That's being disingenuous. Very obviously, and I am sure you mean to allude to that, 6-7,000 fans that buy matchday tickets will be from a fan base some magnitude greater than those figures. Perhaps a good portion of those fans will have been better off buying a ST, but I'd suggest the great majority are better off being selective, and only paying for the games that they attend. The club probably feels within its rights to charge a prenimum on these supporters, especially as last season (winning at Ewood in some of the more attractive fixtures)they were treated to a higher quality of entertainment by being selective of their games. Remember, ST supporters commit to forking out, regardless of the results. Also, a good portion of those that are selective will have an overall spend on Rovers matches that approaches the cost of a season ticket. Upping the price on them, whilst keeping the ST prices relatively static, reduces the gap on the overall spend of the two options. It makes the benefits of owning a ST even more attractive. The club has to play the same hardball marketing game that ever other (successful) business does. Personally, I feel there is nothing wrong with feeling that it's too expensive to attend football matches. Perhaps if Rovers were in the lower leagues, it would be more affordable for those fans, but the clubs ambitions lie in the Premiership, so those fans might have to accept paying more for fewer matches.

Very real feeling air crashes in around whereever I am living throughout my life.

Resorting to insults

Hughes is just trying to balance the squad.... north and south hemisphere

What annoys me about this whole saga is that Fiorentina should not be around in the first place.

Yep, and that's exactly why he should be criticised from pillar to post. Whilst there are no imminent England internationals to prepare for, he and his team should have come to that conclusion well before Walcott was picked... and not just a developed hunch (as could be speculated), but be absolutely sure that he could use the player. I don't have the level of derision that England supporters have of Sven, especially leading into this World Cup. But faced with a crunch situation, he very obviously failed. Last World Cup, I felt the criticism was sour grapes, because I didn't feel it was tactical defeciencies as much as a brilliant Brazil team that was his undoing. But a better manager would have taken this England squad further this World Cup. And that's a real shame. I also agree with AESF's last point.

I have no opinion on signing Jeffers

I think Frings & Ballack have been equally good, or better.

To be fair to Joe, he may not back himself to track back to cover for Ashley if he over-commits.

It looks like to me that Rooney is carrying a bit of weight after that injury. He's no doubt a good player, and although he's only had one and half matches under his belt (two now as the Ecuador game continues), in WC, these little amounts of time are where you prove yourself. He's yet done anything outstanding.

Noticed that from the first game actually.

How boring has this game been so far!

Agree. I was in Paris for quite a bit early this year, and saw a bit of Ribery. I couldn't believe it when he was linked with ManUre, because he did not seem to me to live up to the hype. There is no doubt he's got a great work ethic, and digs in deep in every game. But his skill levels are not good enough, and for his size, they need to be, because he'll be muscled out of balls by big players, in big time games. That's what has happened in the WC.

I am very happy we've gone through... but admit totally that we've been very lucky with the refereeing. I questioned having an English referee refereeing that match... and we did seem to get the better of the 50/50's.

Apparently Kewell's been cleared of insulting the referee and is available to play against Croatia. Apparently it's because of inconsistent reporting of the incident by the referee. TFFT

Ignore me

I'm not going to blame the ref for that one, because it would be ignoring the clear evidence. That being, whilst hard work puts you in a position to capatilise on an opponents poor performance, when you posess the talent that the Brazillians have, hard work cannot substitute. However, the ref did give Brazil more than the one helping hand. He ping Australia for 23 fouls against Brazil's 9. IMO, Brazil's abilities force teams into conceding many fouls, but that's still at least 10 fouls more against Australia than was warranted. It's hard enough to beat Brazil without that many dead ball opportunities. I was a little disappointed with the Japan v. Croatia draw, because I had hoped Japan would win that one, giving Australia a bit of insurance against a loss to the Croats... but on this performance, as long as the team don't get stage fright, I see no reason why we can't avoid a loss. And a draw should be more than enough, because Japan would have to beat Brazil by 3. So, I'm a little more optomistic now. One thing we will have to do against Croatia is to start with our best team on the pitch, at the expense of providing impact of the bench. Chipperfield is a trier, but Kewell is obviously going to be a better outlet for us on the left. Aloisi is the best choice we have to partner Viduka, and we should play 2 up front. Perhaps though Guus will still hold back Cahill, given his injury concerns. The only problem I see with what I've said is that Kewell probably will be ineligible for the match, because he's been foolish and had it out with the referee at the end of the match. What was it all about exactly? The obvious thing would be the same frustrations I had with the 23 fouls he gave against us. He should leave that to Guus I reckon.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! (from Jakarta, Indonesia)

