May 27, 2023, 05:15:00 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JDB

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 154
Football / Re: UEFA Euro 2012 Thread.
« on: June 11, 2012, 09:44:21 AM »
Have to give credit credit for going with Oxlade-Chamberlain instead of Downing. He still have the “Walcotts” about him and he might do nothing all game but at least he could give yuh hope of doing something spectacular. With Downing yuh know yuh getting shit whole game through.

France well favourites for this one but England will at least look like they have a plan even if it is to just defend. Expect to see Terry and Cole throwing they body all over the floor as usual.

Backing Welbeck to show his class though. That fella have the makings of a top well-rounded forward

Football / Re: Uefa Euro 2012 Fantasy League
« on: June 04, 2012, 02:31:24 PM »
I in this UEFA Socawarriors league but I set up a league in the "Original Fantasy League" game as well.

The scoring is similar but the difference is that it has unique squad selection via an auction.

The aucton rules are here.

Basically you bid however much of your budget you want on players you either get them at a high price or have the money left over to pick up the best of the rest. There are several players yuh could pick up for free because of the fact thet there are 16 teams out there so the budget is actually pretty big.

We only need about 5-8 teams but there is not a lot of time as the tournament starts on Friday and the auction takes time.I play these types of game for NFL games and itmakes it real interesting when you not sharing points from players.

I sent out some invites to the men whose emails I have but anyone else interested should send me a PM or just register ad enter the league code 44947.

If we get enough teams by tomorrow I willset auction deadlines for midnight on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Three rounds should be more than enough to fill out a 15 man squad.

I really like Martinez but he has had at least as much to work with as Rodgers.

Martinez has had three years there and hasn’t moved the side on, in terms of league performance, from where Bruce had them. After three years to recruit players, the fact that he is still working with scraps is partly down to his skill in the transfer market. He actually hasn’t done too bad looking at the way he has turned over the squad from Bruce but his failure to identify premiership quality striking talent is a big negative, Boselli and Scotty just wasn’t good enough.

Now I think that this year was a turning point for Martinez. He start playing a new system and the best players in the side (Al Habsi, Moses, Maloney, Beausjour, Caldwell, MCCarthy) are all his players. Wigan could aspire to do what Swansea did this past season and be a solid mid-table team, which would be phenomenal.

But Rodgers just did that after building his team for a similar 3 years. I don’t see much difference between the two at this point. They are both unproven at a big club and mostly potential. Credit to Liverpool for going outside the big name box though.

Google, youtube, FB..everyone (but google has mastered it), runs an algorithm (changes every month or 2 to keep people like me (internet marketer) on our toes so we can't beat it) that scans your gmail, youtube watching habits and surfing habits. This is why they can tailor ads that appear when you surf, watch videos and check your email. You are tracked (probably not by name specific) but you'll be amazed at what people like gmail know about you and your habits.

Them algorithms can't be too accurate. Every time one of them ads pop up for me is offering me a woman to hook up with in the next town. How that related to my surfing habits is beyond me.

Seriously though I think that google does have similar access to information from mail, browsing, purchasing. They have profiles based on internet usage patterns similar to facebook. The advantage facebook has is the actual names. The patterns and associations of people based on their networks also allows facebook to refine and target better than google in theory and, I guess, the like/dislike is a form of direct survey that should be more powerful than passive measurements like internet usage pattern.

I like Martinez, and agree that he has done well with little to work with at Wigan but I not seeing how he much better than Rodgers based on their similar achievements.

Swansea do better this year than any of Martinez’s Wigan teams with Championship players. It will be interseting to see if Wigan’s end of season from was relegation battling or the sign that the players turn a corner.

One area where Rodgers appears better than Martinez is recruitment. Martinez show a real failure to get a decent striker in at Wigan for two years now, including wasting 6M on Boselli two years ago. A lot of Swansea is still Martinez players but Rodgers buying Graham this year was a much shrewder buy and Sigurdsson is better than any player that Martinez ever pick up (although Moses could prove to be as good over time).

