Cars; time; the Web; 100-m sprinters; changes of football managers; service in restaurants; Stirling to Liverpool (3hrs); time between failed marriages; growth of nasal hair; time between visiting ToffeeWeb; "quality time" with the wife; Tory time to pay off national debt; home deliveries from Internet orders; tax return dates; marathon runners; Hoodies running from shops; X-Factor being on again; BT calling after the bill comes in; Sopcast; startled rabbits at the sight of my dog; propensity to complain at everything, especially when we lose; and generally speaking......footballers.
With this in mind I've been thinking about how much faster that football matches become when 1 or 2 players get sent off, creating that bit more space on the pitch. So here are just 2 suggestions of how I predict it will migrate its effect onto the football pitch.
1. Footballers are like race horses and getting faster. So, start with 11 a side. At half time, each team has to remove 1 player and not replace them. 2nd half is ten-a- side creating a bit more space on the pitch for the race horses to gallop in. Donkey's not welcome thank you.
2. Do players save themselves for that last gasp raid on the opponents goal as the games' end is getting near? Ends of matches are probably the most exciting time and we all wish it would go on a bit longer (unless 1 up). Why not make the 1st half 40 mins and the 2nd half 50 mins + stoppage? We still get 90 mins of play. That should get the race horses frothing at the mouth and supporters screaming down the rafters.
Changes in the football arena may create some heart attacks for fans and decide some league titles. But is change not good? To cope with this faster pace of life should we take things slower, like on the continent, gracefully stroking the ball about the pitch in a pass and move motion Or having 2 hour pasta lunches with red wine, followed by a siesta and a stroll around the shops wearing chinos, open neck white shirt, shades and Jesus sandles with no socks on.
People generally don't like change, yet change is inevitable. It's how we deal with it at the time of change that's important. Just ask Arthur Scargill if he would ever go around to Maggie Thatcher's for tea and buscuits. "Like some free milk with that, Archie?"
The question is: do Everton fans, the Everton players and the Everton owners want it enough ? change that is, or 10 a side?
PS. As I said, it's Friday and I've been Arsing Around on ToffeeWeb again, sorry.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 27/08/2010 at 17:05:48
2 Posted 27/08/2010 at 17:14:21
3 Posted 27/08/2010 at 17:24:16
The bits before and after the 2 suggestions - silly maybe, lighthearted yes, Friday feeling yes.
For the "silliness" to come to an end, don't publish it, or am I being wound up by a website publisher trying to boost Friday's traffic, ratings, click through's and commission for over 1 million page views a month.
Don't goad me, don't goad me. EJ, EJ just hold me back will ye.
4 Posted 27/08/2010 at 17:33:38
Only major rule changes have been the off-side, subs, and passing back to goalie. These change the fabric of football.
Why don't you go ruin tennis by introducing a tiger to the court in a tie-break instead?
5 Posted 27/08/2010 at 17:39:01
As for tennis, I couldn't care less if Tiger snecked off with the Umpire and his wood in toe.
If you call what we all do on TW a serious use of your time, I beg to differ. If it is, you have too much of it - Time that is.
6 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:10:34
7 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:15:37
8 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:15:04
Can't go as "radical" for change as you have, but I'd like to see a change that would get rid of the worst thing in competitive team athletics. The tie.
What could be worse? "Hey, how was the game"? "Not bad, not bad". "Who won"? "Oh. Nobody". Ugh. I say soccer adapt something the NHL did in hockey in eliminate the tie.
At the end of regulation time (with, Tony, 11 aside I'm afraid), the score is 1-1. Fine. Both teams get a point, as always. All tradition upheld.
But those other 2 points have to be gotten. I say take 2 players off per side AND give the manager back his 3 substitutions (having available all players including anyone he might have subbed-off during the game).
Now, just for fun, say DM is still sending out his "boys" game after game, as so many here are pointing out/complaining about. What 2 do we take off and the 3 substitutions being available, who do we put on?
OK. It's 10 minutes of overtime, that's it. A keeper apiece and 8 on 8 in the field. No one scores? Penalty shoot-out under the usual rules. Someone comes away with 3 points.
