Shomin Geki

I'm a big fan of Traore. Almost too forgiving. I have the strong urge to keep repeating to any detractors, 'just you wait and see'. Which I try to keep to myself but can't help grinning in anticipation. He's just a really sexy footballer, you know? There's magic in those boots and the promise of magic is a great rallying cry. It can be a wonderful demoraliser. As much as Bert is undoubtedly inconsistent, he doesn't seem too temperamental; there isn't that kind of 'bi-polar' quality you can get with swashbuckling wizards where things not working out for him seem to really frustrate him and lower his game. If that isn't too appalling a thing to say. There's the phenomenon of technical and flair players new (or newish) to the League who seem unable to strut their stuff amidst the demanding, relentless rhythms and pace of the English game. Some of those players really knuckle down, learn to appreciate the inevitable knocks and puffs the Premier League puts you through and become far better players when they've reckoned with this demanding gauntlet. Less Mario Ballotelli and Jesus Navas and Shinji Kagawa and more Pedro Neto, Pablo Fornals and Mateo Kovacic. To give a few recent examples. I really believe if Traore knuckles down and is able to bring a touch more aggression and punch to his game he's gonna be a real player for us in the not too distant future. (Just you wait and see... )

I can very easily believe that Guilbert isn't rated by our coaching staff. The chap is undoubtedly a trier and seems to have.a sound attitude, but he's very much a lower level full back. Maybe even quite outdated in terms of a Premier League with an increasing premium on quick interplay and technical proficiency. Something of a Luke Young, as much as I enjoyed Luke Young for what Luke Young was. I just don't think he fits in where we want to be. Guilbert would not only languish as an obvious liability in a formation surrounded by players of much greater ability, he also simply doesn't have the chops to fly when we need to fly. Which will hamper our collective dynamism and fluidity. As much as its nice to cheer for a crowd-pleasing 'all-action' marauder, I have a strong feeling our set-up won't tolerate a player not really sharp or precise enough to elevate our performances. Picture the kind of fluid, electric football we have seen at our best this season. Can you picture Guilbert functioning in any of that action? Even as a back-up I can't see him deemed to be of much use, unfortunately.

Cheers for this! Another one to add to the already bulging 'Dark Arts of Harry Kane' compilation. What a guy! I fear the chap could currently go down holding his teeth after biting someone's nose and there still wouldn't be much more than euphemistic innuendo whispered between sucked in breaths from the pundit class. I'd very much like a bold interviewer to ask Kane to take us through what exactly happened in incidents such as these. Could be fascinating viewing. Maybe this is histrionic of me, but in an era in which there is such forensic scrutiny of all aspects of play, it seems absurd that such crucial actions are met with such professional omerta. I suppose being captain of the England national team doesn't mean much these days... I wish Grealish would stop with the theatrics too by the way. He's better than that. Somebody should tell him. It's a far sweeter life when admirers don't feel obliged to add a big fat caveat when they're enthusing about your otherwise joyous play. As for the game, well, I don't wish to add to this downer of an evening, but I do feel obliged to share my honest feelings. Something tells me the sheer alienness of playing the game to constantly empty stadia, with little to no breathers, as a stupefying pandemic clouds every waking moment, must be such a sapping existential funk that I find it difficult to be too critical of our players. It's a deeply weird time and I mustn't be the only one who finds this whole sodden era of the game, a shadow of its roaring, shared glory, a troublingly depressing sight. Honestly, the whole dreary ceremony kinda haunts me. I can't wait for it to become a strange memory. Of course, there are teams that still maintain a real sense of energy and urgency in their hearts and boots, but without wishing to diminish the very fair criticisms and raw feelings of many of my fellow Villans, it just doesn't feel right for me to stick my boot in. Something tells me we'd be wise to plan very carefully for next season, with the return of fans, some normalcy, and, you know, actual, proper, beautiful football. By that time hopefully any rants and rages I may feel swelling in my chest might not feel so hollow.

