marksbros6

Can see 'The Death of The Doctor' arc lasting the whole season? Seems appropriate, and in keeping with the series that that will be the payoff for the series finale. How does anyone think they are going to resolve it?

The Doctors 600 and something isn't he? The age difference is ludicrous if you think about it whether she's six or twenty six. The dirty old bugger. 900-odd years old (Earth years?) and the version they met at the start of this series (who died) was around 200 years older than that even. WRONG! Lol

Hinted at by their conversation in this episode, but I don't think they'd go down that route. Too simplistic a solution. Suppose it depends on whether the little girl has changed her face next time we see her. The 'Doctor's (clone) Daughter' regenerated didn't she, but didn't change appearance? She didn't regenerate, she was brought back to life by that thing that revitalised the whole planet. Ah, thanks for that mate, I'll have to go and have a re-watch of that? And 9 to 5 thanks for the 'grooming' comment, lol. Good point! Anyway it seems to be setting things up with Rory and Amy as one couple with the Doctor and River as a second, can't imagine there'd be an 'affair' in the TARDIS? Seems a bit 'Eastenders' for me, besides all the Mum's and Dad's would have to explain to the kiddies watching HOW the Doctor got Amy pregnant? Maybe the little girl is River? But younger? Do we know she's human?

Hinted at by their conversation in this episode, but I don't think they'd go down that route. Too simplistic a solution. Suppose it depends on whether the little girl has changed her face next time we see her. The 'Doctor's (clone) Daughter' regenerated didn't she, but didn't change appearance?

Nah, nice idea but think we lost out on Europe when we started not turning up for games against the bottom 6!

Good point. I've always thought from the references that were made (definitly in 'The Doctor's Daughter') that Susan was a part of 'past' continuity (pre-Time War). I'm sure there is some reference to him 'having been a father before' in that one, and maybe one of the Ecclestone episodes as well? I've always taken that to be a reference to Susan's mother/father, who of course would have been the Doctor's daughter/son. Mind you, I don't think it's ever been referenced on-screen that Susan was a Time Lord. Maybe he just picked her up on his travels and they assumed the roles of grandfather/daughter as it was convenient, maybe even just to get Susan into school (prior to the first Hartnell episode). Remember 'Time Lords' and Galifrey only entered the mythos at the end of the Troughton ere. I think there is clearly some sort of suggestion that the girl is Amy's daughter from the pics, and clearly she can regenerate? But are we supposed to believe that the Doctor and Amy have...you know..? Unless we're being 'Russo swerved' here the only time it could have happened was when she came onto the Doctor last series? (Which I still find to be a massivly comic scene). I'm loving this series anyway.

Anyone else digging that the thread is marked "Spoilers"? It's becoming a bit of a trademark for the series! Anyone else get the odd naughty thought when River said she was a 'quite a screamer, now there's a spoiler for you..."? Lol

Anyone notice that the ship/area that Rory and River explored was the same as the ship interior of the 'Upper Floor' in the lodger episode from last year? Re-cycling the set or a bit of forshadowing I wonder?

They need someone to cross the ball to the big lunk wit hthe ponytail, natural width has been a problem for them since last season, don't know why they don't try Glenn Johnson at Right Midfield?

I've been subscribing for a while and it is quite good for 'block reading' various lines. My only gripe is how they will miss an issue (usually the last in a plot arc) seemingly to get you to buy the graphic novel. I mean I was going to buy Iron Man 'World's Most Wanted' anyway, but there isn't much excuse for the older stories missing issues?

It could be down to the fact that he's still one of the best passers in football? Or due to the fact he can still get it done at the top level? Or because he can still produce special moments when they're sometimes needed? Or how he could really help some of the younger part of the squad? Some people just don't seem to get it. Bringing in Beckham on loan like this could and likely will work wonders, whether on or off of the pitch. Harry summed it up in his interview really with how important a player like Beckham could be when in need of something in the last twenty five minutes of a game. Some people seem to be believing he'd start every game, which is never what is intended. Personally I'd take him all day at United and it's a shame it wont happen. If it goes ahead and he goes to Spurs for the three months, they've done a great job. I'm seeing this attitude of 'why bring in Beckham? he can't run' a lot online. REALLY? Playing Beckham is going to hamstring our fast attacking game is it? Guess we'd better sell Pav...Huddlestone...Corluka...Daws and Gallas as THEY are never going to beat Lennon or Bale in a foot-race either? Not everyone in our side has to be a speed-merchant. In addition to the points Johnny made above I've always felt that Beckham is an almost talismanic personality, even to the point where England play better with him sat on the bench than they do when he's not in the squad. He is one of those rare characters who's inclusion in a team makes everyone walk a bit taller and with a bit more belief. When he DOES come off the bench it usually lifts the team, gets the crowd cheering and that can be a valuable tool in itself. If Lennon is on fire then I doubt Beckham will start games, but if Aaron gets injured, or Modric then he could be a valuable replacement in either of their positions. People seem to think he'll be a passenger in our side, that this will somehow derail our season? I just don't get it? Fact is; if he gets us a point at Man U by just being on the bench, if he wins us 3 points in any league game with one of his trademark set-pieces or if he helps us get through to the next round of the CL then the deal will have been worth it. It isn't like we're taking him on a 5-year deal for £20 million in transfer fees.

