cosmicway

Could have waited you mean. I doubt this was the feeling here though.

True, very important misses coupled with the other mishaps. But we are talking about Lukaku and possible alternatives.

DM-WB-CB are defensive positions. Defensive midfielder, wing back, centre back. Sure, we 'd like someone like Tiago and ten years younger. But it's the attack we seem to have problem, in the years after Didier-Lamps. Costa was good but we did n't really like him. Then Remy-Pato-Morata were not even EPL material and Werner lost his legs against Fyrom Macedonia. Hazard too departed and Giroud was 34.

But Kane wanted to go. Have they declared an embargo against us ? What's DM-WB-CB ? Wing back, centre back and ?

Could Hazard perform now if he returns ? My Greek experiences with failed big money transfers who returned is rather negative: Sideris: The legendary Olympiakos Piraeus striker went to Belgium in 1969. Did nothing there, returned to Olympiakos in 1971. But now he was useless - just made it in a couple of friendlies. Anastopoulos: Another legendary Olympiakos Piraeus striker who moved to Italy in 1986. He and his team failed, returned to Olympiakos but no good anymore. Tsiartas: The midfield general of AEK Athens of the 90s. Went to Sevilla in 1996, returned, was just as good as before for three-four more years. But Tsiartas was good in Sevilla too. What is your experience of similar situations ?

I was unhappy with Lukaku because Belgium lost the 2018 world cup vastly through his miserable performance in the semi (and I had some good wagers). Last summer there were the following names in the market for Chelsea centre forward: Haaland - Lukaku - Kane - Lew The first and the fourth were not for sale as it worked out. Would you be happy with us making no expensive transfer or with Kane perhaps ?

City dominated alright. But might have been a different story with the Lukaku chance. You saw what happend after the goalkeeper saved it ? The ball went to Ziyech in a shooting position. The City goalkeeper badly placed after his effort to save from Lukaku and Ziyech aims for the roof of the stadium.

The idea that a big man can be useful in a counterattacking situation is something new to me. So I can't side with Tuchel for using him but also I can't side with Rom's critics.

The only player whose brain is still ticking when in attacking situations is Kante. Unfortunately his body build is not suited for him to move inside the area.

He f*cked up one chance when he passed the ball towards Ziyech who was offside as well. In the other chance he did his best but the goalie was lucky.

Maybe Lukaku is not what he was touted to be after all but look, the heavy forwards are not suited for counterattack game. Sometimes -not very often- they do score in such games but no. In these situations you need a Werner (+ scoring ability of which the real Werner has not).

Relative improvement (if holds out).

Come on. That's him. We Greeks remember with a smirk the great legend Antoniadis (nowadays a big time lawyer) when we see Lukaku. He was never a footballer but scored 30 goals per season.

We have n't improved leaguewise (plus two serious injuries and covid incidents of course).

What do you expect ? You expect in a game where we try to do something through counterattacks Lukaku to shine ? Neither he nor Costa, Hrubesch, Chivers or anyone like that would.

Even if these things had not happened (i.e. Burnley-United-West Ham etc), City would stiil achieve the double league win against us judging from both legs. They are more fluent up in attack, that makes the difference I think and not possession as such.

Expected sh*t.

There is nobody up front - nothing useful. City are not so great and Grealish's chance was a gift but they have 80% possession.

Why so many players with covid ? Are they all Jokovitch characters ?

The modern ones also have boys in the **ss - that's neither here not there. They also sell watches in the streets and public squares and do other things like that. So ? In the event we differ about the preferences of women, but history says Maggie Thatcher's great triumphs were due to female vote. I 'm sure they are Tory-ades and those ancient anti-suffragette types just did n't know a good thing when they saw one. But that is again the subject of a different scientific investigation. The fact remains that our system of voting is a departure from the ideal true democracy of Plato and the ideal true democracy of Plato is the true democracy.

It's the concept of the ancient Greek philosophers. Our system is an erroneous application, due to our own misuse.

That's beside the point and what happened in the 2019 election is not what happened in all the elections since 1926.

IS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE A GOOD SYSTEM ? In the democracies the right to vote is universal. Every British citizen has the right to vote, while at the same time provisions are being worked out for the expats and the new citizens. Elections are being held in non-democratic states too, like North Korea, but there is only one ballot. Also in the years of the Greek dictatorship a sort of election was being held for the so called "advisory committee" but the right to vote was restricted to certain strange characters. In the democratic countries or near democratic countries the people were supposed to be free to elect their government but there used to be restrictions. In 19th century Britain only the land owners had the right to vote and they also had the pocket borrows. A pocket borrow was an artificial small constituency -five or six houses- in which the candidate was William Rees Mogg, so the Tories could gain a little more seats in parliament. Also women were excluded. We observe that the restrictions were more or less artificial. The women because of their sex and the other restriction so as to favour the Tories. Regarding the women's vote the truth is that the Tories were saved by this, when at last women were allowed to vote, regardless of the fact that the Tories were clueless before as to what was going to happen. But the ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristoteles who were against universal suffrage had no time for such silly restrictions or restrictions with political purpose or three phase systems and things like that. The ancient Greek philosopjers were saying that only those who partake to Greek education should have the right to vote, But the descendeants had no time for Greek education or British education and such nonsense. What they wanted was to find a trick so the Tories win and as for their opponents, the Whigs, they wanted to stop those tricks. So in the end we reached universal suffrage. But I believe the ancient Greek philosophers were right.

bookies

3-0