OutByEaster?

I'm trying to figure out formation - I think 4-3-3 is unlikely because McCormack isn't a physical striker and it would be a waste of what he can bring to have him running the channels and playing with his back to goal: --------------Bacuna----Westwood-----Gardner---------------- Adomah---------------------------------------------------Grealish --------------------------McCormack------------------------------ 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 could work: Adomah-----------Westwood--------Gardner------------Bacuna -----------------------------------------Grealish--------------------- --------------------------McCormack------------------------------ And I quite like the 4-2-3-1 for this one: --------------------Westwood-------Gardner---------------------- Adomah---------------------Grealish----------------------Bacuna -----------------------------McCormack--------------------------- Whichever - for us to win today, Grealish is going to have to play well. For us to not lose, I think Gardner is going to have to play well.

it's an interesting challenge for Gardner - his natural position is the one that Jedinak plays and he'll want to make an impression.

If we're loaning a keeper and a right back, and Dr Xia is right about two or three other signings, might I suggest that they all play in the middle of the park please Doc?

It's almost a 4-5-1 with a withdrawn striker - McCormack has been playing five or ten yards back from a traditional front man, Grealish will have a pretty much free role I think - I think Grealish, Adomah, McCormack and Bacuna will have some success getting into dangerous positions but we might struggle to convert those into chances when those players look up and can't find Kodjia or Gestede.

Jedinak rightly dropped - and as crap as it is, that's probably our best midfield right now. We're going to have to play a whole lot more football to succeed with that group. I'm guessing it's a sort of 4-4-1-1, but with no target man, we're actually going to have to pass the ball - not exactly our strength.

I think if he signs a contract, then he can get a loan and get a chance to play a little more football, I think a loan would be good for him at this stage of his development. If he doesn't sign, then he'll be sink or swim somewhere (most likely Glasgow by the sound of things) and he'll need to grow up and show up very, very quickly - that could be the making of him, or it could finish him up. I can't see him going the Crowley route and ending up on the hamsters wheel of loans for a great big Premier League club, simply because I think Crowley was much better as a player and that there isn't the same interest - in the longer term, that might be good news for RHM.

With the full ending?

I disagree, I think he's a fool with a natural gift, his communication is unorthodox but he gets through better than just about any other politician in the US. I think he was 'discovered' rather than trained. I think he's grown up surrounded by salesmen and board members and developed a strange gift for self promotion and sales.

An awful lot expertise was deployed in making sure that those arguments were of secondary concern. When you have two of the biggest selling daily papers giving their front pages and online content to immigration and sovereignty consistently for four or five years in the run up to the referendum, you have a fair question and a loaded electorate. For Trump, with enough Fox, they didn't even need a fair question.

I agree. There's no appetite, to the point where the Brexit debate and to a lesser extent the US Presidential campaigns didn't even bother to attempt to explain positions or concepts, our politicians don't do that anymore - there's more value in shouting "he's a wrong un" or wrapping your self in the flag, than boring, staid facts or explanation. I'd go further and say there's a belief in government that there's a danger in an educated electorate. For me it's not a campaign against anything, it's a distrust formed out of consumerism, lead by the idea that it's more important to be thin than smart, it's knowing that whilst our authors, philosophers and scientists might struggle to book a table at Pizza Express, Joey Essex would need a police escort to get to the front door.

In fairness to f'Kinsella, whilst he was absolutely awful for us, he did at least liven up a reserve game at Bescot by swinging a number of haymakers at a much bigger fella and getting himself into such a mood he had to tear his shirt off in fury. That's entertainment.

And it works. It's genius, there's a big argument to be had about whether he's smart enough to be doing it deliberately (he's not) but the way in which he constructs sentences, the way in which he gets words to stick, his ability to connect with voters/viewers is genius. Is it 'smart'? No. Is it 'intelligent'? No. We live in a world where intellectuals are actually mistrusted, where thinking is discouraged, abs not books; You've seen the car advert - "thinkers think, doers get things done" he's reflecting the voters, he's the personification of a number of values and principles, he's a monster, he's horrible, and he's the future of how things will be.

