peterw

not totally sure about that; if you're not in the first 11, or then on the bench it is your job to impress the manager on the training ground that you shouldn't be overlooked. Its been the way for time immemorial - you're not in the manager's plans, then force your way in.

he's just going to end up being another French player we all had high hopes for but that have left unfilfilled or underwhelmed.

nothing compared to the amount of 'whats' they got when they renamed the bloody thing...

The other body would have been the tip of the diamond being slightly deeper and then having two people up front to use and keep hold of the ball, so in effect not losing anyone.

The Prestige is a good call; I'd also add. 'Perfume: The Story of a Murderer'.

To be fair you can't go far wrong with dipping in to 'The Art of War' from Sun Tzu, even though its around 5000 years old.

Well that's why mariupol is so important to them. Establish a southern corridor berween crimea and the breakaway regions and they have a foothold that they will then be able to use as either a springboard to further attacks; or the start a a foothold that allows them to justify an exit strategy in that they have now protected the Russian speaking people's being sugjugated by Ukraine. Once they gain it you'll see them pushing strongly for negotiations and holding Ukraine to ransom for their demands. The longer it goes on the more damoging it is for them and Putin is just going to keep going at any costs (in lives) until he gets Mariupol (which you would guess is inevitable. What is still an unkown though is guerilla tactics employed by Ukrianians in these regions and something that i think as caught Putin off-guard in other Russian speaking areas. that they would automatically lay down their arms and welcome Russia - which just hasn't happened. The next monbth or two are critical for Putin. If he gets bogged down then it'll be more difficult to extricate himself and try and present it as mission accomplished. it will also leave him extremely vulnerable at home which to date he is not.

Oh i agree in the main but I don't really think that covers it all. They did play better but you can at least try and negate that by setting up differently. if we had another body in the middle or someone else up top to hold the ball up and turn Arsenal's midfield around then it would have made a huge difference. As it was the ball kept coming back and we were not able to keep it tight before trying to impose our game. At the very highest level all it takes is one opportunity and we could have gone 1 up and then it's a different (obviously) ball game and Arsenal also have to re-think. Clearly better players and better teams usually win. But Arsenal were given an extra hand by us playing to their strenmgths and not ours.

Not trying to go over old ground but I was disappointed with the starting system because it was clear that it was as wrong against Arsenal as was the diamond against West Ham. We haven't got enough quality to play the way we want to against a physical team that look to squeeze the midfield and so should have looked to use width more. That said, losing Digne and elying on Young was always going to be a problem for the diamond v West ham. Arsenal was just baffling. It's not so much the high press but that they flooded space in the middle and we ineffect took one player out of the middle to play two 10s. The shape was wrong and we were unable to close the lines/angles because of it. In effect we were reacting to Arsenal and not trying to impose our game because we couldn't react to their shape. It was frustrating to watch and didn't reflect particulalry well on Gerrard or the coaches.

When we won 3 on the bounce there were no complaints about the midfield, rather a reflection of how well we played as a team and that midfield 3 in particular.Now we've lost two the criticism is rounding on them. And that's the nub. The 3 are inconsistent and when they're good they're very good. When the opposition close down their space they lack that little bit extra to break teams down, or stop the oppositions movement and transition quickly, and competently, into attack. That's why there needs to be changes. The inconcistency. To that end I reckon Gerrard would like to through Chukwuemeka in, but why develop a player if he isn't going to sign on? Its the catch 22 scenario. Play him and he may sign, but play him and he may show other clubs who know he may not sign, a reason to want to dangle a contract and a promise under his nose. I'm also not convinced about Nakamba either. He played well enough before the injury, but those of us that have seen him longer than Gerrard has have seen that he can be good, but also bang average. A bit like a microcosm of our midfield. Luckily, Gerraqrd was a midfielder and you'd think he'd know a bit about how to get a midfield together and what is needed. It may be, and will be, that we have to muddle through and just get this season done and use the summer to change things around. I would expect to see quite a few exits from our midfield and from the wide areas and potentially could have Traore, McGinn, Sanson, Luiz, El Ghazi, Ings all leaving. if they did I think we'd replace with 3 or 4 top quality and the space created would convince Chukwuemeka to stay.

