Saturday, December 26, 2009

Mark Hughes' Worst Enemy: Tie

I was falling asleep watching another Manchester City tie, and I don't mean "tie" as in they're about to mix it up. I mean "tie" as in the same fucking score so both teams get a point. That shit is like all those parents that believe there shouldn't be winners and losers. Everyone gets a trophy and a juice box. Bitch. Second place is the first loser. That's how real men roll. All you fucking pussies that say ties are great for the game lost a lot in real life while still clutching that 5th place medal from 3rd grade flag football. And this leads me to why Mark Hughes should have gotten fired:

No one gives a fucking shit about ties.

It's a tie. People be crying, "BUT PATRICK. HE ONLY LOST TWICE THIS YEAR ITS A TRAVESTY HE WAS FIRED." Hey, bitch. No one overpays a coach and a whole team of players to get that 5th place medal from 100 ties. I don't know what the media or Bellamy who was crying Hughes got fired was going to do with a team that was the master of ties. He's like, "HEY PATRICK. WE ONLY LOST TWICE..." STFU YOUR MEDIA BUTT BUDDIES JUST SAID THAT. When two people punch each other, and both guys get knocked out, you both fucking LOST. It's not a no contest. It's not a tie. YOU BOTH LOST. A tie is a loss. Fuck you if you think ties are no grounds for firing overpaid motherfuckers.

I heard there were good things about this team. Robinho sucks like he was supposed to. Gareth Barry sucks. Adebayor sucks. Tevez sucks. I'm still looking for some good things about this team. Roberto Mancini is an awesome coach because he actually wins. He won by an average margin of ten points on the table when he was in control of Inter Milan. I think I like that more than ties.

ETIHAD: Ay, Mark, step into our office.
Mark Hughes: Why?
Mark Hughes: Dude, WHY?
ETIHAD: Because I didn't pay a zillion dollars for ties.
Mark Hughes: But I only lost twice.
ETIHAD: I only bukaked twice on your mom.
Mark Hughes: What?
Mark Hughes: WHAT?
Mark Hughes: FUCK!
ETIHAD: You're fired.

No comments: