This is a stupid thread

astrofool · 03-09-2008 3:39pm

Lol at Mr Alan (inadvertantly) starting a thread dissing one of his idols

I'm just waiting for the "Leave Jamie alone" video.

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 3:39pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

There is obviously loads of doubt, as demonstrated by all the people doubting it!!!!!!

Do could mean show up!
It could mean prove he was good enough to be an international fullback, as he said in the exerpt.

Look up a word called Exegesis. Then read the story.

Mr Alan · 03-09-2008 3:39pm

JimiTime wrote: »

No, going into a tackle with the intention of hurting your opponent is the same as kicking a guy. Geez, its not rocket science

ok so Nasris is as bad as Keane. there is no light and shade-all offences where there is no attempt to play the ball are bad as eachother.

Thanks for clearing that up.

kida · 03-09-2008 3:40pm

herbieflowers wrote: »

maybe this whole thing never happened, and Carra ezaggerated something to sensationalise his book, and sell it.

maybe so - but Keane got prosecuted for profiting from publicising a book about it

The tackle or severity is irrelevant - Keane didn't get his ban for the tackle - it was what he said and profiting from it.

He said he went to do him
He is is profiting from it

DeadSkin · 03-09-2008 3:40pm

monkey9 wrote: »

Anyway, this has gone off topic for the past ten or so pages. Back on topic.

So are people gonna buy this book and do you think it will sell well??

Really, I thought it was bang on topic :pac:

Wouldn't be arsed with the book, prefer to wait when a players career is over and then read the whole story.

Oh yeah, fellow Liverpool fans[defending Carra] where do ye get those glasses? I want a pair to read back over Carra's words.

monkey9 · 03-09-2008 3:41pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Look up a word called Exegesis. Then read the story.

Haven't really got time to read the whole story. Can you just give us a few excerpts??

herbieflowers · 03-09-2008 3:42pm

enough excerpts for one day, eh?

~Rebel~ · 03-09-2008 3:42pm

Just a little perspective people;

IT WAS A TACKLE IN A TRAINING MATCH 9 YEARS AGO!!

A training ground spat that led to no repercussions whatsoever for anyone.

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 3:42pm

herbieflowers wrote: »

Oh come off it.

He was pissed off cos Song (apparently) insulted him by looking "astonished" and was subtely "pointing" at Carra and laughing at him. Context is completely different.

Exactly!

The context is different.
So is the context in the Keane tackle.

But the reasoning for some people calling Carra a scumbag and thug in this thread, is the phrase "I did him".

None of us know what that means, but the fact that Carra said it made him relish a 50/50 challenge, implies to me that it meant Carra put a bit of venom into the tackle.

There is a massive, massive difference between putting venom into a tackle, and spending months planning to kick a guy in the knee!

herbieflowers · 03-09-2008 3:44pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Exactly!

The context is different.
So is the context in the Keane tackle.

But the reasoning for some people calling Carra a scumbag and thug in this thread, is the phrase "I did him".

None of us know what that means, but the fact that Carra said it made him relish a 50/50 challenge, implies to me that it meant Carra put a bit of venom into the tackle.

There is a massive, massive difference between putting venom into a tackle, and spending months planning to kick a guy in the knee!

I'm not talking about the Keane tackle, all I'm saying is that Carra's actions were pretty petualnt - setting out to 'do' a team-mate? What kind of example is that setting?

Mr Alan · 03-09-2008 3:45pm

kida wrote: »

maybe so - but Keane got prosecuted for profiting from publicising a book about it

The tackle or severity is irrelevant - Keane didn't get his ban for the tackle - it was what he said and profiting from it.

