|
|
Post by andy on Jun 24, 2007 18:50:15 GMT
My effort would be
Oun-wah-dee-kay (with the Oun bit being short)
Having lived in Zimbabwe for a while, 'unlove' would be the easy version for english commentators of a very common Ndebele surname.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Jun 24, 2007 19:19:29 GMT
un sch low voo would be a bit nearer for the flying Zimbabwean, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 25, 2007 8:17:26 GMT
On the basis of the above "Dicky" sounds a better knickname than "Makka"
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 25, 2007 10:27:55 GMT
censorship makes me ick
|
|
si1268
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 147
|
Post by si1268 on Jun 25, 2007 12:13:35 GMT
Myself, I dont really see a major problem with a diagonal ball from midfield towards the corners. Less dangerous, I would have thought, than an incisive ball through the middle. Any threat on goal depends on a) the ball having the right pace on it so it doesnt go out of play, b) their player getting to it before ours, c) delivering a decent cross, d) their foward getting on the end of it, e) the effort ends up on target. Many more things can go wrong with that sort of attacj than a midfielder beating one player and shooting (which is how we conceded a good portion of our goals last year). At CN level, I wouldnt expect to concede as many from wide balls as through the centre. Yes you are right we did concede so many goals by simple through balls because as I pointed out the centre 3 get confused about who to pick up. Therefore its a totally crap system for 2 reasons. If we are talking about a defensive midfielder in front of a back four then OK but they have to be a genuine midfielder to make it work. Makalele was mentioned, yes fine and chelsea have done very well but hell do you want to watch them |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 25, 2007 12:41:18 GMT
Myself, I dont really see a major problem with a diagonal ball from midfield towards the corners. Less dangerous, I would have thought, than an incisive ball through the middle. Any threat on goal depends on a) the ball having the right pace on it so it doesnt go out of play, b) their player getting to it before ours, c) delivering a decent cross, d) their foward getting on the end of it, e) the effort ends up on target. Many more things can go wrong with that sort of attacj than a midfielder beating one player and shooting (which is how we conceded a good portion of our goals last year). At CN level, I wouldnt expect to concede as many from wide balls as through the centre. Yes you are right we did concede so many goals by simple through balls because as I pointed out the centre 3 get confused about who to pick up. Therefore its a totally crap system for 2 reasons. If we are talking about a defensive midfielder in front of a back four then OK but they have to be a genuine midfielder to make it work. Makalele was mentioned, yes fine and chelsea have done very well but hell do you want to watch them only in the Cup v City at the Bridge or at Wembley |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 25, 2007 20:47:30 GMT
I am waiting anxiously to hear Captain Crazy's attempt at Emeka Nwadike's name. Should be fun if nothing else, after all he never did master Abderrahman!
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Jun 26, 2007 8:04:41 GMT
It's be something like "mecker nawoddicc", if I know the Capn!
Should we get everyone thinking along the lines of "Meeker Wadd eekee"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 27, 2007 11:22:45 GMT
I reckon Andy's "Oun-wah-dee-kay" is the correct version and any City supporter mis-pronouncing it should write it out a hundred times.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfred on Jun 27, 2007 13:36:24 GMT
it is actually pronounced emeeka n'wadakay
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 27, 2007 17:20:18 GMT
which is just what Andy said!
|
|
