Apparently Fergie used to get on reasonably well with Barclay, he also used to get on well with Alan Green in his earlier years at the club. I think Barclay did a fair number of interviews with Fergie in the late 80s and 90s.
Sunday Supplement
- Thread starter Irwin
- Start date
I really like Ross Barclay. Probably because he reminds me so much of Jean Luc Picard though. Picard's the coolest of all the Starfleet captains.
Couldn't think where else to put this, but on TalkSport, Barclay, in exclaiming the brilliance of the group of young players Moyes is inheriting, promised Nick Powell would play 50 times minimum for England. Big call.
The level of brown nosing towards Jose Mourinho from Patrick Barclay this morning good god, what a clown.
I always end up throwing the remote at the tele when watching this. Don't know why it's on my planner but I can't help my moschistic viewing of this piece of crap!!!!!
I gave up on this programme a long time ago. Perhaps I was too naive at the time but back when Jimmy Hill was presenting it, it felt like less of an agenda bashing process and more actual debate. Maybe because it was a fresh approach with accredited journalists airing their views as opposed to ex pro's spouting the same old clichés and lines. It felt like there was scope for actual insight and inside knowledge. Probably because the journalists themselves weren't treating it as a marketing opportunity and trying to play a character to create a following for themselves most likely.
Nowadays it's just tripe after tripe after tripe mainly discussing issues few people even care about any more with blatant agendas. I don't want to hear Neil Custis or Oliver Holt etc bang on about nonsense.
Overall it just feels like it's coming to the end of it's cycle. Like Soccer Am to me too.
Nowadays it's just tripe after tripe after tripe mainly discussing issues few people even care about any more with blatant agendas. I don't want to hear Neil Custis or Oliver Holt etc bang on about nonsense.
Overall it just feels like it's coming to the end of it's cycle. Like Soccer Am to me too.
I watch it most weeks esp. when Henry Winter, Jason Burt, Sam Wallace or Steve Bates are there. No fan of Barclay after his hatred toward us a few years ago.
A programme for agendas and axe grinders.
No ta.
No ta.
Don't they all brown nose him. What did Barclay say?
You wouldn't be saying that if Mourinho was ours. We had the chance to take him and blew it. He's a tactical genius, can draw the best players in the world and knows how to approach every game. Why oh why did we go for Moyes?
Ppl would have moaning about his uber defensive football last yr
Watching it now, as I do most weeks but I feel less and less of what they say actually say sticks with me even a minute later.
Their main agenda of course is always to protect their industry and each other, so when questions are asked about things like sources behind the articles on Redknapp at QPR now then you won't find any of the pundits asking questions of the conduct of the hack behind the articles.
The rest depends on the pundits they have from week to week - so you'll have Barclay who of course had major issues with Sir Alex and thus us, and loves Chelsea meaning the end result is obvious. Holt is very pro-City, one of the Custis' loves Mancini, they all like Moyes and English managers as a whole, and Samuel has his hobbyhorses.
But you do get overarching themes that suit their profession - for example they are all very pro-Sugar daddy, they love Mourinho since he's "box office", they mostly seem to have the same views on England, and they have their favourites like Gerrard who will never do anything wrong. Obviously anti-United stories are the lifeblood of English sports tabloids, but tbf to the pundits they do get excited about similar stories with Arsenal and some times even Liverpool (though last season's "everyone's second team" stuff was sickening).
So it's fine to watch it, as long as you don't take it too seriously.
Their main agenda of course is always to protect their industry and each other, so when questions are asked about things like sources behind the articles on Redknapp at QPR now then you won't find any of the pundits asking questions of the conduct of the hack behind the articles.
The rest depends on the pundits they have from week to week - so you'll have Barclay who of course had major issues with Sir Alex and thus us, and loves Chelsea meaning the end result is obvious. Holt is very pro-City, one of the Custis' loves Mancini, they all like Moyes and English managers as a whole, and Samuel has his hobbyhorses.
But you do get overarching themes that suit their profession - for example they are all very pro-Sugar daddy, they love Mourinho since he's "box office", they mostly seem to have the same views on England, and they have their favourites like Gerrard who will never do anything wrong. Obviously anti-United stories are the lifeblood of English sports tabloids, but tbf to the pundits they do get excited about similar stories with Arsenal and some times even Liverpool (though last season's "everyone's second team" stuff was sickening).
So it's fine to watch it, as long as you don't take it too seriously.
Last edited:
He's a Chelsea fan.
Antony Kastrinakis tearing into Jose, rest of the panel are not enjoying this.