He said he went to do him
He is is profiting from it

Keanes happened on live television in a PL match. Carras happened on a training ground, nearly a decade ago. again, surely you can see the difference?

missingtime · 03-09-2008 3:47pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

Who the hell started this shite?

it started as a discussion in the liverpool thread.
phb created a separate thread

Xavi6 wrote: »

And how has it stayed open this long?

i dont know

Xavi6 wrote: »

Anyone been banned yet? I can't be arsed reading all the way back.

no one has been banned but someone "did" my ma!
the definition of "did" still open to discussion

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 3:47pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

ok so Nasris is as bad as Keane. there is no light and shade-all offences where there is no attempt to play the ball are bad as eachother.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If Nasri comes out and says, 'I wanted to hurt Barton', then yes its bad. However he didn't say that, so why would I assume he tried to 'hurt' Barton? He clipped his heal. Yes it was an intentional foul, but hardly what you'd call an intention to hurt Barton! I can tug on a jersey, thats an intentional foul. I can intentionally elbow you in the nose, thats intentionally setting out to hurt you.

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 3:51pm

herbieflowers wrote: »

I'm not talking about the Keane tackle, all I'm saying is that Carra's actions were pretty petualnt - setting out to 'do' a team-mate? What kind of example is that setting?

And once again we're back to people going "do"!

As I pointed out, you have no idea what Carra meant, and different people say different things.

I can say GSP killed Matt Hughes in their last fight.
Thing is, I don't litteraly mean he killed him!

Logic dictates that you can't base a black and white oppinion on a word that can have multiple contexts!

Mr Alan · 03-09-2008 3:53pm

JimiTime wrote: »

If Nasri comes out and says, 'I wanted to hurt Barton', then yes its bad. However he didn't say that, so why would I assume he tried to 'hurt' Barton? He clipped his heal. Yes it was an intentional foul, but hardly what you'd call an intention to hurt Barton! I can tug on a jersey, thats an intentional foul. I can intentionally elbow you in the nose, thats intentionally setting out to hurt you.

and cant you also intentionally hurt someone without commiting a foul?

monkey9 · 03-09-2008 3:53pm

missingtime wrote: »

it started as a discussion in the liverpool thread.
phb created a separate thread

i dont know

no one has been banned but someone "did" my ma!
the definition of "did" still open to discussion

It all depends really. Did anybody see Copacetic do your ma?? It was probably just a thing where he saw her and decided 'i'm gonna do her'. He didn't have much time to think about it, he just went for it. The fact your ma hobbled off down the street was just the icing on the cake for copacetic.
But compare that to your da. He was waiting months and months, meticulously planned and when he finally did it said "take that, you c*nt!" What's worse?? I don't know, but i tell you what. I'm buying the fecking book!

~Rebel~ · 03-09-2008 3:55pm

herbieflowers wrote: »

I'm not talking about the Keane tackle, all I'm saying is that Carra's actions were pretty petualnt - setting out to 'do' a team-mate? What kind of example is that setting?

what kind of example to who?! he was 21! it was a training match!

Im not getting into the debate of whether he's good or bad, the more relevent thing is who really cares. Are the people calling carra a thug really actually upset by this?! At any club i've played for, at least once a month some of the lads would come to blows because of a bad tackle or whatever. Its all grand after. Which is obviously was here too, considering we didn't hear about it for 9 years and even then it was from the guy who did it.

missingtime · 03-09-2008 3:55pm

monkey9 wrote: »

It all depends really. Did anybody see Copacetic do your ma?? It was probably just a thing where he saw her and decided 'i'm gonna do her'. He didn't have much time to think about it, he just went for it. The fact your ma hobbled off down the street was just the icing on the cake for copacetic.
But compare that to your da. He was waiting months and months, meticulously planned and when he finally did it said "take that, you c*nt!" What's worse?? I don't know, but i tell you what. I'm buying the fecking book!

Its a picture book.

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 3:57pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

And once again we're back to people going "do"!

As I pointed out, you have no idea what Carra meant, and different people say different things.

I can say GSP killed Matt Hughes in their last fight.
Thing is, I don't litteraly mean he killed him!