It's both. Repetition doesn't need subtlety to be effective (see jingles) and the chaos of the rest of his speech makes your brain reach out for the words that you think will make sense of it, he structures sentences so that you have to find the word, and he often positions that word so that it's the only thing you take away.

That's what makes it effective. This a good example.

Exactly - It would appear only the US reserves the right to be publicly miffed on something they do more of than anyone. I've got Merkel down as amused.

In a strange way, I think both are true. Russia is using Trump to further their interests, Trump is using Russia as a tool to help him in a power struggle that will ultimately help him further his own interests and those of the people who support him. I don't think either leader can claim that they're representing the people that elected them. It almost seems that's not important any more.

I wonder how Angela Merkel feels about the US complaining about being hacked?

I'm not sure this is so much Trump/Russia vs The USA as Trump vs. a big part of the established USA with Russia a tool he's using to exert his influence. The Boeing/McDonnell Douglas thing might be viewed in a similar light, when Cameron won the last election here, he threatened a couple of influential groups in order to strengthen his position - the BBC were brought to heel under threat of losing the licence fee, the Unions were beaten down etc. Boeing are a company that have a history of threatening US governments and heavily lobbying for their own way on things, they're a hugely important company to the US, and indeed the merger with McDonnell Douglas only happened as a way to get hundreds of billions of tax dollars into Boeing to defend it against Airbus (also of course supported by EU tax dollars - socialism at the top, free markets for me and you) in the past, it's threatened to move production from Seattle and been accused of undue influence - Trump has either cleverly fired a shot across their bows or blindly made a stupid enemy, depending on your point of view - but I don't think it's accidental. Trump is making a very specific group of enemies within the traditional structure of US politics, it's deliberate and I think it's aimed at getting him into a position whereby when he gains full control, he'll be able to dominate policy. I think he's using Russia as a tool on that, to lessen the influence of some of those elements that oppose him within the US power structure.

You can see why he's not been starting, we're a counter attacking team without a lot of structure to those counter attacks, largely relying on individuals doing something on their own, beating a man or two or physically overcoming defences - that's not what he's about - he's better when Grealish is on because Grealish can pass a ball - I think both Grealish and McCormack, but McCormack in particular will benefit from a better midfield - right now, he's a talented player that doesn't quite fit into the system, but the system needs to be changed and he could well be the beneficiary. He's doing okay, but I think there's a chance we could see a lot more in a months time.

Nope, he covered it 18 years after it was written.

I think there will be an open border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I'm a lot less sure that the Irish will agree to any sort of changes to their external border as a result - I think we'll be left with the problem of how to operate our security within that framework and I 'm guessing the answer will lie in the internal transport between Northern Ireland and the mainland. In an odd way we may end up with a Northern Ireland that has a more open border with the Republic than with the rest of the UK.

Absolutely.

I'm not so sure on that. I think Jedinak /Grealish as a central pairing is dreadful. Are you looking at Bacuna more central with Kodjia out left? Against Burton, Bacuna played left with Kodjia up top and McCormack floating off him, I think Grealish would be perfectly suited to that role and it would let us strengthen the midfield a little playing him there rather than McCormack.

I think that would be too bold. It's almost 4-1-3-2 and leaves us with very little in the middle of the park. Along the same lines I'd have Grealish in for McCormack and 4-2-3-1.

The key word there is enhancing. Ireland aren't leaving the EU, in lots of ways their situation isn't changing. What if Ireland are very happy with their own security thanks very much? I think it's essentially a neat solution for us, but an awkward one for Ireland - assuming that they're quite happy with their own security and don't want to 'enhance' it by making it better for the UK and allowing the UK to access it's data, I don't see why they wouldn't just say no. Surely it's up to us to find a solution to a problem which is essentially ours and not to attempt to impose our will on another nation?