BBC Blog Network

User Profile

LondonBarnes

Listed below are comments made by LondonBarnes between Monday, 6th July 2009 and Tuesday, 27th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Rafa revived 5:20pm on 27 Oct 2009 #105, Last season at Anfield didn't Liverpool beat United without Torres? We also beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge with no Torres or Gerrard last season. Out of the 38 games, Gerrard and Torres played together 14 times. Yet somehow we finished 2nd with 86 points. Our highest points total since the 1987-88 season. And were league top scorers.

We've lost 6 games in all competitions this season. Gerrard and Torres played in 4 of them.

No doubt though that we are a better team when we have our 2 best players in the team. But does that not apply to all teams?

If Ronaldo and Rooney only played 14 of the 38 league games last season would they have won the league last season? Or the season before? I don't think so.

Since Essien, Lampard and Drogba have started getting a few injuries how many league titles have they won?

Fact is this: Take out the better players in any team and they will struggle to win the biggest prizes. Teams can get through the odd game without their better players but during a whole season it has an effect. Would Barca have won La Liga and the CL with Messi and Iniesta injured for large chunks of the season? How many games have Real Madrid won this season without Ronaldo?
Rafa revived 4:33pm on 27 Oct 2009 As a Liverpool fan I didn't have a problem with Owen signing for the mancs. They were the only big club that made him an offer. No doubt he's getting massive wages as well. Can't really blame him. But don't be expecting polite applause running out at Anfield in a white hot derby while wearing the manc kit.

I noticed there are no debates about zonal marking this week in the media. No talk of a 2 man team either. Or maybe the talk of 2 man team should be pointed at United because without Rooney and Fletcher they are an ordinary side in my opinion.
Del Potro sets seal on memorable US Open 4:44pm on 18 Sep 2009 During that first set Federer was playing like a God! He seemed to lose it big time after the dubious hawkeye decision that lead to him losing his serve in the 2nd set. He had a 42% first serve or something? That affected him big time especially in the tie breaks where he didn’t have any cheap points whatsoever. Del Potro on the other hand had a wonderful 1st serve percentage in the tie breaks and thus won 2 of them pretty easily to get the match to 2 sets all.

In my opinion Federer’s overall level dropped quite significantly after the first set. 9 times out of 10 when this happens against anyone but Nadal he wins the match anyway. Against Roddick in the Wimbledon final Federer was not anywhere near his best while A-Rod could not play any better in my opinion. Fed won the match. In the French open quarter final Del Potro was at his best against an out of sorts Fed but Fed won anyway. This time however Fed lost the match.

Del Potro played superb tennis. After the first set he was at his absolute best I feel and it was enough to win in 5 sets. He has improved greatly over the last couple of years and should be a contender for future slams on a hard court. However I wouldn’t jump on the bandwagon just yet about him being a definite future world number #1. In my opinion when Nadal and Fed are at the top of their game they are miles ahead of the rest. Either Fed or Nadal have won 21 out of the last 26 grand slam titles. Both are in their 20s. That’s incredible and until someone else starts to consistently get to the final let alone win multiple titles I won’t be getting too excited about anyone else taking over at the top of the men’s game.

Any talk of a changing of the guard is very premature. I can’t remember the last time I watched a Grand Slam final where Federer wasn’t playing. Such consistency is unprecedented.

Well done to Del Potro though – he played one hell of a tournament!
Ferguson talk must please Man City 1:48pm on 18 Sep 2009 I think the comments from Taggart were beyond the pale.
Boxing needs a Bolt 1:45pm on 16 Sep 2009 I must say MMA doesn’t do it for me. Especially the grappling on the floor. Some of the fights remind me of a fight in the pub carpark. 2 guys rolling around. Some of my mates love it though.

As MMA gets bigger and bigger it might just end up with all the politics that boxing has now. I read somewhere that the money the promoters make compared to what the fighters earn is amazing. The fighters get screwed financially. When they wise up and start getting proper promoters and managers we’ll see the politics I reckon.
Boxing needs a Bolt 1:34pm on 16 Sep 2009 The last Bolt of Boxing was Mike Tyson. How many books about him have been sold? How many videos and DVDs about his life? Compare to someone like Mayweather or Roy Jones Jnr. How many people would buy their autobiographies? Same can be said os Pacman outside the Philipines and hardcore fight fans. Ask my mum if she knows who Manny Pacquiao is and I think she'd be stumped. Ask anyone over 20 years old about Mike Tyson and it would be a different story.

I was Joe Public in the 90s when Roy Jones was at his peak and I didn't know about him at the time. All I knew is that he beat up the bloke who was dissing Ebank's mother on TV (James Tony).
Boxing needs a Bolt 12:52pm on 16 Sep 2009 Pay per view TV affected the popularity of boxing big time. Not to the hardcore fans but for fans like me. I remember the Watson, Ben, Eubank, Collins era where most of the fights were on ITV. I missed the vast majority of Calzage's career - Hatton too. I missed most of Roy Jones Jnr's career as well Mayweather's. I thought boxing was not worth watching because it wasn't hyped up on normal TV or the sports pages in the newspapers. It's only recently since I started hanging with my cousin and his friends who are proper fight fans I've realised that there were indeed great fighters and fights in the late 90s early 2000s. I've gone on youtube to watch most of those. At the time though i wasn't interested. Why? Because I had not heard of most of the fighters and also because the fights cost an extra £20 to watch while showing at 4am.

I am not surprised your cabbie has not heard of David Haye, Ben. If I didn't have sky sports or setanta and didn't hang out with hardcore fight fans I probably would know about him either.
Murray nears the summit 5:24pm on 19 Aug 2009 In my opinion Murray will not be regarded as a great until he wins a Gran Slam title. Nothing to do with anti-Murray or anti-Scottish or anti-UK. It’s just the way it is. Greatness in Tennis is measured by the success in GS tournaments. Ask any Tennis fan, pundit or past player their top 20 players of all time and I’d guarantee all of the players mentioned would have won multiple GS titles. Laver, Federer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendle, Nadal, Aggasi just to name a few… I couldn’t tell you how many Master titles they won or how many weeks they were number #1. On TV they don’t show repeats of a Master series from the 80s or 90s. Or a computer screen showing the rankings.

If Murray gets to the number one spot but never wins a GS – in 15 years time will we remember him as a great player? Will we say “oh Murray was world number one between Jan-Aug 2010, what a great he was”? I somehow doubt it. In September 2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero became world number one. Is he lauded as a great of the game?

I remember watching the Sampras v Agassi final at Wimbledon a few years ago. Sampras slaughtered Andre in straight sets yet Agassi went to world number one. How are we supposed to consider a player the best in the world after watching him get his backside spanked in the biggest tennis match of the year? At least Andre won a few GS titles though. But say Nadal and Fed lose early in the US open, Murray gets to the final and loses to Del Potro and loses in straight sets. If the computer says he is number #1 would it be right to laud him as the greatest tennis player in the world?

Having said all that Murray’s achievement is a very good one. He’s the best by a country mile the UK has produced in decades!
Barnes back from the wilderness 10:26am on 04 Aug 2009 A ball has not even been kicked in the season and the majority of you are slagging off your team and manager. What happened to supporting your football club? Seems most of you are just waiting for the team to fail!
Who's the greatest? 5:17pm on 06 Jul 2009 Why do people read an entire blog only to then call it pointless and criticise it? Miserable so and sos....

Federer is the best sportsman I've ever seen. I've only watched Golf over the last 3 or so years though while I've been a fan of Tennis since the early 90s so my opinion is probably biased. I probably didn't see Tiger at his best in the early 2000s.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

LondonBarnes