Oy_the_Great

Oh God, there we go again. Sure, toss a few billions to the Africans, that'll solve their problems. You know what? Why don't we just give them every penny we spend on advertising, luxury products and all entertainment. Those aren't necessary either, and it counts for hundreds, if not thousands of billions.

No reason to get offensive mate, if I were a tad more aggressive I'd have to punch you in the face for calling my team a lot worse than yours, which is without a doubt untrue. You may like your team a lot, but I judge a team's continental abilities (so their actual global value) on their results in all the continental games they played. Rosenborg is no better than a good Belgian team, and we suck. As for the bad continental results: you may be unlucky a few times, but to say all of your losses were bad luck or bad refs, that's a load of bs, and you know it. If you don't you don't know a thing about football. So there you have it, you can try to convince me Rosenborg is better than Barça, Man U, Chelsea, Juve and all the teams in the world combined, I would just stand there laughing at your naivety.

You know I did think that too.... :lol: @smellysocks: Essien is a great player, why would you not want him as a CDM? If you want my reasons, check his description in my first post. @olenik: Rosenborg was a fairly good team in the late '90s, but to say that they were as good as a dream team nowadays is a little courageous. And actually that's an understatement: if a team like the ones we posted above your post would be able to train together for about a year, and if they all get along, there is no way that they would lose against Rosenborg '99. Perhaps if they played 10 games, they might win once, of course, but so would any team that plays in the PL, La Liga or Serie A at the moment. I mean check their continental games of that time (just searched them, I don't know that much about football :)): *98-99: Club Brugge (my favourite club too): 2-0 and 2-4, won by away goals, not by superiority * " " " : Atletic Bilbao (not the best of Spanish clubs): 1-1, 2-1: not very convincing * " " " : Juve: 1-1, 0-2: lost * " " " : Galatasaray: 3-0, 0-3 *99-00: Boavista: 3-0, 2-0: not bad, but Boavista isn't the best club either * " " " : Feyenoord: 2-2, 0-1: lost, against a club that isn't anywhere near a champion either * " " " : Bayern Munich: 1-1, 1-2: lost * " " " : Real Madrid: 1-3, 0-1: finally a club worthy to be a good referenece: lost twice * " " " : Dynamo Kiev: 1-2, 1-2: again, 2 losses against a mediocre club So I'm guessing your feelings played too big a role there, seeing as they achieved nothing in a continental championship. Rosenborg is probably to you what Club Brugge is to me: one of the best Danish teams (vs one of the best Belgian teams), but still a weak team when compared to the true giants. And just for fun's sake, I'm going to post my dream team of young players as well: ................................................. . S.Agüero . . C.Ronaldo . .S.Giovinco L.Messi. . W.Sneijder Anderson . . . .G.Chiellini V.Behrami. . M.Sakho M.Richards . . O.Ustari . ................................................. The newcomers: 'Kun' Sergio Agüero: best young player of South America twice, best player once, then transferred to Atletico. Now one of the strongholders there, I'm sure he's going to a major club next season, for a high transfer fee. He's lightening fast, has great technique, a very accurate shot and is pretty much Messi, but in a striker form. Sebastian Gionvinco: A Juve-gem, he's been called the new Del Pierro, and also trained with him. Del Pierro himself taught him the tricks of the trade. He's a very small but incredibly talented guy: super agile, the ball sticks to his feet and his creativity and technique allow him to create (and finish, if needed) opportunities. Sneijder: One of the most underrated players until half a year ago IMHO. I've been kinda following his games as much as I could and there are very little players that can hit the ball as sweetly as he can. He made that clear in the Euro 2008 games he played, including the qualifying games. Anderson: An attacking midfielder at first, but Fergie & co shaped him into a very dangerous CM with defensive qualities as well. His passing and shot are very good, just like Sneijder, but he's faster and has Brazilian spunk. Also not afraid to commit a foul now and then, if needed. Valon Behrami: Went to West Ham this year, for only 5mil, which I think may prove to be way below his value. He's very fast, strong, has a sharp tackle and he's one of those right backs that can function as a winger as well: good dribbling skills, knows where to be when attacking etc. Mamadou Sakho: This is probably the least known name, as he plays at PSG, and only became part of the A-team there this year. He's an outstanding central defender, also able to function as a left back, this is the guy you want in your defence. Rather fast, very strong, supreme in the air, always concentrated and on the right spot and very good defensive skills. Micah Richards: Every UK football fan knows him by now: this Man City defender is pretty much the equivalent of Sakho, not for the left, but the right part of the defense: a black defender who's got the insight, the defensive skills, the attitude and the physique. Oscar Ustari: This Argentinian/Italian goalie plays at Getafe, and although he wasn't able to keep the 0 that many times, it has more to do with the questionable Getafe defence. Ustari is an intelligent goalie, one who does not try unpredictable foppish saves, but rather stays put and does his job well, kinda like Van Der Sar.

