JPJCB

16 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

funny how things work out 

**** hell! I actually remember this as well but he was filed in my memory as “random city youngster” so hadn’t made the connection 

3 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

We don’t need a CM, we need a DM… badly.

Read my message as “a player who can play in the double pivot”. We may be saying the same thing but I do think it’d be better for that player to be able to play alongside Kamara rather than act as replacement/back up 

His sporadic form makes me think that we should prioritise getting a first team CM in the summer, regardless of whether he leaves or not:

- we’re light in that part of the squad anyway

-if he leaves then we’ll need a replacement to sit alongside kamara

- if he stays, some competition for him and Kamara would be good. Dougie’s performances have shown we can’t always rely on him in the big games 

3 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

He's doing Kamara's job which he's not as good at and McGinn/Tielemans are doing Luiz's job which they aren't as good at.

Up until Kamara got injured you saw Luiz breaking into the box a lot, he got a number of goals arriving late. I cant remember the last time I saw him get in them areas now.

What’s our analysis of the role tielemans and McGinn played against arsenal? One of them as Kamara and one of them as Luiz presumably. Either way they did a decent job of it 

The common factor in all three of the games where we’ve lost 2 goal leads has been luiz’s complete disappearance in midfield. Unfortunate that tielemans got injured because McGinn/him have earned a run at luiz’s expense 

If we end up having to sell either him, Watkins or Martinez this summer there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s the one to go 

40 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

ARSENAL EMIRATES

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE?

HUUHHHH

FREAK

We are…how you say….underdogsh?

53 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Is this real? 

I agree with the consensus that the city performance was the better one as we completely outplayed them.

But there’s a caveat that they were massively weaker than usual (I think they played a midfield of akanji and Rico Lewis) plus we had comparatively fewer players out. Today was the other way round - arsenal at full strength and us much more weakened; plus we were away from home.

City was the more impressive performance but today was the more impressive result 

I’m not really sure what to make of Ollie’s comments yesterday. Of course they were mostly out of frustration and he can be forgiven for that. I never think it’s a good look though for a player to criticise his teammates, even implicitly. Ollie’s had a few off games as well- he took a while to get going this season. Would we think it reasonable for a defender to come out and implicitly criticise that?

It is also worth noting that Ollie’s criticism isn’t actually valid based on evidence. We have an excellent record of winning games having taken the lead. If we have a problem this season that distinguishes us from the “big clubs” it’s not mentality. It’s simply squad quality. As Liverpool will attest today, even the best clubs throw away leads every now and then 

Can’t help but feel a bit sorry for him but this should be a cautionary tale for players making moves to big clubs. His career would have been undeniably better had he not moved to city 

4 hours ago, Jas10 said:

 

He’s banging on about having higher XG as if that means more than actual goals.

This is where the stats only tell you so much. My guess is that the konsa goalwould have scored something like 0.1 (or lower) XG because barely anyone scores when trying to shoot from that angle. But we all know from watching the game that he was trying to cross- if Duran heads it in or it hits the post and comes out for a Duran tap in then that’s presumably a way higher scoring chance in XG terms so presumably we then win Gary’s precious XG battle 

1 hour ago, villan95 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68694784

Pressure getting to Poch?

…”all the data*”

*except points 

Re Bellingham, not sure what to make of the arrogance reports but more generally I think it’s his mentality that makes him such an elite player. He’s got good footwork and is a great athlete but I don’t think his skill is necessarily ballon d’or level. I’d even argue that foden has got more natural skill. But the difference is that Bellingham has elite mentality in games to grab it by the scruff of the neck and make things happen. He craves the big stage and always steps up for England despite being only 20 years old which is pretty incredible while foden and others underperform. See this article as an insight into how he prepares mentally for each game: https://madridistanews.com/en/news/detail/jude-bellingham-reveals-his-ritual-before-each-game

Maybe arrogance is a consequence of that. It need not be but if it is I’m happy to take the rough with the smooth given his performance level 

Toney must have a world class PR team. For some reason the narrative over his betting scandal is framed as a plucky underdog story when it should be what it actually is: fraudulent behaviour with a just punishment. Because he’s seen as an underdog the media is now on his side when they should be challenging the England leadership at every opportunity on why such a disruptive personality is anywhere near the squad 

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

Like players managers go where they get the most money. United can get any manager they want because they are the biggest club in the world, will pay handsomely and will have a very good transfer budget.

If that’s right for why are they only linked with managers who are not categorically the best in the world?

9 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Southgate doesn’t get England ‘punching above their weight’, though he has them winning the matches you’d expect England to win on paper. 

I’m not his fan but to give him a little credit that is far better than his predecessors managed. I would also suggest this is potentially because international football is a unique set of circumstances/challenges for a football manager. What makes a good club manager doesn’t necessarily translate to international football tournaments.

It’s not actually a guarantee that a new manager takes England forwards from here. 

I think this is a fair post particularly your last para- I’m not sure there’s an obviously better alternative other than someone like Potter. I always thought Deano would be a great option tbh but can’t imagine broad support for that in the country. 
 