Watching The Sopranos the other day...

I'm very far from a Man of Science so this could be nonsense, but Carl Sagan is associated with the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and it's this aphorism that plays on my mind when considering UBI. The phrase isn't perfect, the hypothesis of UBI so totalising and so subject to endless contingencies that it's difficult to not approach it speculatively, but I hope you see what I mean. Having read the stirring but somewhat wishful-seeming polemic by Rutger Bregman and a handful of articles, it DOES sound very appealing. But the hesitations of the naysayers do also give me pause. The criticisms, beyond anything too crude or dismissive, would appear, to this layman at least, to require serious consideration. I could elaborate if required, to the best of my limited ability, but they mostly revolve around UBI creating (or furthering) subsequent asymmetries in society, say between those who are more functional or connected and those that aren't, that could create ripple effects that the hands-off idealism of the UBI state may struggle to address. I mean, I'm broadly for it, or at the very least optimistically curious, and obviously further trials and explorations can only do good. I would love, if you have the time and inclination, to hear more of your friend's thoughts. An intelligent chap with a vested interest in how this pans out sounds like the ideal source! I'm particularly intrigued by the neutral phrasing that 'UBI is coming'. Does that mean that he thinks it's application is an inevitability, or is he also an enthusiast for it? Does he see problems with UBI, in theory or in practice, or does he consider the proposition one of those 'least worst option' situations?

I very much agree with this wholeheartedly. I currently live in East London. Not the worst area. Not the nicest. I often work odd hours and so frequently go for runs or train with a football at night. I've stayed reasonably fit all my life and I make the calculation that it's pretty unlikely somebody would attack someone of my appearance. I can always run away just in case. But I have a principle that if there's a group of more than three people lingering around the field where I'm training I will make an unfussy exit. Now, I've nursed a niggling injury the past couple of years that I eventually learned was a chronic condition. I'm now unsteadier on my feet and considerably less strong and fit than I used to be. And boy does it make a difference! Yes, I'll get the odd comment, as I suppose I'm resigned to wearing my football gear at a strange hour, but this also includes wandering about, day or night. Very occasionally somebody will approach me or cause a nuisance. I've always considered it part of my societal responsibility to not turn a blind eye to my surroundings. Whether that's showing vigilance or indeed kindness when appropriate. But simply knowing that I'm more vulnerable than I was has had a striking effect. Simply going out now can feel threatening and onerous. That all adds up, with every weird glance, person invading your personal space, or observation of unusual behaviour. The whole thing has become, over the years of living in London, exhausting and debilitating. The wear and tear of a real sense of anxiety and doubt eating away at you. It can make London, not the easiest of cities at the best of times, seem acutely unfriendly and threatening, both directly and abstractly. People want to live in nice places to avoid little things like unpleasant interactions, an atmosphere of distrust or a simple lack of valuing the lives of others, be it social or institutional. It chips away at you, bit by bit. I'm acutely aware of the need, particularly during lockdown, of getting out of the house, spreading my legs, going for a walk, clearing my head. All of these things, my greater sense of vulnerability, the suggestion (and occasional manifestation) of danger, finding myself stuck in a hostile environment surrounded by a great deal of indifference, and the real need to manage the stress of diminished mental and emotional (and dare I say spiritual too) wellbeing, create a toxic brew. All of this is undoubtedly magnified simply by my not being a dude. By quite some margin. It's not simply about getting attacked or being harmed in any obvious way. It's about the overall toll it takes on someone's life, of having your freedom and a sense of being valued and respected taken away. Whilst being constantly reminded of all of this, as a blind, indifferent or sceptical eye is turned towards it. These things are incredibly important and shouldn't be minimised. There's almost some equivalence with what was discussed recently in one of the politics threads, about that mentality of levelling things down rather than up, a race to the bottom of entitlements and rights. How come somebody should be asking for better than what I have? Rather than having a baseline of what is decent and fair for everyone and then making sure that standard is achieved. I'd argue there's a grown up conversation this country seems not to want to have about sufficient governmental funding and functionality, and the holistic sense of accountability essential to its proper running, whether locally or at the highest level, but there are obviously no easy or immediate answers. What there is is calling a spade a spade and not turning away from the full impact of what women experience. Everyone has some sense of what this is like, through repetitious observation as well as recurrent testimony. The question I ask myself is do I want to live in a society where that is normalised? Is it fair that's what some people have to experience? And I go on from there. It would seem there's too many people who aren't minded to properly consider this. The issue isn't going to go away. It's my sense that until the full magnitude of what is being spoken about is taken seriously this issue will come up again and again. I really don't want a society where that has to happen.