I was thinking of putting myself on the left back spot, but I figured I'd give the others a chance too ;)

Just check out how many goals he scored for Inter this year, and if you've closely followed the Serie A games, you'll also notice he's extra sharp on important moments. He's the man at inter that keeps them from being a regular 6-7th ranked team in Italy. 26 games, 17 goals: try doing that in defensive-minded Italy when you're the only striker playing in your team. And again: his goals are important ones. He decided the derby against A.C. twice in the 06-07 season, and this season, after having been injured for about 2 months, he had to score against Parma to win the title. He did, twice! Inter champions again. And the 3 seasons before that one, he also won the Scudetto, once with Juve, twice with Inter, that had been doing dreadful the seasons before he came.

After all the commotion with Man City's wish to form a dream team, since they apparently don't seem to take the player's prices into account, I was wondering what everyone here would do if you were in charge of the team and the transfers of Man City. So imagine yourself to be the manager of the club, with unlimited funds at your disposal: what players would you want to buy and on what positions would you assign them? My team is based on my experience with Football Manager '08, a fairly reliable source of the qualities of players (even some top coaches use it), and of course my own opinion after watching international games and games in the Premier League, La Liga, the Serie A and the Champions League in particular. Here goes! ................................................. . Ibrahimovic . . . . Ronaldo . .Robben Messi. . Iniesta . . Essien . .Chiellini Alves. . Terry Puyol . . Buffon . ................................................. On the bench: Casillas (GK) - Real Madrid Barzagli (CD) - Wolfsburg Rio Ferdinand (CD) - Manchester United Gerrard (CM, AM, LM, RM) - Liverpool Fàbregas (CM, AM) - Arsenal Silva (ALM, ACM) - Valencia Eto'o (CA) - Barcelona Some players were a tough choice (Xavi, Iniesta, or Fàbregas? Henry, Rooney or Eto'o?) but all in all I'd be pretty pleased if I were the coach of this team :) Now for a summary of why I picked them: Gianluigi Buffon: A fantastic keeper obviously, and a leading figure on the field, something I highly value in a goalie. John Terry: English sturdiness, leadership and great reading of the game, combined with excellent defensive skills and aerial quality. There's little Terry can't that's required to be a perfect defender. Carles Puyol: The lack of speed of John Terry is compensated by Puyol: on a potential counter and the rare occasion Terry isn't where he should be, Puyol would be able to cope with it. His speed, tackles and tough approach is very useful. Giorgio Chiellini: Not easy to pick the right player for a left back, I would have picked Ashley Cole, but Chiellini's outstanding performances lead me to this choice. Some Italian ferociousness is always a plus in defense: Chiellini is a very skilled and impressive left back, who's also perfect as a central back, if needed. Daniel Alves: Brazilian flair, technique and speed, but also a sharp tackle and good positioning, this guy has it all. He's also able to hit a ball sweetly, a good choice for free kicks, corners and he's very good at crossing the ball when running down his right wing. Michael Essien: What Alves lacks in stature, Essien (and Puyol) can easily compensate on the right wing, where he also feels comfortable. He's one of the very best players in the world, perhaps primarily because of his versatility. Strong, fast, agile, great stamina, good technique and good defensive qualities. That's all you need as a defensive midfielder. Andrès Iniesta: Maybe not an outstanding choice, because there are quite a lot of great central midfielders comparable with him, 2 of them that had the same training as he had: Xavi and Fàbregas, all three of them Barça youth products. But I'm a fan of 'El Blanquito', so I picked him. He's a brilliant player who always seems to spot what no one else spotted: he can create great opportunities out of nowhere by landing the ball precisely where he wants it and has excellent skill on the ball too. Arjen Robben: Not easy to pick my favourite left winger, but with a couple of great performances this year, international and in Spain, at Real, he's my favourite. Every football fan knows his qualities: his acceleration, general pace, fantastic dribbling technique, good passing and finishing abilities too. Lionel Messi: My favourite player at the moment, next to Thierry Henry. He's a killer when in top form, and he's still lethal when in regular shape. There's no one at the moment who appeals as much to me as Lionel Messi, because of his sudden movement and sheer brilliance by times. Although I was too young to have seen Maradonna's godlike actions, I have no doubt that Messi is just as good and has pretty much the same qualities. Perhaps it's in the Argentinian air, or it's just their culture, but they keep producing the most amazing footballers. Cristiano Ronaldo: Even people who have never touched a football know him, and for good reason. Ronaldo can combine pace, fabulous technique, unpredictability and overall skill with power, agility and aerial supremacy. Something you rarely see: most players lack in at least one of the above, since being good at the ball and agile often goes hand in hand with being small and not very strong. Ronaldo somehow is able to have all of that though, and, unfair to others as it may be, it makes him the greatest player in the world IMHO. He should still keep working on his attitude though, but he's not the only arrogant world class player. Zlatan Ibrahimovic: Just like Ronaldo, Zlatan is able to combine everything an attacking player needs. He may not be as fast as Ronaldo, but he's taller and stronger, and he's better in placing a ball exactly where he wants it, with tremendous power. He has very little weak aspects, but that may be the reason why he too is pretty arrogant and selfish. Still, because my team would only have one (target) striker, he perfectly fits the role. I was first thinking of putting Fernando Torres there, since they both had great seasons, but Zlatan's combination of technique and stature is unique, and I prefer him. I'm not going to summarize my choice of 7 reserves, my post is long enough as it is. So what are your dream teams? What do you think of mine? Any flaws? You don't have to clarify why you chose your players, but I would appreciate some information. Oh, and you can just quote my post and use the football grid I used for the positions: just make sure the spaces in between are right :) Have some managing fun! Oy

If you can't be bothered to read all of the following, just click this shiny blue link here and enjoy the BBC show about black holes. But if you do, just use your imagination: a black hole is nothing more than mass, compressed to the very limit of what's physically possible. If it starts to take shape, things go fast, though it won't happen in a blink of an eye, like you said. The world will probably shake itself apart, the entire landmass will break into pieces because it is sucked towards one point. All of us will no doubt be dead pretty soon after it started, simply because of the enormous earthquakes, tidal waves, spewing lava and emitted gasses. If you imagine an invisible and tiny, but incredibly strong vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything in its reach, then you've got the idea of what a black hole is. It's definitely not a hole, it's a ball of dense mass. It's just called a black hole, because it looks like an infinite pitch black hole, since it even sucks up light. Real black holes are actually just dead giant stars, that have burned out completely, which results in an immense explosion (after it burns out) and if the explosion is big enough, the star's core implodes with such a force, that all distance between electrons, protons and neutrons (which is normally [relatively] huge) collapses to nothing at all. That way, the core of the star still has all the gravitational strength it had before, but it's packed in a dense ball, billions of times smaller than the original star. So there you have it: a once huge star, now a tiny dead star, floating around into space, invisible until it reaches something that it can pull in. Then it becomes visible, because the matter of whatever it sucks in, can be seen pulled towards it, and part of it is spewed out lightyears away, like a ray of light. Whenever it consumes another star it happened to come across, it just becomes more powerful, because the weight of the star it sucks in adds to the gravitational strength of the black hole.