Logic dictates that you can't base a black and white oppinion on a word that can have multiple contexts!

Ok. Lets leave out the 'do' shall we, seen how you're just trying to be argumentative.

Lets even say 'do him' meant I went in for a fair challenge with him. He was still 'happy' to see a fellow team mate, limp away hurt. So no matter what silly semantics you want to play, its still bad form on Carra's part.

herbieflowers · 03-09-2008 3:58pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

what kind of example to who?! he was 21! it was a training match!

Im not getting into the debate of whether he's good or bad, the more relevent thing is who really cares. Are the people calling carra a thug really actually upset by this?! At any club i've played for, at least once a month some of the lads would come to blows because of a bad tackle or whatever. Its all grand after. Which is obviously was here too, considering we didn't hear about it for 9 years and even then it was from the guy who did it.

By virtue of the fact that he's publishing it in a book, just don't think it sends out a very good message to any youngsters reading it.

As for it being grand after. The thing comes across as pretty bitter, and he did say that their relationship deteriorated after so...

But I maintain that he made it up to flog his book.

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 3:59pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Look up a word called Exegesis. Then read the story.

Well that's funny, cause that's exactly what I have been doing.

I'm taking the article in context of exactly what was said.
"Others" are taking one singular word (do) and basing their entire argument on that!

Well done forbacking me up there though.

PHB · 03-09-2008 4:01pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

Who the hell started this shite?

And how has it stayed open this long?

My eyes were bleeding after the first twenty posts. Talk about a bomb waiting to go off.

Anyone been banned yet? I can't be arsed reading all the way back.

I only started this thread because I thought it was better that people discuss this stuff in a seperate thread rather than in the Liverpool thread. Considering people constantly get pissed off with superthreads getting de-railed by the most pointless discussions imaginable, lets have it here instead, if you want to.

Now the Liverpool thread stays clean, and people who amazingly would actually want to discuss which tackle was worse can discuss it here without annoying everyone else. Why you'd want to discuss it is beyond me, but sure, you guys seem to be doing it.

Nobody has to read this threat, indeed what would you really expect looking at the title? If you're eyes were bleeding, why read it?

p.s. Apologies to Mr. Alan for people thinking it was his thread, I'll add a little thing in the title so you can know otherwise next time.

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 4:04pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

and cant you also intentionally hurt someone without commiting a foul?

Yes. And ur point is? You do realise my issue here is that a player 'intentionally' 'hurting' another is bad right? The method means little.

irishpartyboy · 03-09-2008 4:05pm

Was the subject of the original post modified? Or was the real point of the thread to debate Carraghers tackle (which nodoby actually seen) v. Keano?

PHB · 03-09-2008 4:06pm

irishpartyboy wrote: »

Was the subject of the original post modified? Or was the real point of the thread to debate Carraghers tackle (which nodoby actually seen) v. Keano?

Only the title. I changed the title because thats what was actually being discussed in the Liverpool thread.

monkey9 · 03-09-2008 4:07pm

missingtime wrote: »

Its a picture book.

Ha, i thought that would be Beckham's autobiography

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 4:10pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok. Lets leave out the 'do' shall we, seen how you're just trying to be argumentative.

Lets even say 'do him' meant I went in for a fair challenge with him. He was still 'happy' to see a fellow team mate, limp away hurt. So no matter what silly semantics you want to play, its still bad form on Carra's part.

I'm not being argumentative.
I'm disagreeing with you.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you?

And as has been pointed out earlier.
Every club I've played at, every regular 5 a side meeting I've played in, has occasional player bust ups.

And lets be even more correct here.
This is his job.
He disliked someone he worked with.
And then tackled him with venom in a "contact sport".

So he's obviously a scumbag thug!

~Rebel~ · 03-09-2008 4:11pm

I hate these excerpt things. Id imagine when one is reading the book it will just come across as one incident of many. Now, by it being given its own little mini story, it carries far more weight then it probably should/deserves. It comes across more as Carra coming out and actively making this point as though in an interview or something, rather then a collection of his footballing memories given to an author who compiles them.

