capriccioso

Why don't you quote the edittttttteeeeeeeddddddddddd post?

None. All 60 were vital winners at Man United More seriously, while that is correct, he has scored some crucial goals for as well. I'd go for a 40/20 split in terms of not needed/important goals. Including the first and second goals of a match; as well as winners/goals that put us in front, equalisers, etc.

Kalou's Moscow penalty was the confidence of youth. Nani and Anderson struck in some really nonchalant efforts at Moscow as well.

That did not come out of my arse. 60 goals in his 6 seasons here.

I'm a regular Michelangelo

If all else fails, give Kalou a 5 year deal and watch the goals flow. 10 a season you're guaranteed off him.

I back Torres, Lukaku and Sturridge to get the job done. Why spend huge money on a striker that will harm the latter two's chances?

It's not possible to build a stadium at all within that current shell. If it weren't protected, then we could knock down the two walls and retain the support structure+walls of the 4 towers. Something like this: The bits in black, we would demolish; the bits in purple, we would retain.

Noo

Ask KV:

I don't think he'd do that. Losing a cup final is a huge morale deflator, especially if you concede 5 in the process.

Certainly was interesting. Now, what's he going to do? Go left? What if Neuer anticipates that and goes left? Nightmare.

Drop it.

Haha, Strike is right, that thread was dominated by me and Francozola revealing (though I'm sure most knew before) that we were both Indian (or half, as in my case)

Hahaha, very communist of you

What? Candidates are nominated by the posters. I chose Strike when I was MoM and that had no impact on the final decision. But you're somewhat correct in that it's basically an award for who posts the most. I posted probably 1000 times in March and perhaps 200, at most, of those were good posts; which would naturally put me ahead of someone like Kostas who may only post 200 times a month but makes 100 good posts.

He must do to incite people to give his testes a squeeze

He's slow. That has an impact on his FIFA rating. And that's why I loathe FIFA and it's ratings, they're just so based on reputation which is why we'll probably be seeing an 88 Torres or an 85 Essien next year.

I hope for a Sir Alex Ferguson style "Fitba. Bloody hell" moment. From us, of course.

It is possible, if we keep those 4 towers and their supporting structures and knock down everything else. (with apologies to Terminator X)

Essien shouldn't even be in the 70s. For his position, if I am correct, his overall is calculated as an average of his: Stamina (65) Short Passing (84) Long Passing (65) Tackling (65) Acceleration (68) Strength (73) Which averages out to 70.

U mad bro?

You've vastly overrated the likes of Malouda and Essien though. I didn't finish, here's the final four ratings Hilario 73 Turnbull 47 Blackman 60 Courtouis 81

Those ratings are biased. These are more realistic: Cech 88 Ivanovic 81 Terry 85 Luiz 83 Cahill 82 Cole 86 Essien 69 Mikel 80 Ramires 88 Lampard 81 Meireles 78 Malouda 70 Kalou 79 Torres 80 Drogba 84 Mata 86 Sturridge 75 Bertrand 77 Romeu 70 McEachran 70 Piazon 69 Kakuta 71 Feruz 67

I didn't know he could play well as a full back.