The red for Defoe was a joke, you'd need to give out 5 a game if that is a sending off. The yellow for Gomes 'timewasting' was ridiculous as well, Villa had done exactly the same in the first half for the Heskey/Delphonso(sp?) sub. As for the penalty I think Gomes got a touch on it, the ball changes direction and it looks like he gets a glove to it from the front-angle replay. Regardless the ref can't give it unless he knows that Gomes took him down without touching the ball (though we HAVE seen them given before regardless, mostly at Old Trafford!). I thought it was a pretty good performance all things considered. The two finished from VdV were spectacular, perfectly taken and placed. First-time shots as well. He is class and gives us something else. And Summers is a Villa fan? Tough luck there bud. Is there any truth to this Sidwell to West Ham rumour? I'd have had him in there shoring up the midfield myself if he was available.

I'm glad he did, though. The sight of Barry trying to keep up with Ozil still makes me chuckle. More bemusing was him being issued the #10 shirt against the French at Wembley! I think Barry has outlived his usefulness there. With all due respect to West Ham (who have produced World Cup winners and many top English players) I think that if Parker had still been at Chelsea and been playing that he might have got a look-in at the World Cup. Not sure it would have helped our performance though...

I don't see the Crouch/Carroll swap going ahead? For starters Carroll is Geordie through-and-through. He's too vital for that team to let go, if they still had a caretaker manager then maybe we'd have a chance but with Pardew there I'm sure he will move heaven and Earth to keep him. And I don't see Crouch giving up CL football and a glamour tie against AC Milan for playing for Newcastle, as impressive as they've been this season. We keep getting linked with Centre-backs but I don't see the point? We already have good CB's like Bassong who don't get a game, the guys that we are linked with I wouldn't rate higher than him or Kaboul (who has made me eat my words this season!). Plus we have King and Woodgate apparently close to coming back (though they can't be relied on to play 30-games in a season) and the South-African international Khumalo to join. We seem to have lined up targets in pairs for different positions: Parker and Van Bommell (with Van B being the cheaper alternative possibly). Llorente/Semturk (I imagine Semturk wouldn't cost half as much as the £30 million Lllorente would cost). Not sure about Sherwood though, if things got that bad in CM I'd rather a half-fit Jamie O'Hara played there! (Although credit to Tim, he did cause me to shout myself hoarse when he scored against Chelsea in the 5-1 at the Lane). From all the current rumours it looks like the Parker deal might be happening (why else are the Hammers bringing in Steve Sidwell? Diego Forlan (who was a long-shot anyway) injured himself in the Copa-Del-Ray yesterday so if anything it looks like Semturk is the most likely forward to arrive in Jan. Haven't seen enough of him to know if thats a good thing yet (at least Forlan and Llorente score in the Spanish Premier League giving us some form of comparison).

I do believe it's the only version licenced as freeware. Google search it and you should be in luck. There are also patches out there that can update it to the modern day, so you can start a game in 2010 (not tried them myself though).

For Spurs: Scott Parker - I'd quite like him, he's been West Ham's stand-out player, is a TRUE box-to-box midfielder (imagine a consistant Jermain Jenas!). The only sticking point will be the price and it depends on the player I think. I could see us being priced out if The Hammers insist on £15 mill for him, he's 30, has a couple of good years left in him but the chairman won't outlay that sort of money for a player nearing the end of his career. A lot depends on him though: if he tells them he wants to leave I could see us offering a lot less (and maybe Jamie O'Hara) in exchange. I think it might come down to getting in the England squad; traditionally players tend to get noticed at Spurs more than they have at their 'home' clubs (Tim Sherwood being the obvious example!). If he wants to represent England before he retires he might see a move to Spurs as raising his profile. David Beckham - Apparently this one isn't happening either according to Harry in the press. I have mixed feelings about it though. On the one hand I do like Beckham, and feel he still has something to offer the game. On the other hand, bringing him in for 2 months might be a bit of a waste for the outlay we are bound to have on his wages, plus taking up a squad place. Beckham would bring experience, leadership and a quality delivery to the midfield, plus, as with Parker it might offer him an avenue to boost his profile with regard to England selection. I can't see it happening though. Beckham seems adamant that he want's to rest-up this close season and he is reaching the age where playing continually (on loan in between MLS seasons) can't be good for him. Plus he has always said he'd only come back for Man U in the premier league. I just hope he doesn't have a change of heart and end up going back to AC Milan! Mark Van Bommell - If we don't get Parker then I see MvB as a cut-price alternative, I can't imagine he'd command THAT much of a price at his age. Also there is the Dutch connection with VdV already here and enjoying himself. Hopefully he could settle down and would add some steel to the midfield, as well as the afformentioned experience and leadership. As long as he avoids two-footed challenges and going 'studs-up' into people I'd be quite satisfied with him plugging the gap left by the injured Thud and out-of-form Palacious. Fernando Llorente - Here is a bit of a long-shot, but I've watched this guy and he looks like the real deal. A powerful striker, target man and still possessiong good technique he would be perfect in a solo role up front, accomodating VdV in his prefered role in the centre. Drawbacks are price (£18 to £30 million!) and whether he'd want to move to England (come and see the snow!) and the fact that Real Madrid are supposed to be looking at him. Again though, with Spain so strong up front he might see it as a way of proving himself in one of the most high-profile leagues in Europe, particularly as Torres is struggling with form at the moment. I'm sure he'd rather play at Real though, and even if not, their involvement will likely push up the price considerably.