In the book, this tidbit probably has its place and is no big deal, but footballers should really have learned to control what gets serialized better after what happened to Keane.

irishpartyboy · 03-09-2008 4:12pm

PHB wrote: »

Only the title. I changed the title because thats what was actually being discussed in the Liverpool thread.

Ta much, was curious.

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 4:21pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

I'm not being argumentative.
I'm disagreeing with you.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you?

:rolleyes: Yes I insult everyone who disagree's with me.

And as has been pointed out earlier.
Every club I've played at, every regular 5 a side meeting I've played in, has occasional player bust ups.

And its ok to intentionally hurt someone?

And lets be even more correct here.
This is his job.
He disliked someone he worked with.
And then tackled him with venom in a "contact sport".

And its ok to intentionally hurt someone?

So he's obviously a scumbag thug!

Not being argumentative right?

Nowhere have I said he is a scumbag thug! His actions on this occasion was certainly akin to thuggery, and the fact that he's wearing it with pride is poor form!

Carra is a great player. But this occasion is indefensible. Unless of course you think its ok to intentionally hurt someone like this. These things happen, and will continue to happen! Its just horrible to see people come out defending it! I agree its not intrinsic in his game, i.e. he's not what I consider a dirty player. However, 'this' occasion is just wrong.

Anyway, thats me done. Its been a slow day at work, so thanks for keeping the thread going, its passed the day very well:)

DeadSkin · 03-09-2008 4:25pm

Right suckers, I'm off to see can I get a pair of these glasses :pac:

Charlie · 03-09-2008 4:43pm

Jaysis, these seem to be the rage all these days, must get meself a pair.

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 4:52pm

JimiTime wrote: »

:rolleyes: Yes I insult everyone who disagree's with me.

Implying that i'm deliberately trying to be argumentative, is insulting.

JimiTime wrote:

And its ok to intentionally hurt someone?

And its ok to intentionally hurt someone?

You do realise what a contact sport is right?
If you're a boxer sparring with somebody else, is it okay to hurt them in training?

You or nobody else here has any idea of what Carra did.
You have no idea whether he broke any rules of football.
You are assuming.
So you are in the wrong.

JimiTime wrote:

Not being argumentative right? Nowhere have I said he is a scumbag thug! His actions on this occasion was certainly akin to thuggery, and the fact that he's wearing it with pride is poor form!

I'll show you where you said it, right after you show me where I said you said it!
I said people here.
For somebody who implies that other posters should look up words, you really should read posts!

JimiTime wrote:

Carra is a great player. But this occasion is indefensible. Unless of course you think its ok to intentionally hurt someone like this. These things happen, and will continue to happen! Its just horrible to see people come out defending it! I agree its not intrinsic in his game, i.e. he's not what I consider a dirty player. However, 'this' occasion is just wrong.

Anyway, thats me done. Its been a slow day at work, so thanks for keeping the thread going, its passed the day very well:)

Again, you think that you know better than anyone else.

You have no idea what Carra did or didn't do, but you can say that it's inexcusable, and wrong.

I'd love to live in a world where I don't need facts to back up my spurious claims.

I just don't feel okay with disrespecting somebody with no evidence, or clue what I'm talking about.
You obviously have no such qualms.

Enjoy getting your daily entertainment from throwing unbacked accusations at another human being.

Jazzy · 03-09-2008 4:55pm

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Are the people calling carra a thug really actually upset by this?!

no, they just want carra to be a thug more so then he actually is. because they hate liverpool.

oooohhhh he tackled someone hard in training and admitted it and that he was alright with it. bet that never ever ever happens and that all these genius footballers go around with monocles, pocket watches, a cup of earl grey and discuss how the colonials are doing. cheer up old sport!

spilt milk

kida · 03-09-2008 5:03pm

could someone explain to me considering what Keane got the 150K fine and 5 match ban for what the difference is between both?

