All Activity

U.S. Flips History by Casting Europe—Not Russia—as Villain in New Security Policy An annual strategy document, which has described threats from China to Russia, now directs some of its harshest language at NATO allies https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-s-flips-history-by-casting-europenot-russiaas-villain-in-new-security-policy-cbb138fa https://archive.ph/yO8G1 BRUSSELS—For years, the U.S. government has published an annual National Security Strategy that lays out how Washington sees the world and its approach to dealing with looming threats, from China to Russia to drug-traffickers in Latin America. This week, the Trump administration’s version seemed to reserve its harshest tone for a new target: America’s closest allies in Europe. The 30-page document painted European nations as wayward, declining powers that have ceded their sovereignty to the European Union and are led by governments that suppress democracy and muzzle voices that want a more nationalistic turn. It says the continent faces “civilizational erasure” through immigration that could render it “unrecognizable” in two decades—as well as turning several North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies into majority “non-European” countries. It concludes the region could grow too weak to be “reliable allies.” The document underscores how radically the Trump administration is reshaping traditional American foreign policy, and it is likely to deepen divisions in the trans-Atlantic alliance, which has largely kept the peace in Europe since World War II and promoted Western values across the world. The document landed like a bucket of cold water in European capitals. European leaders reading the document need “to assume that the traditional trans-Atlantic relationship is dead,” said Katja Bego, a senior researcher at Chatham House, a think tank in London. Timothy Garton Ash, a prominent British historian, described the document “as the mother of all wake-up calls for Europe.” “We’re in this extraordinary position where the U.S. is still objectively an ally of Europe, but subjectively at least in the Trump administration and the view of many Europeans we’re no longer seeing each other that way,” he said. Since President Trump returned to office in January, most European leaders have worked to address his concerns while currying favor with him. Those efforts have won kind words from Trump, but others on his team display disdain for Europe and antipathy toward many European policies. Many points in the National Security Strategy echo critiques that Vice President JD Vance first made weeks into the administration, at a security conference in Munich in February. They amplify criticisms of Europe leveled by MAGA supporters and highlight trans-Atlantic differences. “It essentially declares outright opposition to the European Union,” said Garton Ash. “It’s JD Vance’s notorious speech in Munich but on steroids, and as official U.S. policy.” The strategy says the EU—an institution that the U.S. helped establish decades ago—and other transnational organizations “undermine political liberty and sovereignty.” It also accuses many European governments of “subversion of democratic processes,” though it doesn’t spell out what it means by that. Europeans have long acknowledged that their slow-growing economies need fixing and that they must boost military spending, though actions to address those shortfalls have been slow or ineffectual. Many European countries are also clamping down on immigration, which has started to fall. The region remains, by any measure, a critical global bastion of capitalism and democracy, and the U.S.’s strongest historical and cultural partner. Every Western European country scores higher on the global ranking of freedom and democracy than the U.S. does, according to Freedom House, a U.S.-based nonprofit that ranks countries according to measures such as election process, rule of law and individual rights. The document casts its criticism of Europe in an almost paternalistic tone—the kind of tough love advice one gives a friend. It begins its three-page section on Europe with the title “Promoting European Greatness.” The tone and pointed criticisms of Europe contrasts with the document’s approach to traditional U.S. rivals or threats like Russia. Russia isn’t mentioned a single time as a possible threat to U.S. interests. The section on Europe also highlights differences over the war in Ukraine, accusing European officials of holding “unrealistic expectations” about the war. Significantly, it positions the U.S. as more of an arbiter between Europe and Russia, rather than Europe’s ally opposing Russia, which has been America’s role since the end of World War II. The document also calls for an end to NATO being “a perpetually expanding alliance.” “The document reads like a brief in favor of the Russian position, calling for European states to get back to work with Russia and offering up the U.S.A. as the vehicle to do this,” said Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, in his daily newsletter. “This is a strategy to destroy the present Europe, to make it MAGA.” Rather than presenting a more isolationist America—as many in the MAGA movement have advocated—Bego at Chatham House said the document shows the Trump administration wants to actively reshape Europe in its own image. “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory,” the strategy says. “We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.” One section lays out a U.S. foreign-policy goal of “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations,” which analysts read as outright American interference in European politics and support for far-right or anti-immigration parties in Germany, France, the U.K. and other countries. The document makes no mention of shaping political outcomes in other global regions. Nathalie Tocci, director of the Institute for International Affairs in Rome and a former EU diplomatic adviser, said the document lays out a fairly coherent vision of a world dominated by three big powers—the U.S., China and Russia—who have areas of cooperation and zones of influence. “I think it’s fairly clear that Europe is seen by the administration as being on the colonial menu” for domination by either the U.S. or Russia, she said. “So to me, the real question is: ’What else needs to happen for us Europeans to wake up to this?’ ” A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, declined to comment on the whole document but pushed back against the assertion that Europe backs harmful migration policies or undermines free speech. She added that the U.S.’s new security policy contrasted with the strong ties Europe has traditionally had with America. “The U.S. national security has been very much linked to Europe’s security, which explains also all the work we are doing with the U.S. as our key ally and partner,” including on Ukraine, said Paula Pinho, chief spokeswoman for the Commission. Vance and other administration officials have criticized democracy in countries such as Germany and France, where mainstream parties maintain a so-called firewall that bars them from entering governing coalitions with far-right parties because of the legacy of fascism. Vance has criticized this as undemocratic, but most pro-democracy experts say individual political parties are free to choose which other parties they would work with, and whether or not they share the same values. And voters can give far-right parties an electoral majority, allowing them to govern without coalition partners. Vance and others have also criticized Europe for laws that restrict hate speech—a legacy of the continent’s wars. Yet analysts said there seems little recognition that Europe upholds free speech broadly, including criticism of politicians and leaders, unlike Russia and China.