...if you haven't played RS in 6 years, and never even cared for the 3D version. I would be a hopeless noob now. Hopeless, but still filthy rich on that game.

You got that right :) I'm going for the noble unknown: someone with 'xx' in front and at the end of their name.

I liked Futurama better than American Dad, but I just never really got into it. Remember that I live in Europe, and the Belgian broadcast services didn't air it like they should have: it was a pretty random mix of episodes, which makes the plot really hard to follow. Having watched only like 10 episodes, I have no clue what the plot is about really. I've been watching the Simpsons ever since they started to air it here, and I was only 8 then. Now, almost 14 years later, it's one of those shows you're just so familiar with, that even bad episodes are still very enjoyable, because you feel right at home in every episode. But if you guys, Nadril and Indy, both think Futurama is better than the Simpsons, then it's a guarantee for me that it is definitely worth seeing from the beginning to the end, on the internet then. I've got my sources (alluc, surfthechannel,...) to watch it, so I might just give it a shot some time this month, and I'll probably get hooked on it right away, if Matt Groening doesn't let me down :)

Yep, me too. I'm a very big fan of Family Guy, and if American Dad wasn't from Seth MacFarlane as well, I might've liked it. But it's exactely like Futurama: you know it's from the mastermind behind a milestone in the history of television, so you automatically compare it to it and find it weaker than its bigger brother. And about South Park: I love Cartman, especially the nasal voice he uses when begging his mom for something. But muuuum: hilarious. I really hate their often sad attempts to bring some wisdom to the youths they're reaching though. That's where Family Guy is so much better in: Seth MacFarlane doesn't really give a damn about stuffing a morale into each episode. The episodes often abruptely end with Stewie plotting another evil plan or Peter saying something hilarious, instead of a message to the viewers, and that makes it all the more appealing to me.

Damn, I beat myself to it. All right then: silver_wits, show yourself!

Eh, I am in time now :D I'm going for silver_wits

Ah, god damn it :P I'll nominate myself once again, just for laughs.

*buzz* Wrong answer! I'm guessing it'll be Oy?

Oy_thhe_Greaat Damn, near perfection. Now to try with my nose, using shift lock button if needed :) Oy_the_Great Whoa, didn't expect that to go easier. Does make you dizzy though.

Well, our conversations all of a sudden become quite meaningless. I actually thought you found some of the stuff I said funny. There goes my self-esteem. (is there an acronym that's the opposite of 'lol'? Would fit in here) You know I'm just kidding mate ; )

I think you've been watching too many cartoons mate. A black hole is nothing more than a ball of compressed stuff actually. It's not like a wormhole. Just sucks up everything into a tiny little ball with enourmous density. All the usual space between electrons, protons and neutrons is reduced to nothing (electrons and protons then form neutrons, hence the name neutron star, the phase before a black hole) and it goes even further, until no space at all is between all the particles that form atoms. Our world would be like a little marble, smaller than a pea, but with the same gravitational pulling power as it is now, and that's it. So black holes don't teleport us to a new dimension. They just suck, they suck a lot. Sometimes the great discoveries have been made when we've been researching simply for truth's sake. Besides, who's to say what should take precedence when universities and benefactors decide to allocate money? If people really didn't think this was important, it wouldn't have got the funding. But it did, and that's democracy. Yeah, this information is crucial, because with the knowledge gained from it (proof that the Higgs boson exists), a whole lot of research can commence that would never occur if it would be biased on a probability. Try raising millions of euros of funds for investigation based on something that 'is most likely there, but maybe not". It's like mathematical dogmas: if you cannot accept that + is an addition and - a deduction, you won't be able to prove a lot.

