Ratings v Portsmouth

[TheBunnyman]

Finally, we play football! For the first time this season, really.

Reina 7 - looked slightly ill at ease when crosses came in a couple of times, but showed his quality with one good save and a brilliant pass to Babel.

Magic 7.5 - gave us loads more thrust and creativity up that right flank. Can't defend, but it was Portsmouth at home - who gives a fuck?

Carra 6.5 - almost scored. Fell on his arse and was given a free-kick. Not at his best but didn't need to be.

Agger 7 - um, I didn't really notice him too much tbh.

Insua 5 - you... are... the weakest link.

Mascherano 6 - did nothing wrong particularly, it just wasn't a game where we needed his special qualities.

Aquilani 9 - MOTM. Absolutely glorious display of passing, running, shooting, great vision, quick thinking, intelligent movement and even the odd bit of tackling at times. So Albert's not a clueless, spineless dud after all... please switch the light off when you leave, Mr Benitez.

Maxi 8 - his best performance for us so far. Nice feet and quick brain. The kind of player, along with Aquilani, who looks poor in a team that hoofs it all the time, but ace in a team that passes the ball quickly to feet. Could turn out to be a useful signing.

Babel 7.5 - faded in the second half, but looked excellent at times in the first half. His workrate was good, he didn't make too many stupid decisions, and he took his goal very nicely. Keep it up Ryan.

Torres 8.5 - Nando too was a bit quiet in the second half, apart from that gorgeous second goal, but in the first half it was like watching a replay of his glory moments. Scored two and helped create the other two. On any other night, he'd have been MOTM. Finnan will still be having nightmares about this game when he's an old man.

Rafa 10 - but needs to be killed for having picked the wrong team all season long before this. The TWAT.


Gerrard 8 - oops sorry, Stevie, how did I forget you? Best you've played this season, although admittedly that's not saying much. But it was obvious how happy he was to be playing in a team that played fast-passing football. Had three decent chances and missed them all, sadly, but still encouraging.

 

[Modo]

RATINGS, Portsmouth home

REINA 7 - Didn't have much to do. Misjudged a cross, great one handed save. No chance on the goal.

JOHNSON 7 - Often joined the attacking plays, definite penalty turned down.
CARRAGHER 6 - Nothing special. His lack of technique still annoys me. Poor positioning for the goal.
AGGER 7 - Nice distribution. Good going forward. Stable performance.
INSUA 5 - Most of Portsmouth threats came from his flank, looks like our weakest link atm. Poor defending on the goal.

MASCHERANO 7 - Nice covering and passing. Hope he didn't get hurt at the end.
GERRARD 7 - Good performance. Missed to many clear cut chances for my liking.
AQUAMAN 9 MOM - Great passing and vision. Worked hard defensively. Nice finish and great assists.
BABEL 8 - Playing with confidence. Nice finish. Great overall play.
MAXI 7 - Not the fastest player but he's got other skills. Great play for the goal.

TORRES 9 - EL fucking NINO is back.

Subs:
BENAYOUN 5 - No impact
KELLY 6 - Got forward. Did OK.
NGOG 4 - The goal was his fault IMO. If he had done the right thing and passed the ball it would have never happened. Holds the ball for too long.

All in all a great performance from the team. Rafa finally got it right and credit to him for dropping Lucas and Kuyt.
We cant disregard the fact the fact that we played Portsmouth at home and that they were abysmal. But hey, it was a very positive response to the Lille and Wigan debacle.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Give them all a 9 except Insua who stumbles over the line with a 4.9.

 

[Modo]

double post

 

[Oncy]

Reina - 7
Insua - 6
Agger - 8
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 8
Mascherano - 7
Aquilani - 9 MOM
Gerrard - 9
Maxi - 9
Babel - 8
Torres - 9

Rafa - 10

 

[mark1975]

Reina - 7 Great save and great pass for Babel.

