sheepyvillian

46 minutes ago, ChicagoVillan1983 said:

JJ who? I wouldn't be upset for a second if we can get a decent price.

Some would differ from that opinion. Myself, I have a soft spot for "Our Own" but as sad as I would be to see him go, Rodgers would provide the sliver lining. 

This Town. It's supposed to be set in the early 80s. The only place you could get Heroin from in 80s Birmingham was the Hobmoor pub in South Yardley and maybe a few hippies in Moseley. In contrast to today it was virtually non - existent. Honestly, the writing on this show is as cringeworthy as it gets.

4 hours ago, duke313 said:

, who are we selling

Carlos, Cash, Tim, Duran (sadly) and probably a player that will cause some consternation amongst us at VT, whoever that may be, but if I was pushed to guess, maybe JJ.

37 minutes ago, TRO said:

I respect your opinion, Sheepy.....but I think it's a stretch to suggest, that Emi could influence, what was wrong with us in that second half....you could be right, after all....but I didn't see it that way.

Jackson had a close offside too, first half.....I thought Olsen saved a worldie, from Palmer too. He is never going to give us the assurance Emi does, but their goals came from passive play, from us.

I'm not suggesting you are wrong about Emi, we will always miss him....but I think the midfield, was a central culprit in our poor night.

just opinions.

The fact that Chelsea looked a lot more dangerous in the 2nd half than they did in the first, I think, adds weight to my opinion. 

You're right, they are just opinions. 

16 hours ago, switters said:

What Emi would have added 2nd half is his ability to slow it down and relieve some pressure. He's willing to keep the ball that bit longer, under pressure, wait until the pass is on before releasing.

Not sure it would changed the result ultimately. They did a good job on staying tight on Luiz and McGinn and wingers pushing high on full backs to not really allow the short options, Pau was forced to go long quite often as well and he's not one for low % hoofs normally, that was kind of forced by them.

 

But for all their possession in that first - half, aside from hitting the post, they never really looked like scoring. We were disciplined in our defensive organisation. Not so in the second  - half. The confidence had evaporated and we lost our structure. I honestly don't believe that would have been the case has Emi not departed. 

18 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

Is there talk of Archer coming back?

I have no idea how he has performed this season.

Sheffield seemed to be a difficult choice for a young striker.

Agreed. Of all the clubs, depresses me just to say "Sheffield United"!

9 hours ago, ben1505 said:

Saw this online ..... Tottenham have won just once in the league at Stamford Bridge in the last 34 years.... so they're probably due....

NO!!!!

On 27/04/2024 at 12:07, chrisp65 said:

Watched season 5 of Fargo and it was a real return to form, did everything I want Fargo to do.

So, considering that season 4 had left me a bit meh and I hadn’t made it past the first couple, I’ve given it another go.

It’s ok, perhaps on its own I’d even think it was good. But lined up against everything else branded Fargo, it’s the poor relation.

I recently re - watched season 4, and enjoyed more than I did the first time. I really don't think there's been a poor season, just some a lot better than others. For me, all seasons are extremely watchable. 

Just reading an article about a film with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. A heist movie apparently, in their words, "Influenced by Midnight Run and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I loved Midnight Run, a proper 80s flick.very funny in it's day.

Just now, tinker said:

Tyson will KO him, his style is to aggressive for Jake to hide, step inside and bang hes out, Jake's a fool.

I get the feeling it will be kind of staged. A kind of wrestling outlook. It certainly doesn't interest me in the least. 

4 hours ago, ChicagoVillan1983 said:

I get it, it's just hard to say you have, literally, the best player in the world at GK and to not build around that. I understand it makes us massively weaker when he is not on the pitch, but I don't think the answer is to change our style of play in a manner that makes us more resilient when he is not on the pitch.

We'd be nowhere near 4th without him - NOWHERE. 

That's right, we didn't do in the second  - half what we did in the first. For me, that was a result of being without the calming presence of our keeper. 

1 minute ago, TRO said:

The top 3 have only averaged just over 2 goals per game this season......with all their fire power....Arsenal and Man city 2.4 and Liverpool with 2.2

I don't think it's reasonable to assume, we can keep scoring so freely.

I can't offer an explanation, as to why, we let them back in, but if we couldn't secure the ball, maybe it's one answer.

I ask the question, did we go defensive? by design or by necessity or did we just retreat, because we couldn't get the ball?

I think we tried not to concede, because we couldn't get the ball, to launch an attack, we effectively lost the midfield.....I do get your point, our strength is attack, and the "goals for" column supports that.....but when we couldn't get the ball, the only alternative is to keep what you already have.....but sadly, Chelsea had different ideas.

 

 

 

I have given my opinion. Offensively, the contrast from the first - half to the second  - half was startling. We didn't have the same self - belief in the second  - half, hence the lack of cohesion. We allowed ourselves to become over defensive, and imo, that was a consequence of losing our captain and keeper. 

Plenty of teams have had less that 30 per cent of the possession and still managed to get the victory. It just requires defensive discipline and confidence. Unfortunately, we didn't have those qualities in the second  - half, hence the result.

That's just my take on the game as I saw it, nothing more.

1 hour ago, Avfc96 said:

Just when boxing seems to being getting it's act together (albeit it thanks to Saudi blood money), it goes and shoots itself in the foot again by making Mike Tyson vs that absolute w***** Jake Paul an official licensed bout that goes on both of their records. FFS

It's an exhibition fight. It's money orientated, nothing more. Saying that, it would be hilarious if Tyson chinned the muggy word removed. 