All the indications point towards Barkley never having quite matured, certainly as a player, and perhaps as a person. There's something of a Steven Gerrard archetype about him, struggling to play at a level that doesn't see him flying about with an imperious strut. Not to mention that Barkley is no Gerrard, but he's also no longer 21. And yet he still plays with the same short-termist, tigerish mentality. What seems to have been missed is that not only does that kind of 'decisive' hurling-yourself-into-the-thicket approach present a real high wire challenge to maintain over 90 minutes, but it's actually detrimental to the players around him, not to mention a dereliction of the positional discipline and tactical finesse essential for the modern game. I do have to wonder if Barkley's insistence on this gung-ho mentality has stunted his evolution somewhat. Rather than calming down, using your head, evaluating a strategy that lasts longer than the next couple of minutes and choosing to become a more intelligent, complete player, he's off chasing the same Red Bull tsunami that Jamie Vardy feeds off of. And Barkley is no Vardy either. Know thyself, the wise man says, and Barkley seems too busy constantly insisting that he's that kind of player to actually figure out what he could or should be doing instead. He seems too deafened by the proud stomp of his own boots, knowing nothing else but the next charge into the fray. Yeah, I'm about to do something passionate and brilliant, he seems to always be thinking, and it so rarely happens for him. Like a dog that hasn't actually got the squirrel in years. There's almost this confusion about him, like he's baffled that he's the odd one out here. Why isn't everyone else on my wavelength? Doing the same things I'm doing? Why isn't this working? All the while he's addicted to this image of who he really wants to be, and how he really wants football to work, the players around him, and the world, moves on. It's hard to tell the boy inside you that the dream is over. And suddenly he discovers, in a moment of clarity, that not only is he not 21 any more, but he's actually 27 years old, in what should be his prime, heading into a major international tournament, and he's nowhere near even anyone's thoughts, instead kicking bottles as he leaves the pitch, struggling to work out what the latest underwhelming sixty minutes was all about. Except I can't see that happening. Sometimes you have to let them go. I can't see him turning it around. 27 is no age.

And how about the other examples offered?

The parts of my argument where I mention context and reflexivity would seem not to be reflected in this response.

Please expand!