Johnson - 7 Welcome back, good pace and overlapping.
Carra - 6 Not alot to do really.
Agger - 7 Given licence to come forward more and looked positive throughout.
Insua - 6 Poor really and too many mistakes.

Maxi - 8 Best game yet, always positive and worked well on and off the ball, instrumental.
Gerrard - 7 Good link up play with Aquilani, shameful incident though.
Aquilani - 8 Good passing, movement, incisive and a great goal.
Babel - 8 Best game of the season, looked confident and just as importantly, composed and decisive.
Masher - 7 quietly efficient, mopped up and distributed well.

Torres - 8 Constant menace in the box, outwide, everywhere, got his head down, stopped sulking and scored goals. Hooray!

 

[TheBunnyman]

Shameful's a bit harsh Mark. That Brown bloke IS really fucking annoying.

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=39314.msg1070252#msg1070252 date=1268692488]
Shameful's a bit harsh Mark. That Brown bloke IS really fucking annoying.

[/quote]

Fair enough, I know there's history between them and I know Brown is a cunt but it was stupid. It tarnished a good night and now could ruin our chances of 4th place. He's been a sulky cunt lately and off form, so to bounce back tonight and then do something as rash as that was idiotic.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Insua really is shit. And so as not to irk Ryan, I thought I'd expand upon that. Have you ever wondered where the word "shit" comes from? Well here it is:

Certain types of manure used to be transported (as everything was back then) by ship. In dry form it weighs a lot less, but once water (at sea) hit it. It not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas.

As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen; methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern. BOOOOM!

Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was discovered what was happening.

After that, the bundles of manure where always stamped with the term "S.H.I.T" on them which meant to the sailors to "Ship High In Transit." In other words, high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.

Bet you didn't know that one.

I always thought it was a golf term.

I can't count the number of correspondents who have assured me this is true. Why is this lie so appealing? Why do people love this false story so much that they cling to it like an idol and cast their sanity beneath its juggernaut wheels?
This bit of fiction has been traced back, in a different form, to a Usenet posting from 1999. That one merely made reference to the smell. This is all pretty harmless, as a set-up for the "golf" punchline. But because it has the look of authentic history, it has begun to circulate as a legitimate etymology.

It has in common with a number of the other most common false etymologies a tendency to derive words from acronyms (The ethnic slur wop is said to represent "without passport," and fuck is variously said to stand for "fornication under consent of king" or "for unlawful carnal knowledge&quot😉.

This Internet fabrication is a deliberate and audacious lie meant to complicate that which is simple, mislead, and give secret pleasure to the anonymous author of the cleverness. It is the equivalent of a computer virus. It is, to borrow from Richard Dawkins, a false meme.

To someone with a bit of linguistics in his books, the story sets off more red flags than a May Day parade. The first and biggest is its reliance on acronyms. Sir Ernest Gowers, in his revisions to the second edition of "Fowler's Modern English Usage" (1965, p.116) traces the rise of the acronym to World War I (ANZAC, etc.), but it really didn't becom a common method of word formation in English until World War II. The word acronym itself wasn't coined until 1943. The lack of a need for such a word suggests the degree to which acronyms were not a part of daily life until then.

As Gowers illustrates with many examples, modern wars breed acronyms. The American Civil War, the first modern war, produced a vast corpus of correspondence and official papers. But I find scant use of acronyms in them. The North's black regiments occasionally are named as U.S.C.T. (for United States Colored Troops). But these usages did not transpire into the common language of soldiers or civilians. Other Civil War abbreviations used today, such as ANV for "Army of Northern Virginia," are popular among modern writers, but nowhere in the Official Records.

The insult son of a bitch is recorded from 1707; the abbreviated form SOB is on record only from 1918. POW for prisoner of war was first attested 1919, but it was not popularized until World War II. A.S.A.P. for as soon as possible is not recorded before 1955, and again it turns up first in military slang.