Just wondering how everyone is finding the new patch? 11.2.1? Also, is it just me, or are most of the posters over on the official SI board (even the SI representatives) COMPLETE knobs?

To be honest you sohouldn't have a problem keeping him, you'd be surprised at how many clubs have turned their noses up at Robbie Keane and David Bentley for me, and this is with me pricing them at £0!

Ditto. Hoping that Jenas and Wilson can deputise for him adequatly. Sandro could use a few more substitute appearances I think, wasn't good to see him dwelling on the ball like he did against Bolton for the first goal wasn't it? I think we'll still be playing one up front this weekend, with Defoe making an appearance from the bench (had a flutter on him scoring anyway). Be interesting to see if his return will lead to a shuffle in formation of if he'll be up front on his own?

Was at Wembley, my first trip there, but very frustrating. The team looked way better in the last 10 mins (coincidentally when we made the shocking move in todays climate of playing 2 strikers in a home game!) Ashley Young looked pretty good, Adam Johnson too, but I can't help feel that we're missing a trick by not playing them on the correct flanks? Young would be able to cross the ball much more naturally on the right flank (and he's got a good delivery, as he showed for Crouchy's goal) and after YEARS of searching for a left-footed Englsh winger we're playing him out on the right? Late in the sencond half Johnson charged inside the French area and had his marker back-peddaling...but spent so much time trying to shuffle the ball onto his left foot he couldn't get his shot away first time. Lennon, Walcott or Young in that possition would have banged it right footed, or cut it across goal. There were at least 3 occasions where Johnson got into good positions but couldn't get the ball away. I know he prefers the right side (he can cut inside and score the odd goal) but someone needs to tell him he's playing on the left and turning provider, for the good of the team. Hell let him and Young/Milner swap flanks for the whole game, it's a good tactic, keeps the opposition full-backs thinking? Even MY MUM pointed out that Capello should swap them around. Is he being paid £6 mill a year to come up with tactics and formations that MY MUM can pick fault with? Carroll played well with the limited delivery he got. Walcott didn't get in the game, but the team looked like it was trying to force the issue down the left flank for most of the first half, instead of playing him in. It boggles the mind really, if they weren't going to utilise him as a weapon then why start him? I'm hardly his biggest fan but I acknowledge he's got pace to burn, and played right he can create chances, as it was France didn't have to worry about that flank at all. Playing Jagielka on the right was another mind-boggling move? Why not start with Micah Richards? We looked so much more assured when he started there in the second half, and Jagielka looked a different player back in the heart of defence. People will point to it being 'just' a friendly, but there were 85000 fans there who had come to see a game, and only the French contingent will have gone home satisfied. People will also point to the multitude of injuries and pull-outs from the announced squad (indeed program notes showed a very different squad with Hart and Terry present to name two) but the players who were there all had various strengths, and could have put up a much better performance if they'd not been shackled to a system that wasn't working. Is it too late to sack Capello? Maybe we could convince Paul Heyman to take up the mantle of England Manager? He might not know much about 'soccer' but I'd be happy for someone to come in with an ECW-esq approach of 'hide the negatives, accentuate the positives'. instead last night our negatives were there on display for the world to see, and very few players were able to shine.

M.A.S.K? Mobile Armoured Strike Command? Kommand. Come on... :-p I used to teach English, I even punctuate my text messages, sue me.

M.A.S.K? Mobile Armoured Strike Command?

Isn't he also corrupt (wanna say CIA?) in Air America?

To be the meat in that sandwich...or even to be stood in the corner holding their coats...

DOUBLE POST. Nothing to see here...