lexicon

Bacuna deserves dropping for the next game IMO - Sherwood can't accept performances like that if we've got other options available.

Amavi had enough time to react and Dann wasn't too close to him, he made the mistake of trying to take his man on. It was Amavi's fault, not Guzan's IMO.

The difference in experience between them is actually 200 senior games, which is obviously a hell of a lot. At 25/26, there's still a lot of room for improvement in a CB and besides that mistake, he had a solid game. I don't think you can accuse Clark of getting special treatment, the amount of stick people have given him in the past.

Cost us against Palace - none of them can really emerge out of that with any credit, even though Amavi played well prior to his mistake. Bacuna was the worst offender, just a really bad game from him.

Both him and the team need to get used to each other - gelling issues today but also as pointed out by Nabby, nobody really looking to latch on to his headers.

Such a shame that he messed up, his performance other than that was excellent. I really hope it doesn't knock his confidence because he's been a brilliant signing so far.

Looked good but clearly needed to be taken off after an hour or so, he's not fully match fit yet and was out on his feet.

It wasn't for lack of trying yesterday but his general lack of quality cost him. Made a great run to get into a good scoring position but you have to finish chances like that. I think Ayew or Sinclair would have finished that.

One of the worst games he's had for us - he's definitely capable of better, as we've seen, but he was shocking.

Got bullied by a stronger, more experienced CB. It'll be an experience he can learn from. Other than that, he was fine I thought.

Made plenty of good saves, lots of crosses claimed comfortably. Doesn't deserve any stick on the back of that performance.

Looks massively promising.

Set us up well, made the right decision to bring on Traore (the wrong to take off Sanchez, mind) but leaving so many tired legs out there was a poor decision. We actually played better today than against Bournemouth or Man Utd IMO - so some encouraging signs.

Summed up his performance well.

Another unconvincing performance from him - lost his man a bunch of times when he was supposed to be marking (watch how easily his man lost him from the corner of their first goal), and a couple of silly runs into the attack, the one on 73" meant that he wasn't even close to the 18 yard box when Sako had a relatively unchallenged shot at goal. He's got some good qualities about him - he's incredibly athletic, strong, good at tackling, comfortable on the ball and can pass well. All of these things would be great for RB but he does not have the positional sense to be a CB. This is not unjustified or unfair criticism, it's the reality of the situation.

He's been terribly unlucky with the injuries but he's been very well looked after by the club - especially considering that he's not shown anything for the first team yet. Huge potential though and here's hoping he actually can stay fit for us.

It's perfectly fine for you to update/change your mind about things - that's normal. I don't really get this idea about sticking to your guns no matter what, things change, opinions change - that's life.

As I said, the whole purpose is that it's a reference point. If you explain where you stand from the beginning, you aren't going to get accused of anything and we don't have to deal with childish accusations.

I feel that it's high time that we had a thread where we actually spell out exactly where we stand on certain issues/players/staff at the football club, so as to avoid confusion, misunderstanding or accusations one way or the other. There have been too many instances of people getting called a 'hater' or a 'lover' when really they just lie somewhere in the middle in terms of opinion. This could be an easy reference point if it isn't closed for whatever reason. To get the ball rolling, I'll start with myself with some of the areas of debate: Sherwood: On the fence. I'm not entirely convinced he's the right guy for the job but I can see potential in him as a manager. I think he's got a lot to prove and I do worry about his defensive knowledge. Gabby: Sentimentality aside, I think it's time he moved on. Westwood: Not somebody I'm sure that should be more than a squad player but definitely stepped up against United and is definitely capable of a good performance. I don't think he'll get to Petrov or Barry standard but could be useful all the same. Richards: As most of you know, I think he shouldn't be captain or a CB. Would be happy with him at RB because he's shown some awesome athleticism and some good reactive play but I feel it's too late for him to become a CB and I'm not sure he's got the right mentality to be a captain.

He's probably wondering about that gaping hole left at CB.

This - not the kind of guy we need.

I'm not ignoring anything and I'm not disputing what the original poster said, other than the fact that it's not a well-crafted sentence. The relevance lies in the debate that there is more than way to interpret what somebody says, that's the point.

No, I'm not. I looked at what he said as a clause ('capable of being called up by England') rather than just a word. I know exactly what he meant but I chose to interpret it in a different way, which is easy to do when you write a sentence like that. That clause literally means 'he has the ability or skill to be called up by England' So your original statement is still wrong. It's not wrong because there are different ways what he said can be interpreted. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise, so you may as well just give up. The ways it can be interpreted are defined by the context surely? Without context Stefan could have been saying "he could play for the England national tiddlywinks team if he so wished", which would also be true. Yes, exactly - context means a hell of a lot in language. It's obvious what the correct interpretation is but to say that there are no other ways of interpreting it is just plain wrong. The fact is, it wasn't a well crafted sentence in the first place.

No, I'm not. I looked at what he said as a clause ('capable of being called up by England') rather than just a word. I know exactly what he meant but I chose to interpret it in a different way, which is easy to do when you write a sentence like that. That clause literally means 'he has the ability or skill to be called up by England' So your original statement is still wrong. It's not wrong because there are different ways what he said can be interpreted. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise, so you may as well just give up.

It'll defo happen now! Every time you slag him off he proves you to be completely wrong! Keep up with the slagging! Just for the record, this is not to slag him off - I think it's an unreasonable expectation because it's not something that's ever been a part of his game, so it shouldn't be expected. I don't think Richards has proven me wrong about anything yet but I hope he does.