kop205

Look it up in a dictionary, find the actual meaning of the word, and then see if you can figure out why people might prefer it not to be used in such a fliappant manner or in such an inappropriate context or as a term of insult. Might want to do the same with 'mong' which I seem to recall you using recently too.

My take on this: 1) When he was sat on the bench yesterday he didn't look to me like a man who was crying, he looked like a man who was trying very hard to make himself cry and conjure up an iconic image for people to remember him by. 2) In resigning the captaincy he has merely jumped before he was pushed. If Erikson wasnlt going, Beckham would have been clinging onto the captaincy for dear life, so any talk of this being 'dignified' is b******s. 3) Why did he anounce it now instead of a few weeks down the line? To make sure that he is the centre of attention again and being spoken about favourably. Most image-conscious player there has ever been - everything he does is done with the thought in mind of how it makes him look to the media / his adoring public. He is a f***ing tool and a distinctly average player.

Sure he is a good lad and does care about the club but I don't rate him as a journalist - he is a sycophant who allowed himself to be used by Houllier, such was his desperation to curry favour. Instead of now being so bitter about Houllier all the time because of that, he should think about his own naiviety and lack of professionalism in allowing it to happen in the first place - or better still, just let it f***ing drop instead of constantly making sly little digs. To be honest I would question how much insight he really does have about what goes on at the club, beyond that which gets picked up elsewhere anyway.

I'm English, I'm made up England are out and I too hate aspects of English nationalism but you are being petty in the extreme.

Usual tosh from Bascombe, telling people nothing they hadn't heard already and managing to shoehorn in a dig at two of his favourite targets - Kewell and Houllier (when of all the s*** players in the world he could have chosen to illustrate a point he was making, he chose Aliou Diarra, a Houllier signing). He is tedious in the extreme and lost my respect a long time ago.

Paddychunkcally77whateverthef***elsehehasbeencallinghimself is a f***ing ubertroll. For God's sake ignore him, he craves attention so why give him it? May I recommend the 'Ignore' function?

Yeah, like Carra in the Champions league Final eh, trying to get Nesta sent off when it wasn't even him who'd done the foul, what a t*** he is.

Much as I love Didi, I think Sami has to take that title - given his low cost and the fact that he was plucked from obscurity. Didi has been tremendous but I rated him very, very highly before he came here - I'd never heard of Sami.

Tool.

I still don't think you've quite grasped the point. Maybe 'tainted by association' rather than 'tainted by implication' would have been a better phrase to have used as at no point have I felt that anyone was implying that Crouch is a user. Not even the tabloids would go down that line without very strong evidence, probably because he isn't. I also agree that the papers always sensationalise and invent their own truth - but that is precisely why they're so dangerous and why I understand Crouch's reasons for distancing himself until things die down a bit. He probably is frightened that his association with her, at present, creates a bigger media storm, distracts him from the World Cup and also puts him up there to be shot at. Those would be very real and legitimate concerns. It doesnlt necessarily follow that he would split with her if he was worried - the papers will soon find another story to focus on. Anyway, enough. What a f***ing non-story.

He is protecting himself from the media interest lest he does become tainted by implication, in the minds of those who read the tabloids (a big proprotion of the population I'd say). Of course the tabloids don't decide what is right and what is wrong, I've said that repeatedly. The issue here is about the power and influence they wield. You refer to what the tabloids said about us in the past and in doing so prove my point. Even though they printed lies, people believed them and in the minds of the S*n buying f***wits of this country, the reputation of Liverpool fans was tainted. That wasn't right, or fair, but it happened. Likewise here, it wouldn't be right or fair for Crouch to have his reputation tainted but it could so easily happen, given the nature of the tabloids and the people they write for. He is trying to prevent that from happening and whilst it is a shame that he has to that, it is also reality. The only reason the story appeared was because of the link to Crouch - that IS the story in fact, so fair enough that he has chosen to distance himself. And I still think that Paul B was referring to the fact that the tabloids etc would be the ones to judge him, rather than judging him himself.

He wasn't doing that. The tabloids will. The mere fact of the story appearing in the first place is proof of that.

All well and good, but the only reason this is a 'story' in the first place is because she is Crouch's bird and so, in the eyes of the tabloids, he would be 'tainted by implication'. Not saying that is right, but it is the reality of the situation and Crouch has probably done what he needed to do in order to protect himself given the power wielded by the tabloids. It is unrealistic in the extreme to pretend otherwise.

'Convicted for another's sins'. What a bizarre turn of phrase. Do you seriously think that there AREN'T journalists out there who would make a huge song and dance out of this and use it to put pressure on Crouch, question his judgement and his moral fibre, claim that he is a poor role-model? I'm not saying that it would be right or fair necessarily, but of course it would happen - that is what Paul B is driving at. Without the Crouch angle, it is hardly a story really is it - 'Young girl does drugs'.

Too late for him, I fear. He's like L4 Lad on speed. I sense that I may be clicking that 'Ignore User's Post' option very soon.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

No, you've lost me. EDIT - think I get it know after looking at the trhead in the general! (Though Sunderland is almost a 400 mile round trip!) Like the one he did ask about why some English people don't support the English national team?

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

We were supporting Paraguay

Like I said then, good luck to you. I obviously have a very different opinion to you - in fact I would go as far as to say that the idea of wanting England to do well is as alien to me as the idea of travelling hundreds of miles to some s***hole to watch your club play in some minor cup game is alien to those most likely to lecture me about not supporting England. I don't have to justify my opinion anymore than England fans have to justify theirs. And I'm certainly not going to criticise those who do want England to do well, in the way that many of those people criticise those of who don't. I'm not referring to you there, like I said, fair play to you. I just don't share your opinion.

Hilarious how much some people take offence at English people not supporting the England football team. What difference does it make to anyone else who I do or don't support? I've tried rationalising it over the years (e.g all of my footballing passions get directed into supporting Liverpool, leaving nothing for England. I want the England rugby and cricket teams to do well, because I don't care about the club/county scene). I freely admit though that there is something irrational and contradictory about my feelings towards the England football team, because I go beyond just not caring about them, I actually want them to lose. And you do you know what is at least partly the reason for that? It is people being up in arms about the fact that I don't support them, telling me how shameful that is, etc etc etc - especially when said people don't really care about football other than for a few weeks every two years when England are in a tournament, and would certainly never consider travelling hundred of miles to some god-forsaken s*** hole like Sunderland to watch their side play in a minor cup competition. If people who are prepared to do that also want England to do well then good luck them, but I am still entitled to my opinion. It is a gut instinct I have and therefore not something I have to justify as such. If that pisses some people off, tough.