Hint - Keane did not get it for the actual tackle

Mr Alan · 03-09-2008 5:11pm

kida wrote: »

could someone explain to me considering what Keane got the 150K fine and 5 match ban for what the difference is between both?

Hint - Keane did not get it for the actual tackle

Keanes was in a PL match.
Carras was in training.
Keane waited months for the opportunity and went to cause damage and severly hurt his opponent making zero effort to go for the ball.
Carras was a same day incident and just went into 50-50 challenge hard in an effort to put song back in his place.

kryogen · 03-09-2008 5:13pm

Al, Carra went out to hurt the guy
Keane went out to hurt the guy

there is no difference in the intent

your valiantly defending your man like i would defend Keane, but its not necessary

they both went into a tackle to deliberatly hurt someone to prove a point.

EDIT: Keane kinda didnt have an option but to wait since he was injured and didnt get the opportunity to do him in training like Carra did

kryogen · 03-09-2008 5:15pm

kida wrote: »

could someone explain to me considering what Keane got the 150K fine and 5 match ban for what the difference is between both?

Hint - Keane did not get it for the actual tackle

? If you mean why did Keane get the fine its cause he said it publicly (much like Carra) and brought the game into disrepute

he said he intended to hurt the guy, embarrased the sport

kida · 03-09-2008 5:17pm

kryogen wrote: »

? If you mean why did Keane get the fine its cause he said it publicly (much like Carra) and brought the game into disrepute

he said he intended to hurt the guy, embarrased the sport

finally - someone :eek:

everyone else - read back over the reporting of the Keane ban

kida · 03-09-2008 5:18pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

Keanes was in a PL match.
Carras was in training.
Keane waited months for the opportunity and went to cause damage and severly hurt his opponent making zero effort to go for the ball.
Carras was a same day incident and just went into 50-50 challenge hard in an effort to put song back in his place.

now - post the similarities

JimiTime · 03-09-2008 5:21pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Implying that i'm deliberately trying to be argumentative, is insulting.

You do realise what a contact sport is right?
If you're a boxer sparring with somebody else, is it okay to hurt them in training?

You or nobody else here has any idea of what Carra did.
You have no idea whether he broke any rules of football.
You are assuming.
So you are in the wrong.

I'll show you where you said it, right after you show me where I said you said it!
I said people here.
For somebody who implies that other posters should look up words, you really should read posts!

Again, you think that you know better than anyone else.

You have no idea what Carra did or didn't do, but you can say that it's inexcusable, and wrong.

I'd love to live in a world where I don't need facts to back up my spurious claims.

I just don't feel okay with disrespecting somebody with no evidence, or clue what I'm talking about.
You obviously have no such qualms.

Enjoy getting your daily entertainment from throwing unbacked accusations at another human being.

Ok. no bother.

Kinetic^ · 03-09-2008 5:23pm

It was clear from what he said that if a tackle presented itself, he was going for the person and not the ball. Then writing about it is retarded, surely he would've learned from what happened to Keane.

(note: football fan, not a liverpool/man utd fan)

Guy:Incognito · 03-09-2008 5:31pm

I'm only getting in so havnt had a chance to read through all the posts. I read the first page or so so I'm getting he jist.

Anyone thats played football for any lenght of time has taken it upon themselves to hit someone in a tackle to get the back. I've done it plenty of times and had it done to me. I seriously doubt theres a pl footballer that will tell you, if he's hones, that he hasnt done the same. It's part of the game.

Keane went overbord with a high tackle , he should have just went in hard in a 50-50 and let him know he was in a tackle. Nothing wrong with that.

At times on here the conversations go along the lines of some in AH where people completely overcompesate with the whole "pc" thing. People are harrified by any tackle that makes any kind of contact with a player now. Football is a mans game (yes I know theres womens football) thats a contact sport. Players hit each other hard all the time.