I agree players are bigger, faster and also coming out of a much, much larger talent pool. But I think it's made the game better without needing so many additional changes that an NHL has to make due to the new level of hockey player athleticism "shrinking" the size of the playing surface.
But Tony, the tie is the singular "tradition" of soccer where the answer to your question, "But is change not good?" a big YES.
9 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:16:42
10 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:19:22
If you watch the '66 FA cup final when God was still interested in footie and supported Everton it is unbelievable the space the players have compared to now.
Football is shit these days, the grounds are filled on the back of history not the fare dished up, look at us.
I wonder if there'll be a "TV Big Brother" moment when realisation will suddenly dawn and people say what's the fuss about it's not value and stop going.
The vanishing Manu season ticket waiting list, the absence of a queue to buy Liverpool fc might be indicators.
Certainly those games not covered by a season ticket suffer.
What to do? certainly the answer is more space, the players CAN play but as seen in the world cup and Inter Milan putting 2 banks of 4 against Barca in the CL it's easier to strangle the game now.
The 2 obvious solutions reduce the numbers or increase the pitch size seem impossible to facilitate but be sure when people stop going something will be done.
11 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:58:43
12 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:26:52
I bet the only person in the world who would agree with your certifiable stream of consciousness is Sepp Blatter!!
And James - let me guess: American?
First of all,it's draw,not tie.
Secondly, just because the US isn't nuanced enough to appreciate the subleties of football, doesn't mean the sport ought to fundamentally transmute to slake the appetites of the hotdog crowd.
The world roared in laughter at some of the idiotic suggestions made by the USA 94' team: Make the goals bigger, award two "points" for goals scored from 25 yards out, break the game into four quarters, and my personal favourite: The players have to remain in allocated "zones", like in "fussball."
As Maggie Thatcher famously said: "No, no, no!" No thanks, Yanks. If your attention span cannot last longer than a minute,and you can't stomach honours even ? stick to Monster Trucks or WWF.
Oh, and please stop calling it soccer.
13 Posted 27/08/2010 at 18:53:54
Instead of two teams playing there are three. As normal each team tries to score and defend. With the same amount of teams in the league it means less games per season and so much better for the international games.
This is already happening.
In my head.
14 Posted 27/08/2010 at 19:22:51
Throw in naked, female officials wearing goat masks for no good reason, and some futuristic hover boots for the goalkeepers and you've got yourself a guaranteed winner there.
15 Posted 27/08/2010 at 19:52:04
16 Posted 27/08/2010 at 19:37:45
Not so long ago there were no subs, then 1 sub, then 2 subs. Now we almost have another team on the bench. Just like the Yanks in baseball, so I don't think it's fair to slag them off. Plus - they gave us the SopCast!
I spoke a while back I was talking to Terry Butcher about his playing days and he said the only way you never played was if you still couldn't walk if the 2nd courtizone injection never did the trick. Subs were for wimps, he said, and never lose your place in a winning team. But, I suppose times have changed. Shock, horror, changes in the game of soccer. It'll never happen.
Kevin - sadly when I wrote this - not a drop had passed my lips.
Charles - thanks. Customer is King as they say. If the game is boring, we can always go shopping on a Saturday afternoon or even watch the local Rugby team.
17 Posted 27/08/2010 at 19:54:07
So even if you are 6 nil down away to Newcastle, there is no need to throw in the towel, because if you pull back 2 goals and lose 6-2, you have saved 2 points that may keep you in the PL at the end of the season.
18 Posted 27/08/2010 at 20:08:54
19 Posted 27/08/2010 at 20:12:25
Did you roar with laughter when they said they were banning even a clean tackle from behind?
Did you roar with laughter when they don't give a penalty for "ball to hand" for a handball offence?
And do you still roar with laughter when we now don't really understand what the flaming offside rule is?
What I suggested would not get anywhere near the "silliness" that has been suggested the article was. It would be a very subtle change that make the game of football what it should be - a form of entertainment and enjoyment for the spectator.
So long as we win of course, then I couldn't care less about the hand ball rule, what offside was, how many sides there were to the pitch or even if it was called soccer!!!