Add the fact that Rodgers getting mostly British players to play ball while Martinez’ teamis mostly  foreigners and Rodgers might be a better fit for turning around Liverpool’s current squad.

Why not all this insightful dialogue BEFORE the IPO??  ::)

I'll be honest FB is not on my radar, which is why I was surprised at all the buzz on the stock. I only take a look at the thread after the IPO.

Plenty people dogging the IPO so I decide to look at the prospectus and see what the positives and negatives are.

Looking at it now, if people were expecting it to be a good investment at 38, it might be worth investing in at 31, especially if yuh have money to sit for a long time.

This is the main thing (bolded) a few of us here at work could not get over.

I look at it again and maybe it is near-sighted to focus on revenue. As Bakes said the value is in the huge membership. I see other stocks valued on their subscriber base too like Netflix and Sirius, although these are services with paid subscribers.

And the stock is holding at $31 so it has found its level. It probably was just that 20% margin that was there for the insiders to make a little extra. Still a high P/E but if investors arte the stock based on its potential the value is what it is.

Also Google’s revenue at IPO was much less than FB and its P/E ratio was in the 60s.

Like Google, FB has a strong brand and a huge of web presence. Is facebook like the old AOL where you could go there and do spend most of your time on the web? I imagine that if they could licence music television and movies so you could get all your entertainment from a FB app on your TV or the FB site on the internet. The advantage of the app being that it integrates it with your FB features like updates, what friends ding, pictures, face-chat etc.

Also FB user base in the US and Canada is only 200M. The rest of that 800M is Europe and energing markets. Those markets like India could show the most % growth over time and be a cash cow for FB.

General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 25, 2012, 06:14:10 AM »
Yes I see what you're saying.  And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it.  But remember there is interpretation and translation.  My points were to translation.  That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible.  The translation is solid.  So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation.   The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.   

As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question.  I don't have any push back on that.  However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality.  And J, to me that says a lot.  I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law.  And that's my thing.  If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage.  Call it civil union or something else.  No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.

I don’t know that commonality with other religious text and rules is really significant. Likewise Omar’s question about the Koran and Muslim. There are many “Koran-inspired” laws in these countries that you would find abhorrent. These societies use the Koran to codify honour killings and the general subjugation of women. The definition of cherry-picking would be to say that they are right about how they view gays but they wrong about how they view women. Also, as I said before, those societies should be the best example of why religioous doctrine cannot be the pre-text for civil law in a country that preaches the separation of church and state.

The question of gays in society has to be considered in the context of the society and how the society in question has evolved. As much as I would like it to be the same everywhere I not suggesting same-sex marriage recognition in the Middle-East or even in Trinidad. In those societies people don’t even pay lip-service to gays being equal, as they do in the States. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a step to far.

Likewise this was not a debate to be held in the US 100 years ago and it will not even be an issue of contention in 200 years time. I don’t expect this to be the time in US history when all attitudes change. Slavery was ended in the mid-nineteenth century but Jim Crow wasn’t ended for a hundred years and even now we still dealing with the stigma of racism in society.

We have a society that has come a a long way on homosexuality. From being a criminal act that was prosecuted, to a dirty little secret, to a taboo act, to something that we grudgingly accept, to something that we now claim is an accepted way of life not subject to discrimination.

I honestly think that a lot of the talk about “having no problem with gays” or “fine with it as long as it is not in my face/backyard/family” is an indication that huge sections of the population still do not view gays as equals. I understand that but even that is progress. The fact that people feel the need to be politically correct and socially sensitive about the way they describe gays is progress to equality. Recognition of same-sex marriage is a big step.