I don't know why, but I will forever remember Leonardo's stupid sending off against USA in the '94 WC. And he was bossing the game up until that point too. And no-one has ever answered me on this, but when the Germans got that penalty in WC '90, although it was a rubbish penalty, in those disgraceful scenes by the Argentenian players. One of their players was definitely sent-off, but I specifically recall Maradonna being shown the red card. Was he or wasn't he sent off? Because it always seems to be glossed over... as if it was an incident to be erased from the portfolio of the "Beautiful game".

I suspect that Neill's intentions are too difficult to interpret at this stage. Simply because it doesn't make sense for him to either re-sign, or be transferred until after the World Cup. If against all the negative thinking here, he really does want to stay at Rovers, then a potentially good WC will empower him to ask for one of the highest waged contracts with the club. Or of course, a big money move if that's what he wants. As long as he isn't horribly exposed in the WC (and probably even if he was), the club is always likely to offer him an improved contract anyway. Too early to read. But all those having a go at Neill's arrogance, I feel a controlled arrogance is essential in a player if they want to succeed. I met Neill in the Ewood Park players lounge after the Villa game the season before last. He did seem very aloof and full of himself, but I didn't mind. I would hope I was if I was as good a footballer as he is.

Yep. I hope they cement 4th spot... and then sincerely hope they get put out of the Champions League because Arsenal win the cup. It would be highly amusing.

For me, it's like the team put on an elaborate April Fools joke. That being inflating our hopes by playing well for all the months before, then springing the joke on us when our expectations were at their peak. Hope they start preparing for April 1st, 2007 from here-in.

Got it. From http://www.v-brazil.com/culture/sports/wor...ted-States.html other way round though. I think it may have even been for that World Cup where they issued a directive over the rules interpretation.

No doubt about that. Although my rule (interpretation) change suggestion would have legitimized the goal, what happened was definitely unfair. Defenders only take the huge risk of stopping when they are fairly sure of the off-side situation. The stop is two-fold. One, it is to preserve the player positioning so it is plain for all to see, and two, because it puts the pressure squarely on the offficials to make a call either way. Our defenders were 100% in the right. Agree on these points. I think most agree on the biggest problem being the term "active". To me, I think FIFA's intentions got very clouded along the way. To not be active, i.e. in active should really only be if you are lying injured, or returning to an on-side position well away from where the ball is currently in-play. Does anyone recall if it was '94 when Romario raced away onto a ball played long, whilst Bebeto was trotting back from an off-side position, barely yards from the play? To my mind, the interpretation has been contentious for quite a long while now.

To be honest with you, I think an improvement in the off-side rule was a necessary natural evolution of the game. We have less nil all draws these days, and whilst I could say for certain that it is because of changes to the off-side rule, it may have played a part. In anycase, the off-side rule, in any of its' forms since the first organised football matches has been a contentious rule. It didn't exist at one time at all remember. Forgetting my suggestion from above, my other suggestion would be to preserve the pre-active/non-active interpretation, but to increase the area where-by you cannot be called off-side from just your own half, to your own half plus the first opposing quarter. I haven't really thought of any flaw in this, but I am sure someone can point one out. EDIT - weren't the original changes to the rules (way back now I recall) made to increase the number of goals scored/make the game more appealing (perhaps to US audiences, circa WC94)?