20 Posted 27/08/2010 at 21:37:07
Those sneering at the use of the term "soccer" by Americans & others should remember that it is actually an English term & dates back to the 19th century. The Americans understandably use the term as a convenient way of differentiating the game from their own peculiar form of Football, but it is not an American term that has crossed the Atlantic to Britain, quite the reverse.
21 Posted 27/08/2010 at 21:44:05
Cameras and another ref for me.
The replay would solve far more problems than it would create. Players would be called on their shit far more than they are now.
An extra official could count the numbers of fouls made by certain players and make suggestions to the ref. He or she could patrol the area of the pitch where the ref could not get to.
The extra official could work on particular issues of the day, such as holding in the box during corners.
(Why this is allowed to continue is a mystery to me)
Did the ball cross the line, etc? The ref couldn't see the incident clearly so ask the extra.
These changes would IMHO make the game more fair and provide a better spectacle.
22 Posted 27/08/2010 at 21:55:31
The basic 90 minute game I can't see a reason to change. It's exciting as is. But the tie has to go. The NHL (as entrenched a "traditional" sport in N. America [Canada especially] as soccer in England) laid the template.
The tie remains and both teams get the one point. But both are then given the opportunity to grab the other two. If the EPL does it, the world will follow.
23 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:03:49
myself and Bill think it's a great suggestion just think of the saving on the wage bill.
Let's see 75,000 x 52 = 3.9 million
If we reduced it to 1 and had Goalie in and out we could save 40 million a year.
Forget that Billionaire we dont need him anymore.
24 Posted 27/08/2010 at 21:58:52
Your article is utterly pointless. Stop defending it.
Ball-to-hand is fine; has been forever.
I used to admire Lawrenson's ability to tackle from behind, yet I understand the reason why such tackles were abolished.
I get the offside rule perfectly.
"It would be a very subtle change that make the game of football what it should be-a form of entertainment and enjoyment for the spectator."
No it wouldn't be a SUBTLE change. The game's been 11 a-side since the 1860's,am I to assume that you don't find it enjoyable or entertaining in it's present form?
So is the game fundamentally flawed?
If it ain't broke etc..
Some rule changes have been excellent; the back pass rule being the obvious one.
Your suggestion is the equivalent of my bird's annoying habit of describing to me her "amazing," dreams. Abstruse & irritating to listen to.
This hasn't been thought through properly, and is a product I suggest, of a bored mind,thanks to which, my "Friday Feeling," is now more akin to the Boomtown Rats ambivalence to Monday..
25 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:07:12
As far as the ref? The second embarassment. The way the ball and players fly around in today's game, that one man still has to control all that is laughable. A not-EPL-level athlete has to make split second decisions on critical matters because he's the only one out there? Hahaha.
A super-embarassment really. As easy a fix as replay at the goal line. Add another referee on the field.
26 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:30:12
I would try to explain the satisfaction of the hard earned point away from home, or the buzz of the end-to-end 3-3 thriller; but I'd be wasting my time.
27 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:54:48
Great. Hate wearing them anyway.
28 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:59:38
I was watching the Anderlecht v Partizan Belgrade penalty shoot-out the other night.
The new "additional assistant referee" was standing not 3 yards from the post on the by-line as each penalty was being taken. He was actually bent over, looking at the goal line.
He still failed to see the Anderlecht 'keeper jump forward 2 or 3 yards in a two-footed leap before each kick was taken, thus narrowing the angle for the taker. It was worse than Dudek in Instanbul 2005. He was so intent on staring at the line, he didn't think of looking at the ball being kicked as part of his viewing spectrum.
A total waste of time.
29 Posted 27/08/2010 at 22:37:19
Is that you guessing at your best dickhead? Where did you think I'm from? I've been in here with my opinions for 7 months.
"Secondly, just because the US isn't nuanced enough to appreciate the subleties of football, doesn't mean the sport ought to fundamentally transmute to slake the appetites of the hotdog crowd".
Tried to get mad here, but "the sport ought to fundamentally transmute to slake the appetites of the hotdog crowd" (while nonsensical) is good writing and reading.
"The world roared in laughter" . . . . . "Maggie Thatcher"??????
Whatever. Two fingers and a snap Bitch!!!
