dorian gray

not sure at what you're trying to say in the first line. as for the second, i'd noticed it a while ago about you, I had you with the Gallipoli posting, but like your hero, you just kept coming. well I say like him, at least YOU kept coming unlike him who sent some other poor b*****ds, and more than plenty of 'em.

it was a political bias, IF seb coe had won it for finishing 4th, and 9th. in two races, that would have been it again. Churchill was voted the greatest ever Englishman, but he was voted as such by tory voters sick of losing general elections to labour.

I don't think it's 'unnecessary' to mention the man who 'spent' our best chance for decades, and is still championed by some who think 2 play off failures are worth that chance spent.

despite the labour government, the tory party vote would be solid at 30%+ during that time, more than enough to bias such a broad based poll, in which both Elizabeth l, and Brunel would be well ahead of 'the chancer'. as you post (which I had overlooked) the vote for him would be bolstered further because things were going so badly for the conservatives in the country at the time.

NO!, he didn't.

YES, so as answer those who neg and don't post, perhaps you should try it. .

the cowboy and chancer was voted 'the greatest ever englishman' in modern times by the vote of the modern day tory party. very few at the time of his 'greatest achievement' (to hear some speak) voted for him then, enough to lose him a general election DURING that 'greatest ever achievement'. perhaps his true greatest ever achievement was to switch from one party to another during his political career, something which now the present day tory party and a great number of it's supporters see as the greatest betrayal when it happens to them. as for coco, he was a lowly qualified failure when he was appointed, he still is.

you cocoettes don't like uncle coco's shortcomings mentioning do you?

I think some of the home abuse is just waiting for the opportunity to go off.

let's go. according to you, the best side wins, thus hull, but then hull should have lost to brighton in the final, as brighton entered the play off as the strongest best side. we did have a thin squad, but we had thinner tactic s, and that's down to just one man. his track record proves he didn't 'run the course like all managers' his course ran for around 12 months if he was lucky, at hillsborough it was the perfect storm for him, an inexperienced owner, and little if any supervision from above. maybe me what? there weren't many dumped on that coastline had anything nice to say about your 'chancer' hero, same as some nigh on 20 years later with his Norwegian fiasco that cost my grandfather the life of his son when the glorious, argent, and arcasta met with the scharnorst and gneisnau in his latest 'cowboy' adventure.

age of the team, and lack of decent cover in the squad in terms of attacking options for 2 games a week football..

of course an encouraging home atmosphere is better for the players than people doing the opposite and shouting 'YOU'RE F*****G S*** ******, F*** OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE', BOOOOOO! it's far easier to do good work when fully 'encouraged' to do so, NOT guaranteed by any means, but easier.

we need to add more than one player up top, to cover for fletcher, and someone to work off the main striker.

he is correct about the 'ageing fanbase', and also I believe the st holders are not as 'vocally enthusiastic' as the once a month potg brigade once were. but the once a month brigade has now become the 3 times a season brigade, and if it's not addressed will become the 'I used to go, but don't bother anymore' brigade.

we're better at counter attacking.