Trump releases his National Security Policy: US abandons Europe by 2027, turns to Russia; blocks immigration https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/december-5-2025 Late last night, the Trump administration released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America. It did so quietly, although as foreign affairs journalist at Politico Nahal Toosi noted, the release of the NSS is usually accompanied by fanfare, as it shows an administration’s foreign policy priorities and the way it envisions the position of the U.S. in the world. The Trump administration’s NSS announces a dramatic reworking of the foreign policy the U.S. has embraced since World War II. After a brief introduction touting what it claims are the administration’s great successes, the document begins by announcing the U.S. will back away from the global engagements that underpin the rules-based international order that the World War II Allies put in place after that war to prevent another world war. The authors of the document claim that the system of institutions like the United Nations, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and free trade between nations that established a series of rules for foreign engagement and a web of shared interests around the globe has been bad for the U.S. because it undermined “the character of our nation.” Their vision of “our country’s inherent greatness and decency,” requires “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health,” “an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age,” and “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.” Observers referred to the document as National Security Council Report (NSC) 88 and noted that it could have been written in just 14 words. White supremacists use 88 to refer to Adolf Hitler and “fourteen words” to refer to a popular white supremacist slogan. To achieve their white supremacist country, the document’s authors insist they will not permit “transnational and international organizations [or] foreign powers or entities” to undermine U.S. sovereignty. To that end, they reject immigration as well as “the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threatened the United States, and subsidize our adversaries.” The document reorients the U.S. away from traditional European allies toward Russia. The authors reject Europe’s current course, suggesting that Europe is in danger of “civilizational erasure” and calling for the U.S. to “help Europe correct its current trajectory” by “restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.” Allowing continued migration will render Europe “unrecognizable” within twenty years, the authors say, and they back away from NATO by suggesting that as they become more multicultural, Europe’s societies might have a different relationship to NATO than “those who signed the NATO charter.” In contrast to their complaints about the liberal democracies in Europe, the document’s authors do not suggest that Russia is a country of concern to the U.S., a dramatic change from past NSS documents. Instead, they complain that “European officials…hold unrealistic expectations” for an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine, and that European governments are suppressing far-right political parties. They bow to Russian demands by calling for “[e]nding the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” In place of the post–World War II rules-based international order, the Trump administration’s NSS commits the U.S. to a world divided into spheres of interest by dominant countries. It calls for the U.S. to dominate the Western Hemisphere through what it calls “commercial diplomacy,” using “tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools” and discouraging Latin American nations from working with other nations. “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity,” it says, “a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region.” The document calls for “closer collaboration between the U.S. Government and the American private sector. All our embassies must be aware of major business opportunities in their country, especially major government contracts. Every U.S. Government official that interacts with these countries should understand that part of their job is to help American companies compete and succeed.” It went on to make clear that this policy is a plan to help U.S. businesses take over Latin America and, perhaps, Canada. “The U.S. Government will identify strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region and present these opportunities for assessment by every U.S. Government financing program,” it said, “including but not limited to those within the Departments of State, War, and Energy; the Small Business Administration; the International Development Finance Corporation; the Export-Import Bank; and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.” Should countries oppose such U.S. initiatives, it said, “[t]he United States must also resist and reverse measures such as targeted taxation, unfair regulation, and expropriation that disadvantage U.S. businesses.” The document calls this policy a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, linking this dramatic reworking to America’s past to make it sound as if it is historical, when it is anything but. President James Monroe outlined what became known as the Monroe Doctrine in three paragraphs in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The concept was an attempt for the new American nation to position itself in a changing world. In the early nineteenth century, Spain’s empire in America was crumbling, and beginning in 1810, Latin American countries began to seize their independence. In