So acronyms in English are on the whole a 20th century phenomenon. The word OK (c.1839) is a very rare exception (if the most accepted theory of its origins is the right one), as is n.g. for "no good" (1838). And note how these words, even after more than 170 years, are still "felt" as abbreviations and require no elaborate Internet stories.

Before that, there were "acrostics." Those are words in which each letter in turn is taken as the first letter of another word or name, which taken together hold some significance. An example is the word cabal, which wits noted in 1673 matched the initial letters of the five intriguing ministers of Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale). This was a sort of word-play that had gone on for centuries in verse composition. But cabal was a real word: it had been in print for at least 60 years before someone happened to notice this temporary political connotation. The initials weren't the source of the word.

The word shit has a long and well-documented history, far older than any large-scale organized sea-trade in northern Europe. Anglo-Saxon leechdom books use scittan in reference to cattle having diarrhea. A Latin text from 1118 refers to "Lues animalium, quæ Anglice Scitta vocatur, Latine autem fluxus interaneorum dici potest."

There are many examples of the verb from the 14th century [e.g., from 1387: þey wolde ... make hem a pitte ... whan þey wolde schite ...; and whanne þey hadde i-schete þey wolde fille þe pitte agen."]. The noun is attested from the 16th century, both in reference to excrement and to contemptible people.

The acronym theory of the origin of shit can't explain the related words in other languages, such as German Scheiss, Dutch schijt, Old Norse skita, and Lithuanian sikti, which come from the same prehistoric root. As far as I know, there's no corresponding acronym to "ship high in transit" in the merchant marine history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Which brings up another point. It's impossible to prove a negative, and I'm not the world's leading expert on shipping, but I have done a great deal of historical research, including detailed examination of ship's manifests going back to the 17th century and studies of trade and tariffs and commerce, and I've never found anyone anywhere shipping manure. People shipped a lot of strange things over long distances (bricks, for instance). But if there's one thing that an all-seeing providence has liberally supplied to every inhabited corner of the globe, it's shit. Who ever transported it often enough that shit-shipping evolved a jargon? Guano -- bird droppings as a source of nitrates -- became an important article of trade in the mid-1800s, but this is much too late for shit, and anyway guano is guano, shit is shit.

A correspondent notes another problem: "I am a sailor. Things go below deck to stay dry ... they don't generally get wet there." Another, a physics teacher, writes, [M]ethane gas would not 'build up' in the hold of a ship. It is lighter than air and in any unsealed space would dissipate upward fast enough that an explosive mixture would not accumulate."

So, the acronym theory for the origin of "shit" breaks down because:

the word itself is a good 1,000 years older than the common use of acronyms;
the original form of the word (Anglo-Saxon sc-, which regularly evolved into M.E. sh-) does not correspond to the supposed acronym;
the verb is the original form, the noun derives from it; the acronym supposes the noun came first;
no one has produced a single instance of this supposed acronym from any old mercantile record or ship's manifest;
in fact, no one has ever established that there was a custom of shipping manure;
the word has cognates in many other languages, including ones outside Germanic, for which no acronym theory of origin makes sense;
It doesn't fit the facts, it requires a very elaborate supposition for which there is not the slightest evidence, and there is a much simpler, saner explanation for the word, the only drawback of which is that it doesn't make a very good Internet joke.
Say it with me: "shit is not an acronym." Repeat 100 times for every time you forwarded that e-mail. Now go forth and sin no more.

 

[Peatcheo]

A Loltan Gera for Sheik.

 

[Stulikesdrums]

Erm, thanks Sheik.

 

[Fabio]

So......is sheik saying.......insua is a boat?

 

[Fallon]

Reina - 7
Insua - 5.5
Agger - 7.5
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7.5
Mascherano - 8
Aquilani - 9 MOM
Gerrard - 6
Maxi - 8
Babel - 8
Torres - 9

Rafa - 9 - The 1st time he's got it bang on this year., though I would have left Torres on and brought Maxi off for Pacheco/El Zhar.