No, if CERN spent the 4 billion researching into aids, ways to provide more food, etc instead of chucking it all into atom research, I'm fairly sure it could fix some problems. I don't understand how you disagreeing with the amount of money spent on the LHC makes it any less interesting or exciting, and it certainly doesn't make it pointless or a waste of money. Exactely, one of my friends works at the CERN in Geneva, and I can think of dozens of things that require a lot more money and that are far more of a waste of money. What the CERN does, for example, is provide you with inventions like internet. A large part of internet's developpement was done there, and I'm sure a lot more practical stuff find its origin there.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of internet abbreviations either. Whenever (fairly rare these days) I do log on on MSN (never used anything else for chatting), I tend to just type out whatever I want to say.

Cheeky sod -.- Damn, when will people learn not to misinterpret things? I meant that they didn't win anything major in that period. Of course they were succesful, they're both fantastic teams, but they did not fulfill the high expectations back then, did they?

Of course you have to offer more than the player's value, but there is no way that even the best player in the world is worth 200 million euros. 100mil, sure, that would be the equivalent of Zidane's value when you take inflation into account. But I don't believe any team in the world would be better off with 200 million-Cristiano than with a whole array of great players between 20 and 60 million totalling 200m. The new owner of Man City claimed he wants to make them the biggest club in the world, if that means signing what is right now footballs greatest young talent then I think he will pay the price for it. C Ronaldo does have the potential to be greater than Zidane ever was. It seems the new owner is going more for the glory group than clever decisions such as buying 3 top quality players in the 60 Million area. His demise tbh. Yup, I agree with you there. Ronaldo has it all, the only thing that needs improvement seems to be his mentality in certain situations. And if Man City wants him per se, instead of using their money a little better, then by all means they should. I just think it's idiotic, and toying with millions of dollars destroys the chances of any club that isn't as fortunate.

This is actually a really nice topic: I doubt anyone would publicly say these things, even though they're really representative for what's actually going on in the human minds. Wouldn't the most efficient way to kill AIDS is to kill everyone who has it? How can you gather all the HIV-infected people and be sure there aren't any others around, that don't even know it themselves? That's the problem with all diseases. Also, no offense, this thread is about posting your honest opinion, but just a tip: never ever say that in public. It's more offensive to mankind than what the Romans did to lepers (put them all in unaccessible remote areas and lob some food there once in a while, until they all died out) and it is just as bad as what the Nazi's did to Jews, handicapped people, gypsies, etc. I think the best solution to solve AIDS might actually be what Shadowfax said: somehow find a way that they can never infect anyone else. But of course, there's numerous problems there: not everyone that has HIV knows it yet, sex isn't the only way to transmit the disease... I'm a pretty down-to-earth guy, but my most unethical thoughts would be to forbid reproduction of all little pesky dogs, the type Paris Hilton has. Those friggin' bugs wouldn't survive for a day in the wild, and they're the most annoying things next to their bosses, either spoiled girls or the type of old embittered women that thinks everything was better in her days. I once saw one of those dogs run right under a bus, after it was barking (that eery shrill barking, arrr) at me, while waiting in line at the grocery shop. I had to bite my lip from not bursting out in laughter.

Of course you have to offer more than the player's value, but there is no way that even the best player in the world is worth 200 million euros. 100mil, sure, that would be the equivalent of Zidane's value when you take inflation into account. But I don't believe any team in the world would be better off with 200 million-Cristiano than with a whole array of great players between 20 and 60 million totalling 200m.

Real and Chelsea never won anything after their immensely expensive purchases. I believe Real might have won the Copa, but what I was trying to say was that a team based on just excellent individuals is not always the best team, at all. And are you serious about Deco? Sure, he did well in the season Barça won the Champions League, but that was mainly due to the great performances of Eto'o, Puyol and Messi IMHO. Deco is a very good central midfielder, but only if backed up with the right team. Last year he didn't make any difference at all, he was perhaps my biggest disappointment. Luckily enough, Iniesta was still there to cover for him. To me, the best buy is Behrami, a really good and versatile player, and only for 6.5m too. If the transfer fee didn't matter, I'd say Dani Alves is the best transfer. Barça needed a good right winger that fitted in their type of play, since Zambrotta left, and there's no better right winger than Alves atm.