The good and bad thing about the US is the geographic and demographic diversity. Over time this will change because technology and travel will make the country more homogeneous. Currently there are only sections of the country that have adopted same-sex marriage laws within the last 20 years. We have gay co-workers, gay teachers, families with gay parents and kids, whether by adoption or surrogate, that are full contributing members of society sharing the backyards, living-rooms and classrooms with heterosexual adults and kids (the horror). Time will be enough to show that the effects of accepting people as equals in these states and the old ideas will continue to go away.

I was asking the question because I was genuinely trying to figure out if people are expecting FBs numbers to get much better, if they are looking at the brand and expecting it to do what Apple and Google did or if they are users of the product who have strong faith in it based on their experience of what it can do.

I just scanned the prospectus and I have to say that it does seem overpriced.

Based on its launch price, FB P/E ratio was over 100. The standard for a mature company is 20. Apple is 16, Google is 18 and them Oil companies in the single digits.

Now FB is obviously a company that people expect to grow and is in a unique market but its revenues would have to increase 4 times just to get within range of making the stock price in line with the market. Looking at their financials this is actually possible. Revenue increase 2X last year and almost 3 times the year before but…the trend is a downward trend. FB’s % revenue increases have gone down year on year as has their % increases in users.

Now if they do maintain a 2X revenue increase in each of the next two years by adding new streams they could easily become value but yuh still talking about buying a stock a couple years down the line for the same price as yuh could get it today.

They express some risks. One that jump out at me is an inability to make money off of mobile platforms. I don’t use FB, but is there something that stops them generating ad revenue on their phone apps? I ask because unless the app is inferior to the PC website I see more and more people making a shift away from PCs to mobile use of the web.

It also seems like the hype and publicity hurt the stock badly. As the next new thing the potential of FB is hardly a secret like Google or Apple (circa 2001) was. It seems that the time to get in on FB as a growth proposition was in 2006 and right now it is a stock to hold on to for a 5 years or more whereas they have less well publicised IPOs or other active stocks that could double your money in that time with the same amount of uncertainty.

Mods before you merge this...

I was not a real heavy comics man, but I like meh comic book even up to today.I find they taking this ting too far

Now I have a real problem with this...Not only you trying to hop on the trend and be popular since Obama bring up the issue. But to put it in a comic me like yuh forcing it on the children....leave them in they innocence.

Why expose children to this? I mean when you small you ent studying Ernie and Bert and the smurfs and the rest of them, if they boysing or not. Yuh never study why Jughead had no girls and is only Archie and Reggie getting action. Same way Wimpy was big and fat eating hamburger and was solo. Why bring up a issue and have parent explaining all kinda thing to them.

Also if you read the characters Wiki page...the comic only implied he was boysing in the few episodes he was in and never outwardly read and spell for them but to come out and do this...I find it wrong. When you small you ent picking up this thing.


Northstar Wikipedia

I real benin on Marvel for this one.  >:(

Children no longer read those comic books. Certainly not the Astonishing X-Men.

As a 5 -10 year-old I coulda pick up almost any Marvel or DC comic and it was child appropriate. The adult titles were special imprints. For some reason in the 90’s a whole lot of “realism” take over what was meant to be books for kids and the kids books (like DCKids or Marvel Kids line) are the special imprint.

Now I wouldn’t let me kids pick up a mainstream Marvel comic these days unless they could deal with the violence, sex and the moral ambiguity of heroes killing bad guys, murderers becoming heroes etc. If they old enough to deal with that material gay marriage is not really a problem.

General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 24, 2012, 05:40:45 AM »
Nah I ain't trying to broad brush nuttin.  :) There are influences in scripture which obviously have had human interpretation to it. 

Preach between this and your earlier admission that some scripture is the result of men wanting to make rules it sounds like yuh  admitting that a lot of the Bible is up to interpretation.

However, the ones I've found doesn't change the big idea of the story. 

If you admit that a lot of it is subject to interpretation you have to undertsand that not everybody is going to find the same truth in the Bible.

You could also understand why people would look at a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible and a complete ignorance of other parts as cherry-picking to suit a moral agenda.

