fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Some folk will believe anything - I mean Leyton Orient 6 Newcastle 1 is obviously a windup
TBH, I think talk pre-Gerrard-Istanbul-Hero talk of him being that highly rated were fluff.Gerrard went to Euro 2004 though, okay Houllier had been sacked but he was the club manager he had been playing for at the time. I do agree that he became better once Benitez set him free, but he was being cited as the best in the world in 03-04, believe me mate, I know a lot of Liverpool fans and they have been saying it for years. Not all of them (as he obviously wasn't the best in the world by then) but it was a recurring theme.
RE Rooney - that's because he's a ****
He went backwards after the hit and then forward into Gerrard's lap. Maybe this is just a difference of perception but I think based on all the surrounding evidence - the animousity of the conversation - it's frankly reasonable enough in my eyes. Not reasonable just in the general sense, but the legal sense. And obviously, it was adjudged as such.& that's pretty much what I meant by "thin", which is the best that can be said for it. Your version of events is possible (just), but so unlikely as to be bordering on insulting to the intelligence. The bloke reeled backwards from the force of the elbow and looked to be struggling to keep his balance when Gerrard waded in. As for not being able to identify him? Well, the pictures are grainy, but it's clearly him and he is one of the most recognisable faces in the country, particularly on Merseyside. Any of the witnesses would've removed any ambiguity.
I think they could have all, bar Doran, disputed it to be honest. I think they did a bit of sacrificing so as to not let it even get that far that Gerrard would be charged. Yet he was nonetheless.I'll put the obvious question to you: why, when Gerrard was the second man to attack the DJ, did five others, who presumably were less culpable, admit to affray?
let's just say that I, Zidane, Hiddink, Henry, Kaka, and many others disagree with your take on Gerrard and his ability.Gerrard isn't and never has been one of the best in the world. He's a good club player, the rest is hype from LBC Sport. When I've seen him play in Champions League games he's been average, not noticeably better than the other 21 players on the pitch. At international level where the games are a bit different he shouldn't be first choice given everyone is fit. Needless to say he's been noticeably poor at that level.
Damn right Ferdinand needs A FAT SHOT to stop listening to G-Unot. He come out the hood, liming with the posh to much, so he thinks making those kind of jokes is funny.If aussie sees that without knowing the whole story he'll be beyond devastated
Liverpudlian Broadcasting Corporation.LBC Sport?
So the judge/jury and I are brainwashed. And Kaka, Zidane, Hiddink, etc, who think Gerrard is the best or thereabouts also watch LBC?Liverpudlian Broadcasting Corporation.
I wouldn't mind it if they weren't so blatantly biased whilst peddling their ****e to millions. It's Britain's equivalent of extremist clerics and Ikki is the brainwashed peon who has been told that once he's subdued his brain into total abject surrender he'll float off and get to physically kiss Steven Gerrard's arse for eternity.
I believe the answer will lie in the fact that with lawyers, as with most things, the old adage applies that "you get what you pay for"I'll put the obvious question to you: why, when Gerrard was the second man to attack the DJ, did five others, who presumably were less culpable, admit to affray?
yo fo'sho homieDamn right Ferdinand needs A FAT SHOT to stop listening to G-Unot. He come out the hood, liming with the posh to much, so he thinks making those kind of jokes is funny.
But thats his life, all i concerned is that he reamains a top-class defender for United & most importantly ENG for a few years yet..
AWTA strongly.yo fo'sho homie
Since when do you like football?AWTA strongly.
This was hardly the OJ trial. Anyway, IIRC both parties had QCs.I believe the answer will lie in the fact that with lawyers, as with most things, the old adage applies that "you get what you pay for"
I don't know, but am confident you'll find that, unlike Gerrard, who would've been privately funded and represented by the sort of ostentatious counsel who would've made sure the jury were watching him (ie the barrister) rather than the evidence, the others had local hacks (no disrespect intended) paid for by the hugely generous legal aid scheme
Without any exaggeration at all I would estimate that Gerrards defence team would have cost the greater part of 100 times that of any legally aided co-d - put another way it's the difference between premiership wages and boot money in the 11th tier of the pyramid
It's any legally aided co defendant I was referring to - not the CPS, whose budget strangely seems to allow the instruction of QC's in these little show trials, not that I'm suggesting their latest in house advocate should get the job, but just because Gerrard wants to chuck his money about doesn't mean the CPS should spend taxpayer's cash with gay abandon - it was a ten a penny punch up between "consenting" adults FFSThis was hardly the OJ trial. Anyway, IIRC both parties had QCs.
That's pretty much what it was. It was a waste of tax payer's money. It wouldn't have gotten to this point if it were just an ordinary joe.It's any legally aided co defendant I was referring to - not the CPS, whose budget strangely seems to allow the instruction of QC's in these little show trials, not that I'm suggesting their latest in house advocate should get the job, but just because Gerrard wants to chuck his money about doesn't mean the CPS should spend taxpayer's cash with gay abandon - it was a ten a penny punch up between "consenting" adults FFS