 

[Halmeister]

[quote author=Fabio Alrighty-o link=topic=39314.msg1070276#msg1070276 date=1268694806]
So......is sheik saying.......insua is a boat?
[/quote]

He turns like one.

 

[Halmeister]

Reina - 6.5
Johnson - 7
Carragher - 6.5
Agger - 6.5
Insua - 5.5
Mascherano - 6
Aquilani - 9 (MOTM)
Maxi - 7.5
Babel - 7
Gerrard - 7
Torres - 8.5

Rafa - 9 - About bloody time Senor!

 

[zlatan18]

Reina - 7
Johnson - 7.5
Carragher - 7
Agger - 7.5
Insua - 6.5
Mascherano - 7
Maxi - 8.5
Aquilani - 9
Babel - 8
Gerrard - 8
Torres - 9

Rafa - 9


;D

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=Fallon link=topic=39314.msg1070280#msg1070280 date=1268695285]
Reina - 7
Insua - 5.5
Agger - 7.5
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7.5
Mascherano - 8
Aquilani - 9 MOM
Gerrard - 6
Maxi - 8
Babel - 8
Torres - 9

Rafa - 9 - The 1st time he's got it bang on this year., though I would have left Torres on and brought Maxi off for Pacheco/El Zhar.
[/quote]

Thats something for a "tactical genius"?

 

[Ossi]

A couple of opinions:
Aquilani- Motm of course.
Insua- The only football player in the world with 0 balance. He falls over all the time, he can´t pass...the list goes on. Sell!
Babel- good but not very good. Needs to improve his descions, stopped far too many attacks. Should be nicknamed as "The Killer of 1-2s".
Our Three Musketeers Torres, Gerrard and Aquilani will become great together!

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=Ossi link=topic=39314.msg1070440#msg1070440 date=1268730328]
A couple of opinions:
Aquilani- Motm of course.
Insua- The only football player in the world with 0 balance. He falls over all the time, he can´t pass...the list goes on. Sell!
Babel- good but not very good. Needs to improve his descions, stopped far too many attacks. Should be nicknamed as "The Killer of 1-2s".
Our Three Musketeers Torres, Gerrard and Aquilani will become great together!

[/quote]

I disagree with you there... Babel looked more "mature" in his game the last outings. He doesnt just storm away, but stop, and choose from a variation of involvments. he helps us keeping the ball with a short pass and even a backward pass. On top of this he is involved in 1-2s and quick intersessions with others... I think he had a brilliant game yesterday.

 

[Sunny]

Reina - 7
Insua - 6
Agger - 6
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7
Mascherano - 7
Aquilani - 9 MOTM
Gerrard - 8
Maxi - 8
Babel - 7
Torres - 8

 

[the count]

Sheik, that was a most enjoyable read.
It certainly stands out from all the other shit posts that I have read on this forum.

 

[the_khl]

[quote author=Fabio Alrighty-o link=topic=39314.msg1070276#msg1070276 date=1268694806]
So......is sheik saying.......insua is a boat?
[/quote]
Can't bother to read Sheiks novel of a post about shit but that comment made me laugh....

 

[the_khl]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39314.msg1070458#msg1070458 date=1268732761]
Reina - 7
Insua - 6
Agger - 6
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7
Mascherano - 7
Aquilani - 9 MOTM
Gerrard - 8
Maxi - 8
Babel - 7
Torres - 8

[/quote]
Can I just say, without starting a long hairy argument, that Agger and Insua wasn't playing on the same level at all last night?