I have no reson to belive Carragher was talking about teachign the guy a lesson and giving him a bit of short term pain. Completely different to breakign someone up properly). The game has gone way too far the other way imo and needs a few proper hard men in it that will take ball and man (note not knee high studs up tackles, I'm talking a sweeping tackles that will leave the guy with little more than a sore arse from landing on it).

I'd much rather get a bit of a kick bacl for a had tackle than to tap someone and have them fling themselves onto the ground and start rollign around.

NabyLadistheman · 03-09-2008 5:34pm

Mountain out of a Molehill

If we're going to compare Keane's & Carraghers tackles all thing must be equal. Keane had 3 years mulling over the incident. Severity was high as Haaland stood over him sneering saying he had faked injury - which he obviously had not he had done hids cruciate ligaments.

Carragher believed Song was laughing about him to a few French lads that he was not International standard football. Differance between the two?? Absolutely massive for gods sake!

Also's Carras happened behind closed doors during training. (Not condoning it all the same) Keane's happened in the middle of an EPL game during the Manchester Derby infront of the world against an oppenent who had crossed him before. Carra's was against a team mat in training and we all know what happens in training is completely different to a match situation.

Im not condoning Carra's action Im just saying that to compare the two is absolutely ridiculous

Karmafaerie · 03-09-2008 5:37pm

I've never actually thought a bit of club bias was bad untill this thread.

Such a ridiculous argument.

Mr Alan · 03-09-2008 5:55pm

kida wrote: »

now - post the similarities

emm, both are good footballers? usually play in red? both came to light from an autobiography?

Kinetic^ wrote: »

It was clear from what he said that if a tackle presented itself, he was going for the person and not the ball. Then writing about it is retarded, surely he would've learned from what happened to Keane.

(note: football fan, not a liverpool/man utd fan)

carra wrote:

"the first chance i got, i did him. never have i hunted down a 50-50 tackle with greater appetitie. you're not ****ing laughing now are you, you soft twat"

person not the ball? why would he have to wait for a 50/50 tackle to do that? where does he say that he just went for the man?

incidently keanes admissions

Keane wrote:

I'd waited long enough. I ****ing hit him hard. The ball was there (I think). Take that you ****. And don't ever stand over me sneering about fake injuries. My attitude was, **** him. What goes around comes around. He got his just rewards. He ****ed me over and my attitude is an eye for an eye.

the "eye for an eye" part is of huge importance, the incident with haaland that sparked this fued off was after Keane suffered a long term injury from a nothing challenge and haaland mocked him while he writhed around on the ground in pain, i think it goes without saying that Keanes intention to give Haaland a long term injury in return. and even if it didnt go without saying, keane admitted as such.

Mr.Nice Guy · 03-09-2008 6:05pm

Not going to bother reading this entire thread as I know it's going to involve Liverpool fans staunchly defending Mr Carragher but my take on it is that what he did was just as bad as what Keane did with Haaland.

03-09-2008 6:07pm

A lot of posters have made themselves and their opinions look very very stupid on this thread. People need to get real here. Those who are defending Keane, had Carragher have stamped on AIH would be calling for his head. If Keane had never "done" Haaland but wrote what carragher did today, those defending Carragher would be calling him a disgrace. Some people need to grow the fcuk up.

- What Keane did to Haaland was a disgrace, plain and simple, anyone defending it is blind and has no concept of what sport is.

- Keane talking about it in his book was also a disgrace and deserved the punishement it got. It brings a bad image on the player and the club and frankly doesnt need to be said.

- Keane's tackle on Haaland did not end Haalands career, it was on the wrong leg. There is no proof that Keane ended Hallands career and to say he did makes you look like an idiot. Haaland can say what he wants as he would be understandably irked by what Keane wrote but Keane did his right leg, it was Haalands left leg that caused his retirement. End of story. Trying to say "yea but" doesnt fly so STFU.