Ummm, this is a fictional show right, and the offending line is spoken by a fictional character? I find the implication that a character created in a fictionalised environment should be judged as somehow an objective commentary that can be held up as representative of some actual attitudes or problems to be incredibly short-sighted and foolhardy. James Bond in, I think, Goldfinger, states his dislike of The Beatles. He isn't particularly specific. It's just a quip. Now, if he had said, unlikely I know, that they were four scruffy Scousers who should be working the docks instead, one could presume, certainly if espoused by the current something-of-a-dinosaur historicised Bond, that it should be perceived as the character making the statement. A reflection perhaps of his privilege and of the anachronism of his position as a powerful agent of the British Establishment. Arguably the original line suggests this already. Yes it would lean on classism, but such ostensible flaws or complications makes for a richer, more layered, and dare I say conflicted, character. There's certainly an argument, in general, to be made for popular culture perpetuating stereotypes and all manner of regressive or wrongheaded ideas. As Swift says, this is indeed a very lazy reference. I stopped watching Seth Meyers a while ago because there was an obvious, condescending slant to the subject of his writer's jokes that so often used 'lowlife' kind of individuals as a punchline. Coupled with the cowardly fealty to the Liberal/Democratic Party line, often to the very letter, it felt unpleasantly elitist, judgemental and cruel, particularly when bearing in mind the actual suffering of the poor and working class in the U.S. and the stark reality of massive inequality. That's a direct to camera monologue. And the jibes had very little to do with anything political or topical. Another reason, among others, to dislike the Marvel or DC films is their worship of elites, whether symbolically in the very positing of innately superior beings as our saviours and betters, or more directly in the uncomplicated portrayal of say, military industrial superbusinessmen or crime-fighting heirs to fortunes. One can certainly argue that the works themselves DO offer discursive commentary on those concerns, but a critique is fair and healthy. And it isn't simply big dumb entertainment. I remember rolling my eyes at characters in a Hirokazu Koreeda film ridiculing 'rap music' with a Boomerish outdatedness. Or a snobby exchange in a Mia-Hanson Love film sneering at Slavoj Zizek as being 'fishy' philosophy. But both of these seemed to come from a position of elitist middle-class disdain. You could even call it bourgeois entitlement. Yet that would require a wider and more detailed critique of the milieu of both the film's representation of its characters and that of its production. A very worthwhile critique! Just look at the over-representation of the privately educated in the arts, including cinema. But I see no such critique offered here. Culture, and perhaps more significantly, popular culture, has something of a responsibility to the world it both exists within and portrays. That relationship is a complex one and one that should be pursued with both skill and good faith. For example if a character in a film made a comment about for example Woody Allen, let's say a critical one reflective of the current feelings about Allen, it could (and should!) absolutely reflect any particular biases or strength of feeling that character may have about this contentious issue. Therein lies a greater complexity. Now Woody Allen or Taylor Swift are part of popular culture, and in their popularity and impact they themselves are representative of many things. They become a stand in for a whole multitude of issues. Are we seriously suggesting that there should be a restriction on how culture reflects upon culture? Doesn't this severely restrict matters, and consequently weaken culture and the conversations around them? As a final example, look at The Sopranos, one of the greatest TV shows of all time. Tony Soprano has a number of opinions many would consider retrogressive or offensive. But they make the character more complex. More real. Perhaps they aren't even representative of his own beliefs, that we're back to a critique of milieu. Of course, one can suggest he's a gangster and he's meant to be awful or whatever, but then we're reducing art, and issues of necessary complexity, to a simple moral examination. And that's very silly. And unhelpful. And dysfunctional. But the suggestion that there's something inherently abhorrent, and even inethical, about a character, who may be young or may be flawed or may be complicated or who may be a commentary or exploration of real world attitudes, seems incredibly limiting. Philistine even. Depiction, of course, and we can also look at debates regarding Scorsese and The Sopranos, is not endorsement. If we want the cultural space to be so eagerly policed and so reductively evaluated we seriously restrict what the narrative arts can accomplish. It's a loss for everyone. This is obvious, no?

I'm wary of the phenomenon of entering this thread to bash a decent player who plays for a big club after a bad game, but how much does one really want to read about the toils of Gaetan Bong and Will Grigg. Having said all that... Aaron Wan-Bissaka is nowhere near the required quality for his position. A 45 million pound Manchester United player rightly nowhere near the England squad is a very odd phenomenon. AWB seems the classic example of a player's worth clouded by his one outstanding attribute. And for all the talk of his limitations amongst the advances required for the modern full-back, I'm not sure what he does do well is that much of a virtue as the game is currently played. On an increasingly fluid and dynamic pitch where attacks come thick and fast from all angles and vantages, being able to boss 2010 Gareth Bale forays may be something of an overestimated necessity. Wondering what a Kieran Tierney or Joao Cancelo might get up to in this Manchester United side, there's also the sizeable demerit of United thinking they need to persevere with this investment and blocking an improvement in that area for years to come. See also, to a lesser extent, big bones's Luke Shaw. It's a particular bugbear of mine but it surprises me how many times I see a player lacking the quick, organised feet essential at the very highest level in supposedly top teams.

