🚀 go-pugleaf

He may be a little confused, the width of the pitch is I believe the
narrowest in the Premiership.

Mutlow wrote in message
<931218969.23520...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
>Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
>posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
>
>

In article <931218969.23520...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mutlow
<da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> writes
>I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
>Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
>posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
>
>
Goal Posts are a standard size, Otherwise MAN U would have massive ones
either end (mainly for Andy Cole's benefit).
--
Christopher Wilmot

In article <glFs5KAD...@cabinet.demon.co.uk>, Christopher Wilmot
<Ch...@cabinet.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <931218969.23520...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mutlow
><da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
>>Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
>>posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
>>
>>
>Goal Posts are a standard size, Otherwise MAN U would have massive ones
>either end (mainly for Andy Cole's benefit).
But surely that would make it even more difficult for him. It would be
the space between them that would need to be increased.

--

Shadow

Rob Kloosterman wrote:
>
> Mutlow <da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:931218969.23520.0.nnrp-14.d4e42435@news.demon.co.uk...
> > I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
> > Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
> > posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
> >
> > according to fifa and uefa rules there are minimum and maximum sizes
> [width]  for the goals as well as for the pitch[field].
> in england most pitches are the widest than over all europe!

Ideally, they should be as narrow as possible, which lessens the chances
of the ball deflecting back into play. If they had a triangular
cross-section, the ball would be less likely to deflect into the goal. I
wonder why the gooners haven't thought of that yet?

Christopher Wilmot wrote:
>
> In article <931218969.23520...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mutlow
> <da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
> >Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
> >posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
> >
> >
> Goal Posts are a standard size, Otherwise MAN U would have massive ones
> either end (mainly for Andy Cole's benefit).

Standard size is eight feet high by eight yards wide. Of course, if ManU
had extra large ones at Old Trafford, it is certain that Arsenal would
install extra small ones at Highbury. Who else would put up with it?

Mutlow <da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:931218969.23520.0.nnrp-14.d4e42435@news.demon.co.uk...
> I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
> Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
> posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
>
> according to fifa and uefa rules there are minimum and maximum sizes
[width]  for the goals as well as for the pitch[field].
in england most pitches are the widest than over all europe!

SOLSKJAER <chan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7mmbs1$j2h$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of their
> negative play).

How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour, Nicholas
Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team? They
have the best first eleven in the country.

And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of their
negative play).
Christopher Wilmot wrote in message ...
>In article <931218969.23520...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mutlow
><da...@mutlow.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I might be cracking up but my mate insists the width of the goal posts at
>>Highbury are the narrowest in the premiership.  I maintain that all goal
>>posts are the same width. Can you shed any light?
>>
>>
>Goal Posts are a standard size, Otherwise MAN U would have massive ones
>either end (mainly for Andy Cole's benefit).
>--
>Christopher Wilmot

Andrew Ferris wrote in message <37914F66...@home.com>...

>'cause he's the type of ManUre fan who thinks Posh 'n Becks wedding was
>a tasteful little affair :)
>
>cheers,
>
>Andy

dave g, 'avin a larf replied

that's not really fair, it was really a class affair, did you see the
thrones they got to sit on, we've already got 'sir' alex and i think the
other two want to be 'king' david and 'queen' victoria

dave

Matthew Simms wrote:
>
> SOLSKJAER <chan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7mmbs1$j2h$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of their
> > negative play).
>
> How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour, Nicholas
> Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team? They
> have the best first eleven in the country.

'cause he's the type of ManUre fan who thinks Posh 'n Becks wedding was
a tasteful little affair :)

cheers,

Andy

>How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour, Nicholas
>Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team? They
>have the best first eleven in the country.

I would'nt say they had the best first 11, I mean they have some great
players !!!! But what about players like Beckham, Keane and other super
stars.

--
Rich

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:52:30 +0100, "Matthew Simms"
<si...@simms.free4all.co.uk> wrote:

>
>SOLSKJAER <chan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7mmbs1$j2h$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of their
>> negative play).
>
>How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour, Nicholas
>Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team? They
>have the best first eleven in the country.
>
>
How do you come to that conclusion ? If thought that finishing 2nd
meant second best !!!!

DaveB <dbroa...@blackops.com> wrote in message
news:3794c106.257222612@news.goodnet.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:52:30 +0100, "Matthew Simms"
> <si...@simms.free4all.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >SOLSKJAER <chan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:7mmbs1$j2h$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >> And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of their
> >> negative play).
> >
> >How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour,
Nicholas
> >Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team? They
> >have the best first eleven in the country.
> >
> >
> How do you come to that conclusion ? If thought that finishing 2nd
> meant second best !!!!

Don't get me wrong here. United had the best squad and were best prepared
for the season than Arsenal. If both sides were fully fit and on top form
Arsenal would win 3-2 or 2-0. But over a season injuries occur and players
get suspended. In Arsenal's case their heart, being Vieira and Petit, went
suspended too often and this cost them the championship. If Keane got
suspended then Butt would come in. If Cole or Yorke or both got injured or
suspended then Solskjaer and Sheringham would be available or even Scholes.
If Adams, Keown or Bould were injured or suspended then they'd have to rely
on the inexperienced Upson or Gilles Grimandi. In goalkeeping terms Arsenal
had a good backup in Manninger, but up front for the first part of the
season if Anelka or Bergkamp were injured, then Boa Morte or Wreh played and
they were not up to it.

