishes. Let's hope they won't be Grieveing by 3pm.
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
Diego Forlan achieved that feat in the 2010 world cup.
Against South Africa.
NEW THREAD
And if harmless cannabis is sold by Boots, do you think drug dealers are going to stop selling the stronger stuff? We do need to get real about this.
Our current laws may not work. That doesn’t mean that decriminalisation is the answer and won’t have different - but equally harmful - consequences. There may well be no good answers to these problems.
The “oh let’s decriminalise because what we have doesn’t work” brigade are being a bit too pat and superficial in their analysis and prescriptions. Always easy to criticise what we have. A damn sight more difficult to come up with something better. And change is not always - or even necessarily - for the better.