Id caveat this bit though. He might be modestly better than his peers but the whole point of people highlighting his poor record against “top sides” is that we ARE better on paper than a lot of them. We were better than Croatia, better than Italy, better than Brazil the other night. And yet he plays into an underdog type mentality and plays unambitious cautious football every single time. People suggest we played well against France in the last WC. I remember watching that game and thinking France barely got out of second gear. When they needed to score they did so, and when they wanted to take the game by the scruff of the neck, that’s exactly what they did. Meanwhile we huffed and puffed barely creating anything and benefitting from two penalties 

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Yeah.  To be fair to Southgate, he's won all the games he's won.

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

He's also had insane luck in tournaments in terms of match ups.

The only really good win under him was Germany in the Euros. Other than that we've lost to any team on our level or better in major tournaments.

Worth noting we also had effectively a home advantage in basically every game of the Euros. 
 

He’s done ok but he’s also had the best possible conditions in which to be England manager: a fantastic squad, lucky tournament match ups; a tournament effectively hosted in England

1 hour ago, Delphinho123 said:

I’ve had to channel that Buendia energy somewhere this season, mate. 

You just wait til that knee is all healed up. 

I’m imagining a similar Buendia training montage but with you preparing your freshest insults. “Soon…..”

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

You have to wonder though why Nike have done this. They must have known what kind of reaction they would get changing a countries flag, they are not completely tone deaf.

Are they marketing on the idea that all publicity is good publicity? Was it a boozy long lunch dare between design executives? I can’t imagine this kit is going to be a big seller for them though. 

As this thread shows, changing the colours of the flag has been done countless times. So I don’t think they could have safely predicted the ridiculous shitshow that the reaction has been 

6 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

I'm not a Danny Murphy hater like most. But it was funny when he was trying to debate Southgate being perfect for Man U. "He could change the culture, get them working harder, make a happy enviroment again". 

"'So he's that good would you have him at Liverpool after Klopp Danny".

"Errr, well, we already have the culture installed and the system is already there, so no we wouldn't need him, blah blah". 

What’s interesting about this is that he’s sort of right. Or more bluntly, United’s ongoing decline means the type of manager they can attract is such lower quality than it would have been 10 years ago. We’re talking about the southgates and potters of the world rather than the alonsos, nagelsmanns, xavis etc 

5 hours ago, Jas10 said:

 

 

It’s a curious topic for an article. Says as much about Tanswell’s diligence as it does emery’s!

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

Perhaps my view isn’t clear. I do not believe that the system as it is now (unhindered by anything other than the most token gestures) is good. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that I also do not believe that politicians are best placed to (in the form of appointing a regulator, with a remit set by them) to fix the problems. The third thing is that it’s not incumbent on me to have some “miracle solution”. There isn’t one. However, that also doesn’t mean that I/we collectively as football supporters can’t or don’t see improvements that need to be made.

There’s also a huge difference between (say) water or energy or transport, which 10s of millions of people utterly depend upon to exist and a bunch of entertainment providers who organise and play competitive professional football. The population of the country need, via their government representatives, to control the behaviour of the businesses that provide our water via a monopoly.

I would like to see, for example, much stricter tests for owners. I would like to see limits on ticket prices….all kinds of stuff. After Hillsborough all seater stadia were brought in. It didn’t require a regulator. Some nations ban gambling or tobacco or alcohol sponsorship on shirts etc. it didn’t require a regulator.

There are not only 2 options - a government regulator or no regulator.

Being extremely unconvinced that a permanent government regulator is the right path does not mean I have to propose a miracle solution. I would like to see law that details who can legally own clubs, as is the case with certain other nationally important industries like defence etc. TV ads for fags are banned by law. If gambling is one of the things needed to be rid of, then do the same for football shirt sponsors and so on. I think they already did that for tabs and booze, for example. 

Thanks- good to see your thoughts more clearly.

I think the difference in our views largely reflects that there is a difference between the law and how the law is implemented. When such a law requires judgment in its application then that is where there is a case for regulation since the law itself will be drafted too bluntly to properly mitigate the bad outcomes it is designed to tackle. 

To take your examples. A ban on standing only in stadiums is easy to implement via law alone- there is relatively little discretion that can apply in its application. A ban on certain people owning football clubs is not very easy to implement by law alone unless you are using something blunt like “can’t have a criminal record”. Once you get into the nuances of what makes someone a potentially “bad” owner (financial affairs, reputation, experience etc) then this is where there is a good case for regulation since it can more effectively make holistic judgements based on those nuances.

You mention that there are bans on adverts for cigarettes. Indeed. And there is also an advertising standards authority policing all kinds of other edge cases. Maybe this is an example of a regulator doing its job well as you asked for earlier?

Anyway, we appear to disagree more about the degree of intervention rather than the type. Though I would note that you don’t like the idea of politicians fixing things and yet most of your proposed solutions (e.g ownership tests) would involve changes to the law which are drafted by, you guessed it,…politicians. Regulators are typically more independent and technocratic than law makers so you might actually prefer that option if you give it a try