43 minutes ago, TRO said:

I can't argue Sheepy, with all that.

I can tell you, at 2-0 up, I was still nervy.

I accept the magnitude that Emi exudes in every aspect of his play, but I thought it was coming, like another Brentford.

You are right, possession is only one aspect of a game, and sometimes it is for possessions sake, but when you haven't got the ball, you can't affect the game and the frustration builds.....and it's like boxing, the body punches, rarely knock you out, but they wear you down.....and they wore us down.

But there have been countless games where we have surrendered possession and still managed the game to our advantage. Spurs away, Arsenal at home and away, in the first - half. 

In that first - half against Chelsea, every time we hit them on the counter we looked like we would score. However, that dangerous weapon was almost non - existent in the second  - half. We became fixated on trying not to concede, to the point where we forgot about trying to get a third goal. We allowed ourselves to become overwhelmed and Chelsea sensed the fear and panic that consumed our players. Like I said, even the crowd sensed the change in our approach, and sadly, the inevitable happened. Without confidence there's no cohesion, instead of asserting ourselves, we kind of crossed our fingers and just hoped we didn't concede. I really don't think that would have happened had Emi not been replaced. He's the captain for a reason, he brings that assured presence, that sadly, Olsen doesn't. 

6 hours ago, TRO said:

I am not so sure....The crucial stats were not for good reading, even before Emi's exit.....and my eye test on the night, suggested, they was gradually working their was back in to the game, without much resistance, even at us 2-0 up.... We have seen this before.

Chelsea was winning the possession battle all through the game.....and after their first goal, the inevitable was arriving.....Gallagher and Caceido had the freedom to dictate.

Look, they are entitled to an off night.....The season is not the issue, we all know it's been great....and we are hugely grateful....but I would be amazed, if that performance, (and the detail of it) does not resonate in Unai's mind, when he makes plans for the summer recruiting.

When Unai says "I  want more".....That is a euphemism alright.

 

 

As you know, "Stats" can be very misleading . I posted a comment at half  - time with the opinion, Chelsea showing that possession for possession sake means nothing. In that first - half, imo, we looked like the team more likely to score. I had no sense of panic althrough  that half. And a lot of that confidence was down to Martinez and his calmness when making decisions and that was also evident in the defence. Yet when Olsen entered the contest, that sense of calmness seemed to evaporate, even before he had touched the ball, that loss of assurance and confidence was almost palpable, hence the quietness of the crowd. I'm in no way claiming Olsen was at fault for the goals conceded, my point is, in the second half   we never had the same calmness and defensive discipline that we had in the first, and I don't believe it's just a coincidence that we lost our self  - belief when Emi went off. 

We no longer had that threat on the counter and at times Olsen was going long. That's how I saw the game. Who does the fault lie with? That's for the manager to work out. I'm not hating on Olsen, I just think he doesn't inspire confidence in the way Emi does, and, for me, that was clearly evident against Chelsea. 

I really didn't want these cheating bastards to win the title again. I see Pep is probably out of there by 25, just as the sentence is being pronounced. 

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I don't come in to this thread very often and must confess I hadn't heard that there was a Shogun series that had been made (or of anyone that's seen it) - from the reviews here it sounds like it's fantastic - is there any likelihood of it being re-broadcast on the type of channels where people actually see stuff? Seems a shame for it to be hidden away.

Incidentally, another, apparently, great show from the same network as Shogun, "Dopesick" as just landed on IPlayer. I noticed it today. I shall give it a gander myself. 

12 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Iirc

  Hide contents

Ishido and Yabushige discuss the Anjin being useful long term as he is a tool that can be used to undermine the Jesuits and their pet lords, and would be helpful to Ishido once his immediate threat, Torunaga, is dealt with. Yabushige, who is attempting to play everyone with a view to improving his lot anyway he can, intervenes to rescue him as he can play it as a win to either side - Torunaga wants Blackthorne as much as Ishido would so he can play both sides by intervening.

The show doesn't make this pointedly clear but the scenes with Ishido in the episode make it obvious that eventually he's going to be in conflict with the Christians and he will benefit from anything that helps oppose them, and his discussion with Yabushige has the undercurrent of someone being very careful to not say certain things whilst being clear what he means.

 

It helps somewhat. I'm guessing, but I would imagine the book conveys a greater clarity to such scenarios. That's not to undermine the series, I thought it up there with the best of shows.

I think the book has to be a must - read for me.

Once again, appreciate the interpretation. 

3 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

Ange looks like the guy that's driven the team bus to the stadium.

Good observation. 

VAR, the proverbial love/ hate relationship .

Whilst rewatching Shogun I wonder if somebody could try and explain to me the reasons 

2 hours ago, Pinebro said:

A mistake fans made before the game was having it in their head that Chelsea is a shit team.

No they aren't. If they were they'd be fighting relegation. They are a point off an european spot. 

There are aspects of their game that are really, really strong and I knew that before the game.

When I look at Chelsea nd what they're doing it's far, far more sustainable than let's say Man Utd.

I would say they're inconsistent team, who at times look like a top 4 side and other times a mediocre side. It seem when they come to VP they revert to top 4 side.

33 minutes ago, onmeedson said:

The game changed on Tielimans going off, no work rate in midfield after that and Luiz just falls apart again without the work being done for him.

Agreed.

31 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

I hope that pricks mum catches hepatitis

Really!

2 minutes ago, imavillan said:

aint got a clue what this means

I'll take that as a blessing in disguise.