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:17:38 +0100, "Matthew Simms"
<si...@simms.free4all.co.uk> wrote:

>Don't get me wrong here. United had the best squad and were best prepared
>for the season than Arsenal. If both sides were fully fit and on top form
>Arsenal would win 3-2 or 2-0. But over a season injuries occur and players
>get suspended. In Arsenal's case their heart, being Vieira and Petit, went
>suspended too often and this cost them the championship. If Keane got
>suspended then Butt would come in. If Cole or Yorke or both got injured or
>suspended then Solskjaer and Sheringham would be available or even Scholes.
>If Adams, Keown or Bould were injured or suspended then they'd have to rely
>on the inexperienced Upson or Gilles Grimandi. In goalkeeping terms Arsenal
>had a good backup in Manninger, but up front for the first part of the
>season if Anelka or Bergkamp were injured, then Boa Morte or Wreh played and
>they were not up to it.

Anyone else reckon that if we came up with that lot we'd be accused of
whinging?

Tim.
--
Gate 84. Block 540. Row 27. Seat 20.
26th May, 1999.
http://www.vimto.demon.co.uk

You can't blame coming second on suspensions....that's the clubs own stupid
fucking fault....You can't say Arsenal would win if they didn't have players
suspended - that's their own making.  You gooners weren't singing this tune
when you won the title...oh Man U would have won if Keane hadn't have been
out for the season etc etc


Matthew Simms wrote in message <7n4a5n$d41$4...@supernews.com>...
>
>DaveB <dbroa...@blackops.com> wrote in message
>news:3794c106.257222612@news.goodnet.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:52:30 +0100, "Matthew Simms"
>> <si...@simms.free4all.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >SOLSKJAER <chan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:7mmbs1$j2h$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> >> And Arsenal would have no goals at all (mainly for the benefit of
their
>> >> negative play).
>> >
>> >How the rubber duck can you say a team which contains Ray Parlour,
>Nicholas
>> >Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp and Marc Overmars a negatively playing team?
They
>> >have the best first eleven in the country.
>> >
>> >
>> How do you come to that conclusion ? If thought that finishing 2nd
>> meant second best !!!!
>
>Don't get me wrong here. United had the best squad and were best prepared
>for the season than Arsenal. If both sides were fully fit and on top form
>Arsenal would win 3-2 or 2-0. But over a season injuries occur and players
>get suspended. In Arsenal's case their heart, being Vieira and Petit, went
>suspended too often and this cost them the championship. If Keane got
>suspended then Butt would come in. If Cole or Yorke or both got injured or
>suspended then Solskjaer and Sheringham would be available or even Scholes.
>If Adams, Keown or Bould were injured or suspended then they'd have to rely
>on the inexperienced Upson or Gilles Grimandi. In goalkeeping terms Arsenal
>had a good backup in Manninger, but up front for the first part of the
>season if Anelka or Bergkamp were injured, then Boa Morte or Wreh played
and
>they were not up to it.
>
>
>

I'm sorry but Tim Emanuel, you know absolutley f*** all.  What you said in
you post is a load of shite.  That is why it is a TEAM game and not an
individuals performance game.  Man Utd won because they had a better team
last season than anybody else, as much as i hate to admit but it was true
what about the triple cup win.  They had their share of suspensions and
injuries just like every other football club.  Also, how on earth can you
say that "Arsenal would win 3-2 or 2-0"   How long have you been following
football exactly?  Since when can any body predict the score of a football
match.  Sure people can look at the match stats and predict a score what
they think is most likley but how often do people get this right.  Why do
you think William Hill and all the other betting shops rake it in on special
sporting occasions like the FA cup final.  You are trying to make an
intelligent point which fails at the first hurdle.  In fact no, it was shot
at birth because it was shite.

Dave


Tim Emanuel <t...@vimto.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37960bbf.1113845@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:17:38 +0100, "Matthew Simms"
> <si...@simms.free4all.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Don't get me wrong here. United had the best squad and were best prepared
> >for the season than Arsenal. If both sides were fully fit and on top form
> >Arsenal would win 3-2 or 2-0. But over a season injuries occur and
players
> >get suspended. In Arsenal's case their heart, being Vieira and Petit,
went
> >suspended too often and this cost them the championship. If Keane got
> >suspended then Butt would come in. If Cole or Yorke or both got injured
or
> >suspended then Solskjaer and Sheringham would be available or even
Scholes.
> >If Adams, Keown or Bould were injured or suspended then they'd have to
rely
> >on the inexperienced Upson or Gilles Grimandi. In goalkeeping terms
Arsenal
> >had a good backup in Manninger, but up front for the first part of the
> >season if Anelka or Bergkamp were injured, then Boa Morte or Wreh played
and
> >they were not up to it.
>
> Anyone else reckon that if we came up with that lot we'd be accused of
> whinging?
>
> Tim.
> --
> Gate 84. Block 540. Row 27. Seat 20.
> 26th May, 1999.
> http://www.vimto.demon.co.uk