I don't think he gets cocky but that's his general demenaour. I agree that he does get too casual at times.

It may have been gerrard just sending a message to the kids that if you're dedicated and look after yourself this is what you can still achieve at 36. It may also have been a message to Young that we still want him and that there's a place for him at Villa moving forward.

I've said previously that I think Konsa will be replaced by Gerrard before Mings solely down to his (comparative) lack of ability on the ball. This isn't hyperbolic after last night or Saturday by Chambers, but I think Gerrard will want a player at centre-half who can pass a ball and be able to carry it out of defence, and look comfortbale passing it under pressure. I have never felt that Konsa has the qualities needed as good a defender as he is and if we want to really push on it will be a Chambers-esque type centre half and not a Konsa one.

He's got one

I actually didn't mind that - he was obviously targetted because James and AN Other had left something on him when he cleared the ball leaving him in some pain. That he chose to remind James his place in 'strength' pecking order mader me smile. Did the same to Bojra on Saturday after his Young argy-bargy. Proper old-school centre half stuff. Other than that he played well (as he usually does) and it was a lovely bit of control and cushioned lay-off for Chambers to score a great goal.

eh? Not sure why you are being aggressive. My point which has remained consistent, is that when we see photos we need to show caution. When we see bombs hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, we need to not jump to conclusions relating to the purpose of the act but consider all the variables because we will never get the full story. What is undeniable is that a hospital has been bombed that has never been questioned. What we may not know is why. Russia will say one thing, Ukriane the other. What is still true though, and was highlighted before, is that if Russia hadn't invaded in the first place none of this would be happening now.

The problem here is that UN mandates are still promoting state soveriegnty as predominant when looking at who provides internal and individual security. part of that are that states are able to decide how to act domestically or internally. It's a grey area which proponents of the principle of Human Security are unable (currently) to change.

Which is why I say to urge caution for those that are just relying on sources such as the one that you mention. It's best to rely on the facts as we know them not to try and look for an answer that may not be there. It may well be true that the Russians are indiscriminately killing. But we do not know that, and it is fair to say that the Ukrainians will highlight the hospital (and of course others, it is by no means a one off in terms of hitting civilian infrastructure/areas), as they don't need context as the Russians are giving that by the initial invasion.

And to continue with this - you could be absolutely right - they have 3 options. Admit it and say screw you Admit it and apologise Admit it and and go with your option. And to take your devil's advocate line a step further, if not at the location but close by, what if they're right?

But you're comparing Russia in Syria to now as evidence that they are using the same tactics. i'm saying that it is just as likely that we do not know if the Russians are deliberatley targetting civilians because by the same token we must have done the same thing if we just believe photos? And we're the good guys, right?

Dear me - no, what I'm saying, and what I've been saying, is that if you look at bombing in Syria, iraq or any bombing from all sides you'll see this type of example. Us bombs ahve hit civilian targets; so have UK bombs, that doesn't mean its targetted. Syria is a different situation though because of lot of targets in civilian areas were at those where intel pointed them to let's say 'military targets'. Sadly, it is never possible to ensure the safety of life for those who would be ordinarily protected under international humanitarian law. That happens on both sides, and did. But let's just focus on Ukraine. Straying too far is allowing to conflate a different point to which I'm making. That is simply to offer caution when we see pictures without knowing the full acoount.

yes, it's pretty clear what the hospital is and is a massive mistake if that is what it is. Will you confirm what all the other buildings are in and around this photo? So, we can confirm whether they were aiming at something else nearby?

so you have photos from an unknown source in Syria? Do you have some comparative sources of US/UK bombs to confirm that their missiles never miss their targets?

and what source do you have to confirm Russian military doctrine is to target hospitals and the like? I seriously doubt it, although willing to accept that i could be wrong as I know noting about their military doctrine or its implementation.

And that's a fair point of course. If they weren't there none of this would be happening in the first place.