Deeply grateful, as we all should be, to be afforded entry to the patented Leeds Temple of Explosive Football, where the hair flows as free as the football! Just count those second half shots on goal! On a treacherous pitch that seemed to be comprised of at least 60% percent algae, we calmly dominated in the Arsenal/Leicester spoiler mood I've come to greatly appreciate. Made Leeds look patently ordinary, at times desperate with a very organised and committed team performance. Silly side point: Pablo Hernandez now resembles one of those anti-drug before and after posters. My nightmares will thank him later. Martinez 8- One day the officials will get smart to the super glue on his gloves, the dynamite in his boots and the time-slowing device he manages to smuggle into the ground. But not today. When Meslier joined the 'attack' at the end it was a bit like Martinez had brought his grandson to work. Top man. Konsa 8- His largely flawless positioning is a given, but I'm still impressed at how it allows him the perfect vantage for judicious interventions and hustles. Which he pulls off with cold-blooded grace. Mings 8- Is it just me or has Mings' back-to-basics resurgence compelled him to rely more on his outstanding athleticism than his 'silky' skills? Didn't look like being bested by anyone today. Marshalled proudly. Targett 7- Has become one of our most dependable performers whilst adding a pleasing bite and an improved endurance to his game. Elmo 7- Clearly quite creaky but his experience proved particularly useful as the game went on. Still got a wicked cross on him. Nakamba 7- The tenacity and energy of a terrier. The passing ability of a... terrier. I have theorised that this is because Nakamba possesses the smallest feet ever to have grace the Premier League. I think Jack borrows his shinpads. But key to our game today. Ramsey 7- Hope we're witnessing the evolution of a class act as we integrate him into the first team. A very intuitive performance, which is to say intelligent and composed. Pleasingly energetic with some unexpectedly positive and progressive play. Doesn't seem at all out of place. McGinn 5- The optimist in me wonders if McGinn's struggles are symptomatic of our ambitious progression into a more complete team. But a big part of me looks at the regularity of clumsy, flustered play and feels a real sadness. Maybe lock him in a sauna for a week? El Ghazi 7- Faded a little, but was very much up for this game. His goal suggests once more that the instinctive El Ghazi is a far sharper player than the one he overthinks in his head. And goals really do give him that spinachy punch! Traore 5- Not at the races unfortunately. His best comes when we are a surging and fluid unit and our more conservative approach coupled with the deceptive swamp of the pitch seemed to leave him a bit befuddled. He'll be back. Watkins 7- His final third work rate was again phenomenal. Sisyphusean dominating of the channels. Seemed a wee bit tired, but he's gonna be some force when he improves at the rate of some of our longer serving players. Sanson 7- A neat little cameo from our French bon bon. Trezequet 6- Two silly runs, one oddly magnificent, the other very naive.

The whole performance from Valdez was immense, but the fight should've been called long before Berchelt was knocked into the shadow realm.

