Enda

Taylor's isn't the most gifted footballer ever, but he has always been a professional. He goes out and puts a shift in, every time. It's very unfair to compare him to Richards and Lescott, imo.

Dire stuff. Lack of quality, no commitment, poor tactics. Beaten by two good goals, but that covered up the cracks. Nyland made a good save or two, but played a complete hospital pass to Nakamba after 5 minutes. Taylor was Taylor. Crap. Centre-halves were alright. Elmo was fine, better than Taylor but didn't do much. Midfield was anonymous. AEG was poor. Nakamba did a thing or two. Lansbury and Hourhane didn't exactly light up the world. Kodjia made a few good runs and basically got the goal, but was otherwise trash. Lazy, disinterested performance. Smith's hesitation in making subs after 60 mins or so was, I think, a mistake. Hopefully this match scares Smith out of trying 4-3-3 again, and reminds the Board about our lack of quality.

Knockaert showing AEG and Trez what a bit of quality looks like.

Lovely cross by that young man. Fair play Fulham.

Nah it's the EU's fault.

Nah I think you're over-compensating. It was a nice finish. Nyland just made a good save.

That attempted lob though

How do you rate Kalinic?

Absolutely. If you don't get the ball, it's clearly not a fair tackle. You just took the man out. But even if you get the ball, you can still be engaging in playing in a dangerous way which is a foul. In fact there's a whole section on it: From the side, using both legs, uncontrolled, and using force that buckles the other man's knee = foul.

Agreee. Have something in common John Terry as well, fit in better with the existing management team.

It's an international treaty, not an advertising contract.

Northern Ireland just returned more nationalists than unionists to Westminster. My thoughts are with Gerry Adams Gerry spent his life fighting for the cause. Spent hard time in British jails securing his place in republican mythology. And then bloody Arlene Foster goes and does more for Irish Republicanism in two years than Gerry Adams ever did. Must be gutted, heart goes out to his family.

Christ almighty go back and read the thread. Nobody claimed Brittany was part of the British Isles. Not even you. The islands were named Éire and Albion. Long ago. Before the Romans came along. It was only when the Greeks and the Romans, total outsiders, came along did anyone decide to lump the two major islands together into one grouping. As the Greeks were total outsiders the term "British Isles", or "Britain Major" and "Britain Minor" didn't catch on, and it went practically unused for the better part of a thousand years. Natives on these islands called them "na hOilean Aigéan" - Islands of the Ocean in modern day English. That's much like the "Atlantic Islands" term suggested by a lot of Yanks as more neutral and more accurate. The "British Isles" term rose to prominence only after British kings invaded Ireland starting with Henry II and in particular after the Elizabethan plundering. After Elizabeth's intervention, Ireland was effectively a British colony. I absolutely accept that it made sense to call them the British Isles when they're in a political union. Asserting they're called the British Isles is thus a relatively modern notion, couched in the political norms of the time, and in particular relating a political norm that was abhorrent and destructive. That political union doesn't exist anymore, and now we're all friends again. So why the enchantment with the politics of the late 1500s and not of the geography of the region? Why not call them Islands of the Ocean/Atlantic? That's what they were called before the "British Isles". Why the singular focus on the largest rock rather than the collective? The answer, of course, is because the term "British Isles" is what you've been fed and have come to accept. It can be a different way. You can use a different term, just like people can now refer to any women as Ms. Smith rather than insisting on Miss or Mrs. You can do it. No. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Long links between Britain and France. Eleanor of Aquitaine and all that, innit. "Great Britain" is named precisely to be situated in contrast to "Little Britain", i.e. Brittany. It's a modern invention, only ever used by quare Greeks, to somehow link Ireland to the B-word. Juno Beach or otherwise. Okay so while invasion and conquering of Ireland was regrettable it was a necessary evil, and therefore we should refer to the archipelago as the British Isles. Got it. Maybe you can't do it.

I played the mobile version last night too. What's your starting eleven? I spent every penny I had on Haaland and went with 4-1-3-2 with Nakamba in DM (Konsa backup), Grealish, McGinn and Douglas in midfield, with Wesley and Haaland up front. Things went great for the first six matches or so, then I didn't win anything for ten matches. Haaland and Wesley both went scoreless. So I responded as any sane individual would... turned it off, deleted the app, and went to bed in a huff

This is class. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/the-more-the-british-learn-about-ireland-s-loyalists-the-less-they-like-1.4110985 Sort of speaks for itself, really.

Speaking of ignorance, nobody claimed Brittany is part of the British Isles. Read it again. Your condescending post is belied by poor reading comprehension. Names are not a geographic fact. They're etymological constructs. Look it up. There's an archipelago to the north west of continental Europe. No question there. Its name is in dispute. Why isn't this archipelago popularly referred to as the "Irish Isles"? The only reason why you might refer to GB & Ireland as the "British Isles" is the regrettable historical fact of invasion and conquer. That's nothing to do with the science of geography, but a lot to do with etymology. An historical aberration, and one that is no basis for naming a geological outpost. When there's even a Wikipedia entry on "British Isles naming dispute", I wouldn't go around asserting that this is all very well defined and simply a matter of fact. Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? They're not part of the same archipelago... The fact that you referenced the Normandy landings in a condescending lecture that oozes with inbred British imperialism is just golden. Anyway, back to John Terry. Why are we so crap at defending set pieces?

He got muscled out of it for the corner, to be fair. Just didn't get there in time. But there were stages in the first-half where Vardy just floated into miles of space where Elmo should have been.

Just short of halfway through the season and this post is aging reasonably well.

Did Jack just have a quick stamp on a player there?

Blasphemy, even.

I think my logic was reasonable here but I just did the sums... Jeeeeesus

I’d say more. Twenty odd years, most of which were good... +80.

Actually I’d put Heaton in for Friedel. Subs: Friedel, Engels, Bertrand, Downing, McGinn, Bent.

Friedel Walker Vlaar Dunne Mings Young Milner Petrov Grealish Abraham Benteke with Walker and Young playing as wing-backs.

While everyone claims Conor only thrives in matches where we’re on top, one thing I will say is they’re neglecting that Conor might be the reason we are on top. Take Newcastle as an example. Conor had a massive impact there. We mightn’t have won that game without him. Agreed that Luiz was miles better than him yesterday, obviously.