30 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:08:01
I do agree with the calls for goal-line technology as the referee should know if the ball has completely crossed the goal-line, obviously he would then have to decide whether it was a goal or to award a free-kick if an offence had been committed. However, I'm not at all in favour of the video-ref type of interruption to the game, especially as all too often even slow-motion replays don't offer categoric proof & so it still comes down to the referee to decide & the vagaries of human error still apply.
One area where video evidence could usefully be employed more frequently is in retrospective punishment of players, perhaps under some type of citing process.
31 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:34:35
Tony, great article mate. Made me laugh from start to finish.
32 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:23:53
That a game can be thrilling and result in Nil-Nil happens all the time. But why should that be the end?
I'd wager a survey of players in any league regarding ties, or some proof of superiority, would find the players rather a superiority conclusion. After all, how the hell did they get where they are in professional athletics except thru a brutal elimination process?
So, some small adjustments in the game. Finished tied? A point apiece. LIke always.
But, let's have the other 2 points chased after before we go home.
33 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:43:08
Football at its best is thrilling & entertaining, not necessarily due to the number of goals, if any, or even the final outcome, at its best football thrills & entertains due to the quality of the play & the ebb & flow of the match.
34 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:24:43
Yeah,love that one..( 6 points from the Russian Judge)
Use it on your next Steve Wilkos appearance..Or to your neighbour in the adjacent trailer.
And coming from an American,the word "dickhead," sounds rather ironic. Try "schmuck."
You Go Girlfriend!!
35 Posted 27/08/2010 at 23:58:14
Because it would be unfair. Why should a team who can't on the day put the opposition to the sword within 90 minutes get the opportunity to gain the same points as a team that can?
36 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:03:29
Flynn, that ship has sailed: look at the history lesson. and all the stupid changes you lot instituted in the embryonic MLS. What happened next? Well... if you wanted to play competitive football with the rest of the world, you had to play international rules... which is now exactly what MLS does.
I particularly like that they actually now put the team names the right way around (home team first, as it should be). What idiot decided you would list fixtures with the away team first? Complete madness.
You yanks ain't changing nothing!
37 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:05:26
NHL hockey is as traditional as England's pro leagues. They made the adjustments in many more ways than "who gets 3 points tonight?" And it worked. So: 90 minutes done and the score 1-1. 1 point apiece. Let's get after the other 2 points still sitting out there.
Believe me, my post in #8 isn't fantasy or projection. It's what's been done and worked. It'll work in the EPL.
38 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:24:09
Oh if only you knew your history. It was always 2 points for a game: 1 each for a draw; both if you win. Then, back whenever, they changed it to get more wins (okay, I concede that was a step in your direction) by giving an extra point for the win: 3 pts instead of 2.
But in the event of a draw, the two points available have been awarded already and there are no more points to be had. Where are you getting this nutty idea that there are 2 more points available? It's not even logical as that would make it 4 points (available) for a draw.
39 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:35:17
I'm a bit nostalgic for the days of FA Cup replays as well. Although it could get out of hand sometimes. I remember back in the late 80's (88?) where we just seemed to play Sheffield Wednesday constantly for about three weeks.
".. my post in #8 isn't fantasy or projection.."
Nope, it's good old fashioned lunacy.
40 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:45:39
Didn't we have a 3- or 4-game round against Middlesbrough around that time? From distant memory it was utter drama.
41 Posted 28/08/2010 at 00:16:36
Things equal or not, 90 minutes finds the score tied. No great tweak of the rules (I include my Post #8) ensures one team gets 3 points at the end of game; the whole point of the garne.
I consider my recommendations so middle of the road from an Amercian point of view. It's funny to see people from the country that formed American attitudes about what's possible, expressing wonder at new (and so minimal) changes in the game.
42 Posted 28/08/2010 at 01:43:18
43 Posted 28/08/2010 at 01:47:21
Michael, you kidding or what? Even over here all those years ago, we knew why it went from 2 points to 3. Teams playing one another with everything to gain by tieing, fixed the game before going out onto the pitch; a disgrace.
Not sure why you're boasting about a decades-old disgrace finally righted. But righted it was, so accept this Yank's pat on the back there Micky-come-lately etal. Certainly don't want match-fixing a part of the game. No matter how "traditional".