just two years from 1821 to 1822, ten nations broke from the Spanish empire. Spain had restricted trade with its American colonies, and the U.S. wanted to trade with these new nations. But Monroe and his advisors worried that the new nations would fall prey to other European colonial powers, severing new trade ties with the U.S. and orienting the new nations back toward Europe. So in his 1823 annual message, Monroe warned that “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” American republics would not tolerate European monarchies and their system of colonization, he wrote. Americans would “consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” It is “the true policy of the United States to leave the [new Latin American republics] to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course,” Monroe wrote. In fact, with very little naval power, there wasn’t much the U.S. could do to enforce this edict until after the Civil War, when the U.S. turned its attention southward. In the late nineteenth century, U.S. corporations joined those from European countries to invest in Latin American countries. By the turn of the century, when it looked as if those countries might default on their debts, European creditors threatened armed intervention to collect. After British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded the ports of Venezuela in 1902, and President Theodore Roosevelt sent Marines to the Dominican Republic to manage that nation’s debt, the president announced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. On December 6, 1904, he noted with regret that “[t]here is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought.” If countries allowed the wrong, he wrote, they “put a premium upon brutality and aggression.” “Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations,” he wrote, “powers…with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong” must “serve the purposes of international police.” Such a role meant protecting Latin American nations from foreign military intervention; it also meant imposing U.S. force on nations whose “inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations.” Couched as a form of protection, the Roosevelt Corollary justified U.S. military intervention in Latin American countries, but it still recognized those nations’ right to independence. Now Trump has added his own “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, promising not to protect Latin American countries from foreign intrusion but to “reward and encourage the region’s governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our principles and strategy.” In a speech in January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that the administration is “more than willing to use America’s considerable leverage to protect our interests.” The administration says it will promote “tolerable stability in the region” by turning the U.S. military away from its European commitments and focusing instead on Latin America, where it will abandon the “failed law enforcement-only strategy of the last several decades” and instead use lethal force when necessary to secure the U.S. border and defeat drug cartels. Then, it says, the U.S. will extract resources from the region. “The Western Hemisphere is home to many strategic resources that America should partner with regional allies to develop,” the plan says, “to make neighboring countries as well as our own more prosperous.” Walking away from the U.S.-led international systems that reinforce the principles of national self-determination and have kept the world relatively safe since World War II, the Trump administration is embracing the old idea of spheres of influence in which less powerful countries are controlled by great powers, a system in place before World War II and favored now by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, among others. National security specialist Anne Applebaum wrote: “The new National Security Strategy is a propaganda document, designed to be widely read. It is also a performative suicide. Hard to think of another great power ever abdicating its influence so quickly and so publicly.” European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Ulrike Franke commented: “The transatlantic relationship as we know it is over. Yes, we kinda knew this. But this is now official US White House policy. Not a speech, not a statement. The West as it used to be no longer exists.” Today, Gram Slattery and Humeyra Pamuk of Reuters reported that Pentagon officials this week told European diplomats in Washington, D.C., that the U.S. wants Europe to take over most of NATO’s defense capabilities by 2027. — Notes: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine https://diplomacy.state.gov/stories/the-monroe-doctrine-the-united-states-and-latin-american-independence/ https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/roosevelt-corollary https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCH/Marine-Corps-History-Summer-2016/Rebellion-Repression-and-Reform/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2027-deadline-europe-led-nato-defense-officials-say-2025-12-05/ https://www.wsj.com/opinion/an-americas-first-foreign-policy-secretary-of-state-rubio-writes-western-hemisphere-too-long-neglected-a81707b0 https://www.gmfus.org/news/abandoning-liberal-international-order-spheres-influence-world-trap-america-and-its-allies-0 https://www.thebulwark.com/i/180796615/the-new-world-disorder Bluesky: nahaltoosi.bsky.social/post/3m77ooddbdc2q greene.haus/post/3m77qd5wtu22s ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3m7aouwrbo22n anneapplebaum.bsky.social/post/3m7ahr34txs2s rikefranke.bsky.social/post/3m7a7iv6hak2e