The Bible is being presented as an unshaking foundation for societal morality on issues like homosexuality when it is flexible to the will of the person reading it. It is fine to use it as personal guide I don’t see how you apply parts of it verbatim to the lives of others.

Entertainment & Culture Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 23, 2012, 05:26:39 AM »
It look like they made deliberate decisions this year in attempts to appease fans and the stars. 3 examples are Robb, Jon Snow and Daenerys, whose plot lines were extended and drawn out as they are becoming big stars. However in doing this they cut down on plenty action that they probably figured the fans would not have been interested in. I feel they make a wrong gamble there.
For instance Arya whole story line was plenty more pace and action, with her ending up in and getting out of Harrenhal. Stannis get cut down and Bran as well.

I still two or three episodes behind and I never read the books but tis is a common problem with TV serializing fiction. TV viewers root for characters and they need to recur regardless of what went on in the source material.

What makes some of these books good is the “realism” of the multiple characters interacting and the ease with which characters get killed/leave/replaced. In a book, you could instantly jump to an obscure or new character, fill out backstory, follow the character and tell a good story separate from the main characters. It much harder to do with TV where you have to have everybody under contract.

I see something similar with the Walking Dead. Most of the 2nd season was nothing happening while in the book the story moves at a quick pace. Also they hold on to characters on the TV show much longer than in the book. In the book anybody could get pass out without notice at any time.

Not surprisingly some of the best TV shows in recent memory like the Sopranos and The Wire had big casts, told multiple story lines and regularly got rid of big characters or had serious tragedy hit surviving characters. Although even these shows had an untouchable core and there was no book for people to compare them to.

Football / Re: John Terry Thread.
« on: May 22, 2012, 07:14:46 AM »
In John Terry’s world ther is only John Terry.

The golden rule with Terry is that it have no such thing as shame. If Terry had any he woulda step up and say “cool it fellas” when the club was petitioning to have him walk up the steps. Instead he put on full kit and run up there like he now finish sweat.


What drew you to de club yuh does support?

For me it was watching Marcel Desailly in 1998 WC and hearing he went to Chelsea.  Immediately I started following Chelsea as i really enjoyed watching this defender play.  I had no clue about the team, nor their history but he drew me there and I never left!

I don’t know that it matters but my favourite player growing up was Bryan Robson and he was United Captain. I rememebr the 1982 World Cup wher he score against France In the first half a minute. Hughes went on to surpass him as the player I admire when he come back from Barcelona. United wasn’t winning much in the 80’s so I guess Omar will give me a bligh if I explain to him the circmstances. Everybody have they own reason for backing a side.

But even if it was the nineties and they were winning a lot more then what. Small Mag wasn’t even born in the 80’s. The first time he see United they was already winning titles, so that mean he” jump on” because they winning.

The men who was backing Chelsea in the 2nd Division when they had 10,000 people in the Stadium could easily look at Omar and say he” jump on” when the side get money and start bringing in foreigners. That make him a less worthy fan?

Everybody does find they side in a timing. Getting into who is the better/worse fan is generally a nonesense pursuit, which is the point I was trying to make.

Other non-leeches are local supporters and people who supported pre-success.
Everybody else is leeches, all a dem.

I know yuh on kicks but success is relative. What is pre-success? Being in the top-flight or league football in general is success when you have a thriving non-league system and tons of legendary league clubs who playing non-league football and others who fold-up and disappear altogether.

Luton in the conference and Sheffield United and Wednesday were in League One. By comparison to that everything that Swansea, Wigan and Wolves doing right now is a "success". So they can get new fans then?

Blackburn and Villa are founding members of the league who win multiple titles and cups. So yuh can't back them clubs unless yuh was backing them pre-1900?

People don't hate winners, jed.  People hate the way winners comport themselves.  Man doh hate manu because they are how fergie's and his players and plenty of allyuh fans' behaviour is what does bring the hate.