With that in mind, and as inspiration, let's make it possible for every EPL game to end in one team garnering the 3 points the standings revolve around. If the EPL does it first, the world game will follow.
My post #8 (with Tony's article as inspiration) shows what's been done already successfully and will work in soccer.
44 Posted 28/08/2010 at 01:53:01
A simpler idea would be to draw a line about midway in each half and only allowing 8 defenders and the goalkeeper behind the line. At least it would make Moyes leave someone on the halfway line for a corner.
45 Posted 28/08/2010 at 02:10:12
The way scoring is to get 3 points for winning. Don't win should mean you get zero, not hanging on until I can't beat you and get 1 point. OK, that's not changing anytime soon (although it should).
So we have a tie game, which awards each team a point. OK again. But the pursuit of 3 points shouldn't be negated. It takes little to keep the game going for a few minutes (my suggestion in #8) to give the teams (and followers) a chance at the full 3 points.
46 Posted 28/08/2010 at 02:11:51
1) You go down and require the physio to come on the pitch you are off for 5 minutes
2) Yellow card you go off for 5/10 minutes
3) 1 video replay "challenge" allowed per team per game. No automatic goal line review. The replay to be viewed by the ref on the field
4) RS given at least one penalty before the start of each derby (oh wait they already do that)
5) Defensive zone with max 8d+1gk allowed in it
6) CALL the rules already in place for diving, fouls etc.
47 Posted 28/08/2010 at 02:23:57
You actually end up to something similar to the NBA with only the last 2-3 minutes being worth watching. It doesn't have the desired effect of opening the pitch up but rather the reverse.
The NHL introduced tag up offsides at the same time as the shootout ? this had a far more dramatic impact on their game as it allowed it to flow with far less whistles.
48 Posted 28/08/2010 at 02:43:24
That, by a distance, is some of the biggest load of bollocks I have ever read on here.
So it was raised from 2 points to 3 for a win because teams were "fixing" games ?
Even Jimmy Hill would be pissing himself at that idea.
Strange that there were no prosecutions.
49 Posted 28/08/2010 at 07:17:22
50 Posted 28/08/2010 at 07:06:21
It took us over a century to abolish the back-pass law... and we only did that because the shite were winning everything!
51 Posted 28/08/2010 at 07:16:59
Nick Entwistle (#4) - missed the point completetely, but willing to offer opinion (5/10)
Andy Crooks (#6) - must have had a rough day. Give benefit of the doubt. Clear and to the point, subtle. (6/10)
James Flynn (#8) - good defender of his ideas. Writes well but should go more for the jugular when given the opportunity (9/10).
Charles King (#10) - visionary. Allows younger family members to choose his clothes to keep with the times (10/10).
Kevin Hudson (#12) - the doubter and traditionalist. Still using mobile phone from 2001 as it works (5/10).
(#24) - Boomtown Rats ambivalence to Monday.. (10/10)
Jon Cox (#13) - full understanding of the meaning of the article, and willing to contribute further (9/10)
Dennis Stevens (#20 & 30) - level headed, thoughtful, knowledeable. Every team needs one like him. (8/10)
Albert Perkins (#21) - he gets it. You can't stop change, so make the most of it (8/10)
Jay Harris (#23) - every group needs an accountant. But don't let them run the business (9/10)
Brendan O'Doherty (#27 & 28) - great understanding of both meanings of the article (10/10)
Michael Kenrick (#1,36) - Bit of a wind up merchant, but still willing to stand up for what he believes. Hint of traditional values in there (10/10)
[Had to give MK a 10 for publishing this "silly season" article.]
John Daly (#39) - nostalgic, like most. Would accept change if it brought success (7/10)
Craig Harrison (#44, 46, 47) Good ideas man, beats opponents with grace and style (9/10)
Would have been a 10 but for the "defensive zone".
Sorry if I missed you. Will try to get back for kick off. Great work, everyone.
52 Posted 28/08/2010 at 08:50:57
'Americanisation' by the back door??
Cricket, MCC long room, stuffed shirts, etc etc.
rewind 40yrs...one day cricket?? abomination... 50 overs??... when I was a lad we had a test match that went for 13 days before we got a result!!