This reminds me of a perennial quest of mine: The hunt for good new 'table-top' games. The adjacent wondering here is the seeming inflexibility of the established canon. I finally played the game Catan last year and after a bit of research discovered it's regarded as a seminal title in the rise of 'German-style' games, as opposed to a more 'American' approach. The game is approaching its thirtieth anniversary but still isn't seemingly as well-known as the 'classics', i.e. chess, snakes and ladders, monopoly, charades, poker and other card games etc. But it's the 'newest' established game I can think of. I've been planning on looking into this more extensively, but the set-up of all the 'classics' is pretty familiar and understood in terms of duration, relatively basic rules, social occasion of play and so on, which I'm guessing has something to do with the emergence of 'leisure societies' and the casualisation of socialising. Many games seem like an extension or an echo of a previous staple. Now, the world has changed, and we've changed with it, to a seemingly profound degree, especially in the last twenty years, but our diet of games seems to have remained quite constant. I'm not a gamer, but video games also seem to be quite siloed into genres and mechanisms of some familiarity. There's the rise of Cards Against Humanity, which in a way feels new, but if anything it's an even more passive game than many of those mentioned above. What is this seeming stasis in the games we play socially reflective of? Are we just conditioned to repeat familiar, reassuring rituals and ceremonies, is it something to do with a certain perfection in game design and dynamics, or is there something, for want of a better word, quite socially becoming about the games we play, that the temperament required and incentivised, a little exciting and dangerous, but not too much, is the kind of mellow high that reliably connects us all? Or have we gone through so many permutations in our games that there's been something of a natural evolution towards the ones that work the best? Will we be playing the same roster of games in the decades to come, or will our collective and individual advancement seek more complex, or more thrilling, or meatier experiences? I think my favourite game to play, sadly difficult of late, is Werewolf/Mafia. That sense of theatre and performance, admittedly there in the likes of poker, just makes it more exciting for me, not to mention psychologically compelling. As Useless mentions above the mystery and the charm, the ambience or being if you will, of the games, is an important element to the joy of this pursuit, but I wonder if there's something a touch undemanding about the whole routine. I've played games of Werewolf, and I like to play a modified version with added characters and elements to up the complexity, where there was very little engagement, which surprised me as the game can be a real Event in the right circumstances. Cultivate a spooky playlist, get the lighting and beverages right and you have a very memorable evening. But maybe the element of deception, of detective work and elimination, is unsettling for some. So Monopoly or Taboo is brought out again and everyone is happy. Be there's more to be discovered isn't there? So, will there be new games that become embraced en masse, maybe even a social gathering game that is truly reflective of its times? Are there some potential classics that just haven't 'crossed over' for some reason? If games did become more ambitious or complicated does the level of commitment just become unassailably ambitious, like Magic The Gathering or some such? Is there a secret formula out there waiting to be discovered and embraced? Or is this as good as it gets? (TLDR: Virus, you no fun!)

"What be this peculiar co-ordinated sprinting action from those strange nimble futuremen?!'

It's literally like watching a 2021 team versus a team transported from 2005. I half expect the camera to whip pan suddenly to Bowyer and Dyer mid-scrap.

Sanson, Morgan. That is all.

Listening to the press conference with Johnson and the scientific experts after the 100,000 threshold is breached. A truly scandalous government! They're effectively attempting to 'stage manage' a deeply disruptive pandemic. In fact, this is precisely what they are doing, no 'attempting' about it. Beyond the postures of 'resistance' in supposedly holding the government to account, the response should be called out baldly for what it is: Wilful disinformation at a time of prolonged national crisis. One wonders where it all ends? I do wonder, for those perhaps more savvy in history than myself, how the current government's response to the crisis compares to previous government's actions at similar times of emergency?

Hmmmm, this is all mildly scandalous is it not? The instincts of an operation rather reveal the morality at play here wouldn't you say? Particularly depressing is just how many hollowed-out 'football people' this teases out of the woodwork to march in lockstep with those that lay down the law and shout the loudest. All conducted with a barely suppressed, but nonetheless deeply insecure, righteous, sadistic glee. Nary a thought about the 'beautiful game' or some lip service to an idea of a foundational ethics supposedly essential to the English game, just the brute gratification of hollering with self-satisfaction at the Big Boy Table. Sign of the times I guess. May Jack dance around the sweaty, beleaguered lunges of their banality!

Yeah, one more of these and I think we will have a Designated Problem That Needs Addressing situation in the football community.

