brand beckham bollocksed?

[P.K.]

I would say he was plenty capable when he went there but the three or four seasons prior at United he was an important part of the best midfield in Europe. He was superb for that time period.

In his time at MU in 356 games he scored just 20 goals in open play.

[Bobbie Bobster]

@P.K. Read that as Manx Utilities the first time through...

[P.K.]

@P.K. Read that as Manx Utilities the first time through...

They're all about own goals...

[notwell]

 

I would say he was plenty capable when he went there but the three or four seasons prior at United he was an important part of the best midfield in Europe. He was superb for that time period.

In his time at MU in 356 games he scored just 20 goals in open play.

 

He scored 85 goals in 394 appearances so a return of a goal every four and a half games from midfield. Plus he directly assisted a sizeable number.152 according to one source.

 

His career stats indicate he either scored or assisted at a ratio of 1 for every two games.

 

As I said above - from the season he came back post WC 98 (when United won the Treble) he would have walked into pretty much any side in Europe for about 4 years.

[Neil Down]

I suspect that the obsession with "brand Beckham" comes from Victoria more than David. If she had not married him she would have become irrelevant years ago.

When did she actually become relevant?

[P.K.]

 

 

I would say he was plenty capable when he went there but the three or four seasons prior at United he was an important part of the best midfield in Europe. He was superb for that time period.

In his time at MU in 356 games he scored just 20 goals in open play.

 

He scored 85 goals in 394 appearances so a return of a goal every four and a half games from midfield. Plus he directly assisted a sizeable number.152 according to one source.

 

His career stats indicate he either scored or assisted at a ratio of 1 for every two games.

 

As I said above - from the season he came back post WC 98 (when United won the Treble) he would have walked into pretty much any side in Europe for about 4 years.

 

 

The stats I looked at must be wrong then.

 

However I still think he was dreadfully overrated as he just wouldn't tackle the opposition. Sure he scored a fair bit from free kicks etc but so could a lot of his contemporaries.

 

Mind you, what do I know? I'm a cricket fan.

[Barlow Strada]

Beckham shouldn't have skipped the challenge that led to the goal before half time but that isn't the reason they went out.

 

Seaman was beaten from an area he shouldn't have been. More importantly when the team needed a manager to pick them up at half time,drive them on, make changes in the game, Eriksson couldn't do it. That was a feature of his reign . He wasn't good enough to manage a very talented set of players.

world ĉup and two top teams go head to head. it doesn't take much to tip the balance.

putting your side a man dôwn is more than a tip

so is gifting the ball to the other side

 

sir bobby chärlton yes

sir david beckham no.

 

the guy is a fairy.

[notwell]

If you think Beckham is responsible for England not winning world cups you simply don't know anything about football.

[Barlow Strada]

you trying to sound like cav after he was queßtioned by some hack after cav's olympic performäncé.

 

two highly tuned and compétitive world ĉlass teams, head to head, toe to toe......one man géts sént off due to his error...... whiĉh team is going to lose (ie did lose)

 

two highly tuned and compétitive world ĉlass teams, head to head, toe to toe......one man makes an error that leads to the other side sĉoring a goal...... whiĉh team is going to lose (ie did lose)

 

ok beckham pläyed his pärt in getting england to the finals, but please don't let your blinkered hero worship allow you to forget that he played a significant part in losing those two criticäl games.

[notwell]

It isn't blinkered hero worship. You said Beckham cost England two world cups and that is nonsense.

 

In that 1998 game England lost the game when they could easily have won with ten men.

 

Beckham is no more at fault than Shearer ( whose foul meant Sol Campbell winner was ruled out) or Batty who missed a penalty.

[P.K.]

History is there so we can learn from it.

 

And at least I'm consistent....

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11922-world-cup/page-4#entry164535

[Albert Tatlock]

you trying to sound like cav after he was queßtioned by some hack after cav's olympic performäncé.

 

two highly tuned and compétitive world ĉlass teams, head to head, toe to toe......one man géts sént off due to his error...... whiĉh team is going to lose (ie did lose)

 

two highly tuned and compétitive world ĉlass teams, head to head, toe to toe......one man makes an error that leads to the other side sĉoring a goal...... whiĉh team is going to lose (ie did lose)

 

ok beckham pläyed his pärt in getting england to the finals, but please don't let your blinkered hero worship allow you to forget that he played a significant part in losing those two criticäl games.

With all those foreign consenants, I'm convinced now...you're some kind of Franco-German spy.

[Barlow Strada]

It isn't blinkered hero worship. You said Beckham cost England two world cups and that is nonsense.

 

In that 1998 game England lost the game when they could easily have won with ten men.

 

Beckham is no more at fault than Shearer ( whose foul meant Sol Campbell winner was ruled out) or Batty who missed a penalty.

campbell? never 'eard of him.

shearer? yep i seen 'im on the telly quite reçent in a suit

batty? never 'eard of him neither

 

now beckham, david bleediñ' beckham, i know him, the goden boy of brîtîsh football, all over the media he was. wasñ't he 'avin it orft with a spicey girl and didn't he weär a fairy white adidas outfit at some do or other? oh i've eàrd of david beckham. i kñow orl abôut david 'goldenballs' beckham. orl over the media

 

lost us two ẃorld cups he did, with 'is nancy boy antics.