The idea that one setta fans is somehow less gracious than another based on the personality of the fans does not hold water. All fan groups are huge enough to be representaions of the society they are from. The idea that one group of people in a society will gravitate to one club and not another just doesn’t make sense when you think it through.

Chelsea fans on here just as obnoxious as any others when they win something. Given 20 years of regular success people would be complaining about Chelsea fans just as much as United fans. They will have just as much of these “jump on” fans that Omar can’t associate himself with.

  Is the same reason most people don't hate on men like Magic Johnson, James Worthy and Michael Jordan.  Them men carried themselves a certain way that made it hard to hate them.  LeBron?  Why is anybody hating on him? He eh win nutting yet.

People rarely hate on individuals as much as the franchises. The Yankees and the Lakers are examples people people hate on them for success, their financial muscle and being big market teams. Chelsea is now getting a taste of that, winning things, having a lot of money and being a big market team (regular top 4).

They are getting what other successfual teams get it does not make them especially hated. It only feel so to Omar because he is a Chelsea fan.

And LeBron is an expection, of sorts. He is an individual who is successful, has financial muscle and is the biggest brand in basketball and people have a visceral desire to dee him fail as a result.

Thats a reason why i can't back no side like Man Utd, Real Madrid, Lakers, Yankees etc...

Most ah dem fans are fans of the success, i.e. they jump up on  the team when already and had the namebrand. They pick the best team to back so that when they win, they could be a part and parcel of that and leech off the status. They vex now because Chelsea come in the mix and upset dey apple cart.

This is nonesense.

By this logic the only side with fans that not leeching off status is Bognor Regis Town. Chelsea with Vialli and Zola was already an established, top-flight successful side. They wasn’t winning multiple trophies they were still in the mix and regularly in Europe and were clearly on an upward swing.

That Chelses side that you choose to bless as the "partron of underdog teams" was already spending big money on players to compete with the big names. Is not like yuh choose to support Coventry or Southampton, or a Chelsea side with Vinny Jones and Dave Beasant, so don’t pat yuhself on the back too hard.

The whole argument of figuring out why somebody else choose to back a side is nonesense because the most you could do is guess what draw somebody to back a club.

This thread just epitomizes what I have said before that Chelsea has to be one of the most hated team in sports..

One CL and Chelsea is the Yankees, the Lakers and LeBron now? Try and get over yourself. Yuh conscious of how people percieve Chelsea because you are a fan but it ent anything special about Chelsea.

People hate on successful teams. The longer the history of success or more intense the period of success, the more people will hate.

In the World of sports Chelsea is a small name because they now start winning things. Chelsea barely have the name recognition of the teams that people like to hate, much less for people to have any time or energy to devote to not liking them.

The victors will write history.

Football getting like basketball now where the games are very close and a team will lose by 1 point, the roll of a ball on the rim, and analysts will give yuh a long list of why one team was superior, what strategy was definitive in the win etc.

In football it is as simple as:

Try to play bitch-ball and win or draw – tactical genius
Try to play open attacking-football and lose – tactically naïve
Try to play bitch-ball and lose – unadventurous, despicable, shameful to football
Try to play open attacking-football and win or draw – Tactical genius
It doesn’t matter how any win or loss happen whether by a blow-out or by a flukes the analysis is all the same.

The same Chelsea men who waste down United for how they beat Barca in 2008 was defending Chelsea for playing the same way in 2009. In fact just two weeks ago United was getting abuse for having no ambition against City but to draw or nick something on the break when Chelsea do the same thing against Barcelona and against Bayern.

Personally I ent bothered by the phenomenon other than the amount of rationalization and explanation that does go on to explain why a team that get outplayed was “using good tactics”. If Bayern had take just one of them many chances nobody woulda be praising Chelsea tactics now. Praise the team, prasie the players but don’t try and convince me that Di matteo planned to give Bayern 40 shots and to not win a corner till the 88th minute.