For what?
At a guess I'd say it's over his tactics against PSG.
Who else is on the show?
It went for a complete Burton when Jimmy Hill left. Now it's just a massive circlejerk as all the journalists talk about how amazing they are, and reassure each other about how very important football journalists are - central to the game, rather than leeches on the underbelly of it.
Not that I was a particular fan of Hill, but having a chair to the show who wasn't a journalist, and could say something pointed when they got too self important to bring them back in line made the show.
Nowadays their constant preening leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Not that I was a particular fan of Hill, but having a chair to the show who wasn't a journalist, and could say something pointed when they got too self important to bring them back in line made the show.
Nowadays their constant preening leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Really? He once stated he 'grew up in the Kippax' so I'm pretty certain he at least has a soft spot for City.
Jeremy Cross (Daily Star), John Cross (Daily Mirrror) and Antony Kastrinakis (The Sun)
Definitely, he makes no secret of it either.
Cheers. Given the post I've quoted about Jose being torn into, I had my money on Henry Winter, Patrick Barclay and one of Sam Wallace or Martin Samuel on.
Here's a link to the Kastrinakis video on Mourinho.
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/9760505/kastrinakis-mourinho-not-special
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/9760505/kastrinakis-mourinho-not-special
It's an awful show.
I stopped watching this show ages ago. If i have nothing better to do on a sunday morning ill flick over to daytime babestation with a sock and a baby wipe before i consider watching this drivvel
That's a fair point. What grates now is the lack of humility on the importance of their profession. They overstate their influence, big up that what keeps them in a job, and rarely cast a critical eye over their colleagues. Woolnough did a decent job of keeping them in check, but Hill for all his faults was better at cutting out the self-indulgence. They're not all cnuts though, I try to listen to the podcast whenever Custis and some of the more objectionable twats aren't on. Northcroft and Samuel are good value.
Agree with everything he said.
Someone on it actually said they got their goal against Swansea because Rodgers brought Gerrard on 
It's true in the sense that Henderson was given liberty to move further forward. Obviously the goal itself was a fluke but it's origins were in the adjustments that were made after Gerrard came on.Someone on it actually said they got their goal against Swansea because Rodgers brought Gerrard on
Neville and Carragher did something on the construction of the goal after the game on Monday. There was an instruction from Rodgers just before the goal, which they discussed, that ultimately led to Henderson being the furthest player up the pitch.
I would agree that Gerrard on meant Henderson pushed further up and so being in the position to challenge the ball for the goal.
I can't stand Charlie Wyett.
Makes sense I suppose but the connection between the goal and substitution is very slight. As you say it was a fluke and if henderson wasn't up there another player would have.
The connection is actually significant. The front line was becoming isolated with the midfield not linking up well. Taking Moreno off for Gerrard bolstered the midfield and allowed Henderson to find himself in such an advanced position. Sturridge was being supported up top which led to his slick assist. Prior to the change Sturridge was a frustrated figure.
All predict a Liverpool win, I myself am not so confident but I'd absolutely love it if we were to put an end to this overhype surrounding them.
Is suggesting that an in form Liverpool will beat a patchy United side at Anfield 'overhype'? Far worse Liverpool sides have done a job on really strong United sides down the years.
Probably not the thread for this, but i'm going for 2-1 win to Liverpool. That result would make many happy in Australia.
Ahh right if they've all gone for a win I won't bother watching it now.
Possibly he's suggesting that a Liverpool side that were poor against Everton; were helped by some egregious refereeing decisions against S/Hampton, and were knocked out of the Europa Cup by Besiktas, in relatively quick succession, do not merit some of the "in-form" hype that has been bandied around by some of the more pro-Liverpool pundits that inhabit Sky Sports.
Can they beat Utd at Anfield? I would certainly suggest they can, and would no doubt recognise them as favourites, but one decent performance against a patchy Man City does not merit some of the more fulsome praise that has been lavished on them of late.
That's an incredibly one-eyed view of Liverpool's performances in recent weeks / months.
End of the day, go a dozen games unbeaten and collect lots of points on the way you are entitled to fulsome praise.
End of the day, we have been involved in an unbeaten run every bit as good as yours, and many pundits concluded that we were nothing more than lucky, and that our form wasn't sustainable because we were basically crap. Your boys on the other hand garner a lot of praise regardless of performance, or comparative form. I'm sure you'll disagree, and I'm not saying Liverpool won't win this afternoon, but I do think certain pundits, principally on Sky & Talksport, exaggerate your standing when given the merest sniff of improvement.