- Keane writing about intentionally going in hard on a player in a match is the exact same as Carragher writing about doing it in training. Keane's challenge was bloody awful, we havent seen Carraghers but we can hope and assume that Song probably didnt do a mid air 180 degree turn so Keanes challenge was more than likely worse (we'll never now) but that is not the point. The only difference between the two is that one was seen on TV the other was not. The severity and consequences of the actual tackle are absolutely irrelevent. Carragher may have been lucky that he didnt severely injure Song. The issue is INTENT. Intent because a guy slagged u off an hour before is the same as intent over a few months. Arguing otherwise is dumb and shows that you let bias cloud what you actually think. If this were about an AC Milan and an Inter Milan player comparison we'd get a much more rational bunch of opinions on this matter. Conceding that Keane/Carra were wrong doesnt equate to an admission that United>Liverpool or Liverpool>United ... Jesus Christ lads. Some people need a hobby!

- Carragher should get at the very least a fine for bring the game into disrepute. If you disagree with this and yet agree with Keane getting fined for admitting to intentionally going in hard on a player, and making a profit on it by fuelling book slaes, then you are a hypocrite and your biased opinions are immediately discredited. Managers who don't step onto the field of play get hit with disrepute charges all the time for comments they make and this is no different. He shouldnt have admitted to this while still being an active player.

- People saying that it was on a team mate in training makes it Ok are even worse. If i found out that say Rooney was out for a month because Scholes had mistimed a tackle in training Id be frustrated, but thats football. However if I found out Rooney was out for a month because he'd made fun of Scholes and Scholes had kicked him then I'd be livid. And writing and bragging about it years later goes beyond your average training ground bust up lads...get real.

I'm all for hard tackling players, and I know every player has and will at some stage gone in hard on a player intentionally but bragging about it in a book isnt big, it isn't smart, and worst of all it sets a bad example. This thread highlights the lows this United Liverpool bullsh1t can drag this forum too and it's so far beyond pathetic at this stage.

Guy:Incognito · 03-09-2008 6:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

- What Keane did to Haaland was a disgrace, plain and simple, anyone defending it is blind and has no concept of what sport is.
.

My only issue with what Keane did was the type of tackle. Knee high with studs. Had he just hit him hard in a couple of 50-50's theres no issue.

I have no issue talking about any time I've hit a player in a tackle. It's not bragging, it's a conversation. If he books were full of "monday I went training, then I wet shopping, hom eto bed at 10, tuesday.........."etc etc they would be cra. If I am reading a book about a footballer, it's a person or subject I'm really interested in. I like to know how and what these people think, what drives them and what goes through their headfs in situations, aswell as getting little stories tha you otherwise wouldnt hear, good and bad.

I'm a great admirer of Keane and his winning attitude. I read the book to get an insight into what makes him tick, not the dietry and work schedule of a prem footballer.

Fall_Guy · 03-09-2008 6:13pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

1)person not the ball? why would he have to wait for a 50/50 tackle to do that? where does he say that he just went for the man?

incidently keanes admissions

2)the "eye for an eye" part is of huge importance, the incident with haaland that sparked this fued off was after Keane suffered a long term injury from a nothing challenge and haaland mocked him while he writhed around on the ground in pain, i think it goes without saying that Keanes intention to give Haaland a long term injury in return. and even if it didnt go without saying, keane admitted as such.

1) He would wait for a 50/50 tackle to make it look like he had some interest in getting the ball. Only makes sense really.

2) Keane suffered the injury TRYING to trip Haaland up, this is addmitted in the book. He was pissed at Haaland because of his taking the piss throughout the first game, and his claiming that keane was feigning injury. I would wager that the "eye for an eye" nonsense is dunphy embellishment (either that or keane isn't the smartest seeing as haaland did NOT injure him)

This is a stupid thread

Comments