weedman

One season my Sunday league team won every game and romped the league. It was the first season our new manager was in charge, giving him a 100% win ratio. Given the importance of this and the apparent irrelevance of what division its attained in I'm shocked none of the elite clubs snapped him up that year. We actually got 4 consecutive promotions so his win % was probably somewhere in the 70% mark after 4 years. Does that make him a better manager than Dean Smith?

This debate is seemingly endless. People dont think the injuries etc that we've had this season are a good enough excuse for not winning every game because the teams we played were poor, but surely even the most negative, desperate for Smith to fail from day 1 poster can still see the mitigating circumstances so far this season? I mean, if our first team was: Martinez Cash, Konsa, Tuanzebe, Targett Luiz, Chukwuemeka, A Young Buendia Ings El Ghazi and then we went out on deadline day and signed Mings, Bailey, Watkins, McGinn, Sanson, Ramsey and Traore, do you not think that would improve us over the course of the season? If the above team is a "battle against relegation" team, then surely after adding all those players it would become a mid table or "challenging for Europe" team? Or do you think that we'll see no improvement when those players come into the team? The only way that you would consider our injuries and disrupted pre season not to be a valid excuse is if you already view Smith in a negaitve way and are looking for ways to "prove" your point. Either that or a troll (mentioning no names, but we all know who it is) I accept that my opinon may not be right, but I just cant understand how else anyone can just dismiss the mitigating circumstances in order to proclaim Smith to be not getting the most out of the team

I mean to completely ignore the context because it suits your argument just stinks of bias. For that reason, I'm out

A midfield composed of a 17 year old debutant and a RB 20 years older than him playing pretty much his first ever game in CM? Is it that concerning considering we will likely never ever play that midfield combination again?

Clearly you don't remember Nyland against Sheff Utd, although that was technically ruled out I guess

Is that actually it? Looks like a training top. Shame as we've had some decent 3rd kits recently but that is a poor effort if true, I'll wait for the actual reveal tomorrow before judging as to me it looks like it's a training top of some kind

I live in Fleet (10 mins from Basingstoke) and would like to point out that they prefer it to be called either B-Town or Amazingstoke. The latter is not accurate

Only time I've been to Stamford Bridge was for a cup game and we filled that end, lost about 5-0 but had a great day out

Easy

I mean surely Grealish is an example that you shouldn't immediately believe every negative rumour, if you did he'd have left every year from the year we got relegated. You can't point at Grealish leaving as proof that the rumours are always true when he has been strongly rumoured to be joining every club that's ever set foot in the top 6 over the last 5 years

I'd imagine it'll be El Ghazi left, Buendia right with Ings up front and a midfield of McGinn, Luiz and Nakamba/Ramsey

Its not just Watkins though is it? It's Watkins injured, while Bailey isn't ready to start, Traore is out, Buendia not fully up to speed having been injured in pre season, Luiz barely back from the Olympics, Sanson injured/not fully fit. We are missing a fair few attacking and midfield options, and Ollie being out is a big blow as he does the work of 2 up there

I mean the whole debate (ignoring a certain poster who trolls every single thread he's in saying he'd genetically never get injured) was the talk of signing Tammy for £40m. Most relatively sensible people were simply saying that we won't spend £40m on a backup, not that we didn't need a backup, no one was ridiculing anyone for thinking we needed a backup striker, aside from the obvious troll, most people were simply expressing Tammy at £40m to be a poor use of resources and also unappealing to a player wanting first team football. To be fair, even Ings is a bit risky, even at £20m or whatever there's a lot of people who have the belief he's not here to be a backup, he'll be starting games. Watkins will also be starting games. We won't keep either of them happy if one is on the bench every week, luckily both Watkins and Ings are relatively flexible and can play multiple positions across the front line - something Tammy cannot offer. Honestly I'm not even sure if this happened pre social media but it seems to me that every debate on virtually every subject these days has to be taken completely out of context by some people in order to gloat when they're "right", even if the way they're right is to completely change the other sides argument (or pick the most extreme view and assign that view to everyone that disagrees with you). Hell, I'm sure I do it as well, it's apparently the only way to debate these days.

I mean they're an official energy drink partner...I'm not sure there are that many companies out there it would be any better going for. Energy drinks are all terrible

And we win the FA Cup, with Mings lifting the first trophy since 96

Its criminal that the media seem to think Arsenal and Spurs are more attractive clubs

Another final Jack Grealish will lose...maybe he's been the problem all along and the playoff final was an anomaly?

And now I have to go and watch The Castle again, thanks a lot!

Looks like he's sorted out his shit hair at least, that's a plus! Hopefully he can do well on this loan, be interesting to see how he does in a physical league

But he looks his best when he's driving forward at players, but against City most teams sit deep and make themselves hard to beat, leaving no space for that. He's not quick and jinking like Sterling or Mahrez, and his passing isn't on the level of De Bruyne. His best asset when not running at players is holding the ball, drawing defenders in and then perfectly weighting a pass away or moving away and drawing a free kick. I'm not convinced being in a team with 70% possession every game necessarily will suit his style of play. With that said, every attacking player looks the absolute dogs in that City team because they get so so many chances to do stuff each game, so what do I know?

I mean "all along" is a bit much when talking about a poster who was adamant that the deal was signed sealed and delivered to Man Utd a year ago. What is it they say about stopped clocks?

I rate Ings higher than Watkins. They have the same work rate, Ings is better technically and a far better finisher. Watkins will learn a lot from him and in 2/3 years Watkins will be basically prime Vardy

Literally came here to say this! Our front 4 will be Bailey, Buendia and Traore with Watkins ahead. Need at least 1 good backup/rotation option, preferably 2 with El Ghazi moving on along with a backup striker Gonna be a busy window!

Its amazing how much detail his dad went into at this festival as well isn't it? Explained how they were using the Man Utd interest to leverage a better deal (even though he really wanted to go) because Man Utd wouldn't match the asking price in the next transfer window Also explained that they love money more than anything else and that when Man City come in for him in a years time he'll be desperate for a move and agree to the transfer weeks before the deal is agreed despite another Villa offer being on the table. Given all that being obviously true and in no way made up I'd say the fact that he didn't mention if Villa would agree to the payment structure of the deal happening in 18 months time is probably the most surprising thing here

That's becuase our entire style of play is built around him, our game plan is built to get Jack on the ball as often as possible. When he's not playing we have to change our entire gameplan Let's also not forget that our dip in form last year started while he was in the team and just continued while he was out