Strangely subdued match, but then Newkie Bruceball is so dreary it can drain some of the life from even the most beloved things. Like watching a sexy, sexy video at a tenfold level of slow motion, what was once beautiful and pure becomes uncomfortable with the occasional, unavoidable aura of dread. Glad we were thoroughly professional before GTFO of that dungeon of joylessness. Anyway... Martinez 8- Largely a passenger but as ever assured and commanding. This guy would've saved Barings Bank. Mings 6- It's tricky critiquing Mings' arrogance as it's plainly also an asset shown in his largely imperious presence. But those moments. Luckily he is stationed next to... Konsa 9- The crystallisation of the New Cultured and Composed Aston Villa. Konsa finds the perfect balance between upmarket silk and streetwise watchfulness, whose stone cold consistency in those departments makes his seeming ability to be one or two seconds in front of everyone that much more impressive. Targett 8- Seems to have added a very satisfying robustness and bite to his game. Almost killed a man too! Cash 8- Brings reliable energy and drive. An elegant nuisance. Nakamba 7- Mercifully free of his dancing chicken tendencies, Nakamba was a far more composed and progressive pivot today. I suspect we won't be seeing too much of him in the future though. Luiz 8- Perhaps a little quiet in the dreary second half but he bossed the show with his trademark effortless comfort plus a twist of flair. Grealish 8- Frequently the telling difference when it comes to our goals but also that initial jolt of energy as we ratchet up the intensity. Looked like his dog had been shot when he was taken off. Barkley 7- Although rust was evident, Barkley, like just about every Villa player, keeps possession fluid and dangerous, largely through relentless energy and the persistent suggestion of options. An obvious asset. Traore 8- This boy has some downright lyrical feet! Makes it look easy and I suspect he can still step it up a gear or two. Watkins 8- Developing into the kind of forward perhaps destined to become underrated, Watkins' control of the final third of the pitch, with and without the ball, is so vital to how we play. Neat feet and endless endeavour. El Ghazi 6- Seems a nice lad. Trez 6- Calls his mum every week. Ramsey 6- Does the washing up AND putting away.

Agreed, Pissflaps.

