"Spurs play primitive football and are extremely naive"

We beat Liverpool 2-1, cue 40+ page thread over at Man City forum Bluemoon about Spurs. Started off innocently enough with one of the locals suggesting Spurs are a better team. Which arguably we've proven to be. Perhaps that will change in the course of this season. We'll have to wait and see. The whole billionaire playboy buys a football club scenario is obviously not the same thing as spending untold millions within your own means. Although both methods can be open to criticism - especially if there is a distinct lack of silverware in the trophy cabinet or no tangible progression.

Not to suggest there is anything wrong with supporting your club no matter the transfer philosophy. And if you happen to see a consortium or the uber-rich take over, you're going to be happy. However, grace and class is hardly something you can pay for. And success is never deserved, it's earned.

Because of the manner of their rags to riches story and their massively over paid 'superstar' signings they (granted it's a fraction of their support that frequent Bluemoon so I'm not tainting all City fans with this paintbrush of ridiculousness) seem to think its a given this will equate to success because how dare success not become them if they've spent millions in such a short space of time with the main objective to dominate. There's a couple of them that have been posting on the forum for several years. You'd think they'd appreciate their humble beginnings and respect their competition and have patience in terms of what goes into the fundamental building blocks of success and a winning mentality. But alas no.

Welcome to Madchester. We spent a few hundred million so book that open bus parade.

That's the problem with this type of 'project'. The expectancy is that glory must be a given. It only worked at Chelsea because of one special reason. And arguably Chelsea were already knocking on the door of the United and Arsenal party.

That's my opinion. Bluemoon's opinion of Tottenham?

"They are on steroids. EPL is a joke if they dont do better doping tests"

"Spurs play primitive football and are extremely naive"

"We are leagues ahead of them, they have a couple of players and a lot of luck. They have no depth and should we want to we could buy ANY of their players to weaken them"

The above are some of the more level-headed statements made. Apparently Lennon only scored the winner in the 93rd minute because he had help, possibly from a doctor who gave him magic energy juice, because its nigh impossible to believe he's an athlete and capable of a burst and run onto goal late on. Hate to think how much of the stuff Tevez is drinking. Perhaps Ricky Villa was on the juice too back in 1981.

Would like to think not all City fans are this backwards. Anyone? Answers on a postcard. Granted in my time I was deluded enough to think Johnnie Jackson was a decent player and Adel Taarabt would be the new Glenn Hoddle. But some of the quoted statements sound like it's come from Davspurs demented northern cousin.

I know, I know, why should we even bother with it. It's a minority, much like any forum or blog following. It's a bunch of people sharing their opinions. And yes, we too have similar ilks of nutters on various message boards preaching in the fickle art of knee-jerk. But I hardly think any of them would venture into this David Lynchesque delusional madness.

Throw enough **** at the wall and some of it will stick. City will get there in the end. But it's hardly endearing. This template has worked before although one or two have hardly managed to sustain it. Someone pointed out how Liverpool - one of the richest clubs in the world in terms of history - have struggled to take hold of the domestic bread and butter like they did in the 70's and 80's. Their cycle might have ended but they've endeavoured. It's naive to think anyone can become someone just because of their fat wallet.

Welcome to Fadchester.

Cheeky bid for Walter Mitty any day now.

We're all in agreement, Azza is better than Theo...

Remember the days when Lennon was accused of being all pace, no end product or composure and pretty much someone who was tagged as a one-trick pony with a limited shelf-life (thanks to defenders quickly working out how to stop him in his tracks)? He had that one single season, that one blip, where he struggled for ideas, lost his way a little. But his progression returned the following year and he continues to improve - in all areas. Not the finished article by a long shot, but a key first team player and one that is a sure fire inclusion for the World Cup, as long as he recovers from his injury. He can score, cross and has a more than decent first touch and is excellent at nicking the ball off opposition players, skipping around them and running off with the leather at his feet. Off the bench for England, he's the definitive impact player. They'll try to hack him down, cards all over the place from the ref.