Now we have the cricketing Premier League in India with bids for players, drafts (sic) the whole 9 yds (doh! another facet of Americanisation )
Come on down...
T20 (when it first came out derided as 'hit and giggle' )
Q. What happenned to the concept of Attention Span?
Moral; Never say Never.
53 Posted 28/08/2010 at 10:28:29
One thing has always annoyed me with these teams/managers is the way they are allowed to change the size of the pitch when the football playing teams turn up. So I would suggest a subtle change in that we all have to play on the same size of pitch.
54 Posted 28/08/2010 at 11:34:38
Also, your plan would make every first half pointless. Why bother risking anything in that period when everything will change after half-time?
If you want ten-a-side, the whole game will have to be ten-a-side, taking one off at half-time is silly.
James, #8, it'll be hard to explain to you, but your post encapsulates a key reason why many non-Americans have a very low opinion of Americans (this doesn't include me I might add). A draw is a perfectly reasonable result, and is part of a season-long context where everybody plays each other the same number of times and a final league table is produced. I much prefer this to the manufactured drama of the American sports. When football is dramatic, it's genuine, the drama that arises is special and rare and worth so much more because of it.
I'm a huge fan of Test Match Cricket, which can take five days and still be a draw, and if you talk in terms of a Test series, it can take 8-9 weeks and still be a draw. So be it.
55 Posted 28/08/2010 at 14:28:51
NO substitutes in the last ten minutes of any game, for any reason. It'd stop ridiculous substitutions with 30 seconds to go.
The goalie takes a goalkick from the side where the ball went out, like we used to, which would stop time wasting tactics as keepers wander from one side of the goal to the other.
A red card for grappling in the area, along with a penalty. It would stop the WWF sessions overnight.
Go back to the old offside rule. Now.
A 10-yard gap between the free kick and the wall. What? That's supposed to happen now...?
Bring back the tackle from behind, above, any-fucking-where. It's getting to be a non-contact sport. It's a man's game.
No player bar the captain can say a word to the ref, let alone push him around.
Divers and "simulation" experts will be taken out and shot.
56 Posted 28/08/2010 at 14:51:55
57 Posted 28/08/2010 at 15:02:58
Another important change [to the Football League] was made in 1981, when it was decided to award three points for a win instead of two, a further effort to increase attacking football. (This scoring rule was not added by FIFA to the World Cups until the 1994 cup after the perceived dominance of defensive play at Italia 90)
I assure you categorically, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with match-fixing.
58 Posted 28/08/2010 at 17:22:23
59 Posted 28/08/2010 at 18:46:02
Mike Allison (54) ok ten a side it is.
Ray Roche (55, 56) quality. 10 out of 10. But don't tell the missus.
MK (57) - solid performer as ever.
Nick Entwistle (58) - I would have been lower not for the quip about the Tiger. Demonstrates an inner self willing to look in the miror and say "yes, all us TW contributors are deluded".
As for the Hibbert/Osman comparison, to answer a question, with a question ? Do you see yourself as a loyal, hardworking, true to the cause type of person for your employer? Are you maybe not "Employee of the Month with your name on the wall in the staffroom" type, but you have the company's interest at heart at all times and willing to go the extra mile to fulfill late orders, keep customers happy and win local regional business competitions? If you are, then Yes.
60 Posted 28/08/2010 at 20:03:14
It's the most popular sport in the world for a very good reason.
61 Posted 28/08/2010 at 21:33:20
I'm a season ticket holder James.
However, if, after ninety minutes and following a hard fought draw, i then had to sit through the nonsensical spectacle of "10 minutes of overtime...a keeper apiece and 8 on 8 in the field", i would be sorely tempted to snap said season ticket in half and shove it up right up a swans arse.
That would at least give me more satisfaction than some meaningless, falsely manufactured 'victory'.
It was impossible to separate two evenly matched teams. Honours even. We'll turn you over at your place though ya gobshites. That's the way it is, and always should be in my opinion.
62 Posted 29/08/2010 at 08:09:00
John Daly (61) - If you do that John, be careful as they're vicious creatures. Away fans that is. I know what you mean about a hard fought draw, especailly a last minute equaliser making it feel like a win.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Fan Articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.