I must say it really pleases me that several individuals, notably Stefan and, i think, Michelsen, are not letting this one go. I whole-heartedly agree that the situation is remarkable, farcical, and ultimately quite depressing. It's almost a surprise that the 'Game is Gone' thread has not risen from its slumber. Because something very obviously wrong is going on here. As Stefan has frequently referenced it's the response to the incident that is more troubling than the incident itself. Although needless to say I was watching the whole thing with zen-like calm because the goal obviously wasn't going to stand, and obviously the silly celebrating faces of the Man City players were soon to be rendered gormless.. If you can spare me a few moments... Firstly, if this is indeed a rule, and always has been (everybody knows!) why has nobody actually seen it happen before? As opposed to the very common sight of the interfering player getting flagged as soon as he exploits his advantage? I know there have been similar incidents, but this is not an especially unique set of circumstances, so where is it? Where are the examples of ingenious strikers attempting to pull this trick, before rallying at the referee for an 'incorrect' call when they're denied? Sincerely, can anyone find footage of an exact replica of this situation? If not, why might that be? To extend this point, and hopefully underline the significance of this call, has there EVER been an example of a clear violation of the rules that has been so uniformly overlooked? Sure there are transgressions like Thierry Henry's handball against Ireland or weird flukes like the Darren Bent beachball incident, but in those instances there was no subsequent counter-factual insistence that All Was As It Should Be. Secondly, if we're truly going to be exactingly semantic about matters at hand then the Laws of the Game are absolutely jam-packed with subjective interpretation. A casual glance at the rules regarding 'Fouls and Misconduct' is replete with the likes of 'excessive force' and 'abusive gestures' that are both obviously inexact and loosely applied. What counts as a 'gesture'? What is 'excessive'? I can pretty easily imagine situations where such terminology could be used to justify ANY decision after the fact. Does the act of exerting oneself in a suddenly perilous situation, the likes of which football regularly throws up, necessitate the possibility of the players response being 'excessive'? Contrary to that, could it be argued that certain players are more deliberate and elegant and therefore less prone to 'excessive' force? Obviously there are greyer areas than others, but the principle for me is the same: The precise 'laws' of the game are a necessary, forensic detailing of very general principles. The prohibition of 'abusive gestures' refers to the importance of the good and clean spirit of the game being upheld, and the adoption of a code of responsibility of football as a mass social convention. The spectre of 'excessive force' is invoked in order to prevent injuries and to optimise elite performance. The game would be worse off if players could legally favour brute strength over technical skill, and so on. The principle stands when it comes to offside. There are forbidden spaces on the pitch one cannot gain an advantage from. A player precisely in being offside is penalised by his temporary removal from significance on the field of play. One action necessitates the other. To suggest one can take 'advantage' of a situation where one's offside placement necessarily DEMANDS you're 'disadvantaged' by being momentarily eliminated from the consequential field of play is... well, it's a nonsense. I hope that made sense. There can be no real excelling within football if the laws designed to promote excellence have no gravity. If the rules are not taken seriously it figures therefore that excellence isn't either. And excellence is how one wins games and how one achieves that most elusive of superlatives in football: glory. If such isn't a priority we have to really think about why we're here and why we care so much in the first place. So, ultimately what I find most troubling about the response is, as is unfortunately the case in much of the modern world, in the short-sighted passivity of the game's observers. One shouldn't forget the clamouring for VAR on matters such as offsides and the handball rule, before its eventual implementation. Sighs of disbelief would frequently accompany demands to 'sort out this issue once and for all'. But, as we have seen, this is not how things work. The game evolves constantly, as do the players and the world the game takes place in, and rules exist to best articulate the optimum mode of that expression. In drably regurgitating the official line and foregoing any real sense of inquisitiveness or discussion, those who are in many ways guardians of the game have chosen, contrary to their postures and platitudes, to recuse themselves of any serious involvement in holding the game to account, of offering a space for constructive debate, and in the pursuit of conscientious involvement with the development of the game. Let the Big Boys sort it out. A responsible and keen engagement from 'the football community' carefully sculpts the game towards more progressive horizons. That applies to ethics, to money, to technical matters, to the wellbeing of players and fans alike and so on. These are all vital considerations for the future rude health of the game and their effective dismissal should be a real cause for concern. TLDR: This is why we can't have pretty things.

In response to the debate over the last few pages... As much as I'd be over the moon at signing a bona fide superstar, I appreciate Aston Villa currently have something of a slim window when it comes to desirable players. We're obviously looking for players that will improve us, but that in itself is a very nuanced task. The criterion for a 'big' signing isn't simply plucking the best conceivable talent from a pile, although one can make a very genuine case for paying over the odds for a particular player. It's complicated. Which Villa seem to have grasped. There will doubtless be consideration over wage structure, the careful integration of 'team players' with complimentary skill sets who are good characters, on top of factoring in the general uncertainty of the Covid-era. Coupled with the much-mooted FFP restrictions on our wages and the subsequent restrictions on our pulling power, there will undoubtedly be a certain niche we're looking at. From what I can see the likes of Morgan Sanson, who I couldn't have told you a thing about a week ago, seem to fit that bill. I have every confidence that the top of the Aston Villa hierarchy will move intelligently and responsibly. I would even go as far as saying, beyond being properly diligent and prudent, that there is a certain amount of excitement in, contrary to the actions of the bigger and dumber boys, having to use our chips wisely. I'm enjoying watching Aston Villa evolve with a certain level of caution. I say that in spite of the results so far being pretty darn spectacular. But it's smart and dare I say very satisfying that Villa seem to be approaching ALL of the next steps we need to make with the required level of intelligence. Retrace those steps over the past two years and have confidence in their upwards trajectory.