United win in 2008 in penalties. On the day I rememeber trtying to rationalize that they plpay better ball on the day and “deserved  it”. By the next week I couldn’t even tell yuh who was the better side, and I couldn’t care because a win is a win. Nobody does mention the negativity and luck in both Mourinho CL wins, the luck in Liverpool’s in 05 so nobody will remember this as anything other than a deserved Chelsea victory, which it was. As much chances that Bayern create if they can’t take them and win the game they don’t deserve to win nothing.

Guardian reporting that Liverpool after Pep... along with Klopp and Deschamps.

Men saying the owners and mgmt. ain't know what they want, but think it is really a case of trying to hire a manager for the long haul.  They are casting a big net, looking at all options.  They don't want this to be another stop-gap appointment.  The fact that they've even considered Guardiola, who I think will stick to his word and take time away from the game, speaks volume to the ambition and desire to get things right at Liverpool.  Seems like people in the UK interpreting their desire to make contact and interview more than one candidate as a sign of indecision, but how do you really know what are the plans and longterm ambitions of the candidates, and whether they are in sync with the "Liverpool Way"? 

Dem jackass in England looking for any excuse to cast stones at "the Americans"... like all the decision making being done in Boston without the input of actual football people there in England.  Idiots.

I actually like the way that FSG approaching this interview process. Very much like the NFL process. No secrets about who being interviewed and looking at plenty people.

It is alien to British Football though where yuh just have backroom meetings with the top target then move on down the line if he turn yuh down.

I agree that there is a lot of xenophobia involved in the criticisms of FSG. The first thing yiuh does hear is “not football people”, the next does be “over there in America/Boston/New England”.

And right now it is very veiled. Let them hire somebody who start off bad or end up in a worse postion than Kenny and the Spirit of Shankly and Liverpool Press Corp will be gunning for them mercilessly.

Ah hear that Bono from U2, who was an investor with FB, make more money today than he ever made in his entire music career. And he is a big rock star. Insane.

I don't knwo how much they does make touring and selling albums but supposedly a 100M investment is now worth 1B. Bono has been making it clear that he is the figurehead fro this investment group but it is not all his money. Big business has always been more profitable than people in the entertainment business.

However in Bono’s case, without the  music he wasn’t getting the seed money to invest and make 1000% profit, and without the fame the music bring he wasn’t gettinga chance to get in on the ground florr as an investor.

Well I got 5G to play with, I going brave and hopefully I get some of it... Just got an account with Charles Schwabb.

Airman I curious about your interste in FB. It have plenty IPOs and investment opportunities out there all the time. What is it about FB that has you so interested in it as an investment?

Football / Re: CHELSEA FOREVER! - Home of the Champions!
« on: May 20, 2012, 05:13:36 AM »

The man really say he want to win trophies in truth.

So said so done, never mind how.

That wasn't a classic. In fact I will never watch it again. But it was a win.

Drogba will get he props, and he should, but Cole also had a monster game.

Cole, Mikel and Drogba stand out...but Lampard, Cahill, Kalou, Cech put in a shift too. In fact everybody do well in a good team performance.

The one sour note is Terry walking to pick up the trophy after the Chelsea petition. Classic Terry.

And what is Bayern scene for real? That team sour like a lime.


Terry should take one

Drogba the beast again.


Chelsea is the luckiest side I see in a long time

Roberto Martínez could be a success as Liverpool manager if given time

The Spaniard has never managed a club where there is pressure to win trophies and secure a Champions League place but he has the qualities to overcome his lack of experience
Paul Wilson, Thursday 17 May 2012 22.30 BST

At a superficial level it is easy to see why a manager like Roberto Martínez would appeal to Liverpool's American owners. Unlike the suspicious, tetchy manager they have just sacked, Martínez is young, good-looking and smiles a lot, plays brilliantly to the camera and can put a positive spin on anything from Antolín Alcaraz spitting at an opponent to Wigan Athletic losing eight matches on the trot.