Theo Walcott on the other hand has done little in the way of anything in the past few seasons. Once you place the hype aside and box it back up and then take the ridiculous decision to take him to the last WC and flush that down the toilet, he's basically a player with plenty of pace - but nothing else. He's a blindfolded Lennon.

Okay, so he's been plagued with injuries - but if this kid played for anyone else, he'd be nowhere near the England team. Even Arsenal fans have run out of patience.

He runs but shows no crafty clever movements and his touch is abysmal for a player much cited as some sort of Henry prototype (see what tabloid hype does and how detrimental it can be?)

Yet our esteemed English tabloids continue to perpetuate fantasy. As though they are attempting to force the issue that surely a young English player at Arsenal HAS to be good and good enough for England. Sven took him to the WC ffs!!!111

Re: tabloids, I'm referring to The Sun and Steven Howard. Which brings me onto today's 'Forum Post of the Day'. Even though its not even 11am (at time of writing), I read this nailed-on reaction to Howard's match report of England's 3-1 win last night which included two gems. One stating Carrick made no impact and the other rewarding Theo a healthy 7 out of 10 for his performance when 4 or 3 would have been far more justified. Considering what SWP did when he came on, the gulf between the two is massive, let alone when comparing TW to Lennon or even David Beckham. Or even David bleeding Bentley.

It would be great if this guy could perform to the level most people remember (the hat trick v Croatia) but that appears to have been one spike in a land of blips. This is a bit like waiting on Jenas to excel because he smashed up Arsenal that one time. It's not happening. It's not going to happen. It's The Happening directed by M. Night Shyamalan. A strange, horrible and unprecedented crisis begins at the Emirates and transcends across to Wembley. The mysterious neurotoxin causes any Sun reporters coming into contact with it to commit common sense suicide. This all started several years back when our young protagonist, playing for Southampton at the time, run down the wing and chipped it in. Have you not see the video of that chip? That goal when he chips it in? Haven't you seen the chip? He chips it. Sky Sports News played that one clip all the time at the time. Over and over and over again. It's the chip. The goal where he chips it over the keeper and into the goal. The kid had chipability. He chips the ball in against some team and scores.

I'm just bitter he rejected us and went to them because of the number 14 factor. Bitter until Gareth Bale pulled himself out of an almighty lull to regain the potential we always prayed he had.

Others are not quite infected by the tiresome hype.

Waddle nailed it on 5 Live: "I've been analysing Walcott's wing play and I've come to the conclusion he does not understand the game".

Fact.

So, thanks to Markysimmo04 over at GG.co.uk and his e-mail to Steven Howard which wins today's 'Forum Post of the Day':

My work colleagues and I were wondering if you actually watched the game last night or maybe was in the bar during the whole of it..
 
How on earth can you give Walcott a 7, apart from one run in the first minute he once again looked like a little boy lost on the pitch and somebody who is only in the squad because he plays for one of the sky / media top 4 cartel, 67 games in 5 seasons for the trophy-less Arsenal shows he isn't even good enough for the premier league let alone international football
 
Or maybe your an Arsenal fan or one of Monsieur Wenger's disciples who hang on every biased comment he makes as the comment about Carrick not making an impression, he had a very good 20 mins or so and made the team tick a lot more than with Lampard on
 
Anyhow your ratings have made for much merriment in our office this morning and we are looking forward to seeing more one eyed clueless reporting in the upcoming weeks and months leading to the world cup 

Well in Mark. I do appreciate a good letter.

Update on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 1:42PM by spooky

Looks like Steven Howard has replied to Mark's e-mail. Have to say, if this is geninue, he has slightly (ever so slightly) gone up in my estimation. Single notch mind. Nothing more.

I'm afraid I didn't do the player ratings. These were done by my colleague Ian McGarry. Sadly, as they sometimes do, they missed outhis by-line. So, once again, I'm made to look a mug. I can do this quite easily on my own without anyone else's help!

Yrs Steve H

Excellent.