 

[Sunny]

[quote author=the_khl link=topic=39314.msg1070539#msg1070539 date=1268737471]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39314.msg1070458#msg1070458 date=1268732761]
Reina - 7
Insua - 6
Agger - 6
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7
Mascherano - 7
Aquilani - 9 MOTM
Gerrard - 8
Maxi - 8
Babel - 7
Torres - 8

[/quote]
Can I just say, without starting a long hairy argument, that Agger and Insua wasn't playing on the same level at all last night?
[/quote]

You can say what you like KHL. Won't change my opinion though. 🙂

Both we're defensively shaky. Worries me for Sunday how we're defending

 

[Oncy]

Im really genuinely suprised that either Agger or Carragher havnt been played at left back with the big Greek coming in. Insua needs a break for his own good.

 

[the_khl]

[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=39314.msg1070566#msg1070566 date=1268738786]
Im really genuinely suprised that either Agger or Carragher havnt been played at left back with the big Greek coming in. Insua needs a break for his own good.

[/quote]
He really does.

However as we gained confidence last night it was clear to see that he did as well.

Anyways, can Kelly deputise outthere you reckon?

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39314.msg1070565#msg1070565 date=1268738660]
[quote author=the_khl link=topic=39314.msg1070539#msg1070539 date=1268737471]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39314.msg1070458#msg1070458 date=1268732761]
Reina - 7
Insua - 6
Agger - 6
Carragher - 7
Johnson - 7
Mascherano - 7
Aquilani - 9 MOTM
Gerrard - 8
Maxi - 8
Babel - 7
Torres - 8

[/quote]
Can I just say, without starting a long hairy argument, that Agger and Insua wasn't playing on the same level at all last night?
[/quote]

You can say what you like KHL. Won't change my opinion though. 🙂

Both we're defensively shaky. Worries me for Sunday how we're defending
[/quote]

So you would rather go back to the "controlled" gameplan we had against Lille? We have to take more chances. That will sometimes expose our own goal yes.... Sadly but true. But no matter what there is a risk loosing any game...

 

[refugee]

[quote author=the_khl link=topic=39314.msg1070568#msg1070568 date=1268738846]
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=39314.msg1070566#msg1070566 date=1268738786]
Im really genuinely suprised that either Agger or Carragher havnt been played at left back with the big Greek coming in. Insua needs a break for his own good.

[/quote]
He really does.

However as we gained confidence last night it was clear to see that he did as well.

Anyways, can Kelly deputise outthere you reckon?
[/quote]

He has played there for Huddersfield (and did quite well from what I've heard), but playing out of position in the premiership is a different matter.

 

[Sunny]

[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=39314.msg1070575#msg1070575 date=1268739730]

So you would rather go back to the "controlled" gameplan we had against Lille? We have to take more chances. That will sometimes expose our own goal yes.... Sadly but true. But no matter what there is a risk loosing any game...

[/quote]

And where, exactly, did I say that ? We can be more attacking yet still defend better than we did last night. I'd much rather we play more like last night but we still have to tighten up at the back a bit more.

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=39314.msg1070579#msg1070579 date=1268740334]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=39314.msg1070575#msg1070575 date=1268739730]

So you would rather go back to the "controlled" gameplan we had against Lille? We have to take more chances. That will sometimes expose our own goal yes.... Sadly but true. But no matter what there is a risk loosing any game...

[/quote]

And where, exactly, did I say that ? We can be more attacking yet still defend better than we did last night. I'd much rather we play more like last night but we still have to tighten up at the back a bit more.
[/quote]

For us that will mean play Lucas and Kuyt for a starter... It takes the pace and fun (for those who underestimates fun look at the bodylanguage of the players during the Wigan and the Pompeys game) out of our game. Completely. But the pressure and control will be bette in Rafas eyes.

To be frank I would rather play and try like yesterday and loose 14 games this season than to play like we have and loose 14 games this season as we allready have. But if we played like yesterday and were exposed a little in defence and lost 14 games the reason would be that we were to naive tactically....

Having said that: Of course you are right. We should be able to tighten more in defence. We should allways be able to improve defensively..... No doubt about that!