Wigan's incredible recovery in the last couple of months has alerted many people to the abilities of their manager, and the Fenway Sports Group cannot fail to have noticed that three of the points vital to the Latics' survival were gained at Anfield, but losing eight matches in succession would not normally recommend a managerial candidate to Liverpool, and nor would flirting with relegation for most of the season then pulling out of the nose dive in admittedly impressive style.

Most clubs other than Wigan would have parted company with Martínez at an early point in the January transfer window, when he had supervised a mere three wins in 19 games, just one of them at home. The fact that he was retained to see the job through at the DW Stadium is a testament to the trust and patience of Dave Whelan, Wigan's owner, as well as the enormous self-belief Martínez himself brings to his work, but Wigan are not exactly typical of Premier League clubs. The last quarter of the season may have been be a good advertisement for Martínez's potential, but the first three-quarters at any other club would have denied him the opportunity even to be mentioned as a possible successor to Kenny Dalglish.

It goes without saying that Liverpool would not put up with eight-match losing runs either, probably not even half that many defeats in a row, and that leads naturally to another problem Martínez might face. If there are significant numbers among the Anfield support who believe Dalglish was harshly treated or should have had longer, and there are, then the most reliable way for the club to silence any doubters would be to bring in someone with an impeccable and up to date winning pedigree. José Mourinho may be out of reach, but Pep Guardiola would fit the bill handsomely.

No one could argue with that, not even Dalglish's most loyal allies. But if you go for someone who has never won a title before, someone with no experience of taking a team into Europe, of making big money signings or dealing with the very top tier of footballers, you are asking for trouble if things do not immediately go well. Roy Hodgson was quickly made to realise he had come to Liverpool from a small club, and that Anfield wanted no part of what was perceived as his small club mentality. Yet Wigan are much smaller than Fulham and, far from taking his unfashionable outfit all the way to a Europa League final, as Hodgson did two years ago, all Martínez has actually managed is to lead his side out of the bottom three for the second season in a row, this time a little earlier than the last.

While no one could deny that Wigan made a great escape this season, not that much of their football has been great, and the total of 62 goals conceded was nine goals higher than Aston Villa's. Liverpool will like the way a Martínez team tries to play, and from that point of view he makes a good fit with Anfield tradition, but he will need to become more pragmatic at the top level or find himself a decent defence coach. Martínez famously turned down Villa this time last year, a decision just about vindicated by Wigan finishing one place above them in the league table, but a manager cannot afford to be so cavalier about an offer from Liverpool. Turn down Liverpool, and you would be unlikely to escape the stigma for the rest of your career.

This may not be the ideal time to take the Liverpool job, what with too much money having already been spent and a dangerous amount of affection still adhering to Dalglish, but were it an ideal time a manager with Martínez's cv would be lucky to get in the frame. In making public their interest Liverpool appear to be indicating their willingness to take a risk on a personable young man with most of his career still ahead of him. Should the offer be made concrete Martínez will have little choice but to accept and take a risk of his own, even if he has private reservations or would have preferred another season or so at Wigan. The same applies to Brendan Rodgers, the Swansea manager, who has also been sounded out.

But the very top jobs do not come around very often and Martínez has not only proved he is not the type to shy away from a challenge, he has gone a long way to demonstrating there is substance to his personal belief that any challenge can be surmounted. He will not get a bigger challenge than the one currently waving at him from Merseyside, and as long as Liverpool can learn to be patient he may even be an inspired choice.

He has more Premier League experience than Rodgers, and if, as it appears, Liverpool are willing to gamble on a manager from the lower end of the table rather than one who has won titles and medals, they surely cannot expect an instant return. It would be unfair to appoint either Martínez or Rodgers and demand Champions League qualification next season, though both men, given the time that was denied Dalglish, could not only get there eventually but do so in style.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 154
1]; } ?>