At least Caicedo should hopefully play this one. And pick a proper CB pairing. Give Josh the minutes he needs. No need to revert to Tosin.

Bringing on Tosin for aerial duels. The guy just isn't capable. He did that for Sunderland earlier this year, by subbing him on for Josh and it ended in disaster.

Atalanta is currently 12th in Serie A. We will make them look like champions.

Pre/Post Match Discussion, Live Chat & Analysis Tuesday Dec 9th, 2025 Gewiss Stadium 8 PM UK

The squad is a mess and we got someone who can't even correctly asses the players at his disposal.

Mohamed Salah says his Liverpool future is in doubt as relations with Arne Slot have broken down https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6868345/2025/12/06/salah-liverpool-interview-news-leaving-slot/ Mohamed Salah says he feels “thrown under the bus” by Liverpool and called his future at the club into question as he revealed his relationship with head coach Arne Slot has broken down. The Egypt international was speaking after being left out of the starting line-up for the third successive game in Saturday’s 3-3 draw with Leeds United. Salah believes he’s been made a scapegoat for Liverpool’s struggles this season, insisting “someone does not want me in the club”. The forward also left the door open to a possible Anfield exit during the January transfer window. What You Should Read Next Mohamed Salah and Liverpool: What now? If the Egyptian is to be a less regular starter this season, Arne Slot faces a significant test of his man-management skills “The third time on the bench for the first time in my career,” he told reporters post-match at Elland Road. “I’m very, very disappointed. I have done so much for this club down the years and especially last season. Now I’m sitting on the bench and I don’t know why. “It seems like the club has thrown me under the bus. That is how I am feeling. It is very clear that someone wanted me to get all of the blame. I got a lot of promises in the summer, and so far, I am on the bench for three games, so I can’t say they kept their promises. “I said many times before that I had a good relationship with the manager, and all of a sudden, we don’t have any relationship. I don’t know why, but it seems to me, how I see it, that someone doesn’t want me in the club. “This club, I always support it. My kids will always support it. I love the club so much, I will always. I called my mum yesterday — you guys didn’t know if I would start or not, but I knew. Yesterday I said, ‘Come to the Brighton game (on Saturday, December 13)’. I don’t know if I am going to play or not but I am going to enjoy it. “In my head, I’m going to enjoy that game because I don’t know what is going to happen. I will be in Anfield to say goodbye to the fans and go to the Africa Cup (AFCON).” Mohamed Salah during his last league start, a 3-0 defeat against Nottingham Forest on November 22Shaun Botterill/Getty Images Salah scored 34 goals and provided 23 assists in all competitions last season as he inspired Slot’s side to Premier League title glory. In doing so, he was rewarded in April with a new two-year contract worth more than £400,000 ($534,000) per week plus bonuses. However, the 33-year-old forward, the third-highest goalscorer in the club’s history, has struggled for form this season, with just five goals in 19 appearances. Last weekend’s win at West Ham United was the first time he had been dropped for a league match since April 2024. “It is not acceptable for me,” Salah added. “I don’t know why this is happening to me. I don’t get it. I think if this was somewhere else, every club would protect its player. How I see it now is like, ‘Throw Mo under the bus because he is the problem in the team now’. “But I don’t think I am the problem. I have done so much for this club. The respect I want to get. I don’t have to go every day fighting for my position because I earned it. I am not bigger than anyone, but I earned my position.” Asked if he had played his last game for Liverpool, Salah responded: “In football, you never know. I don’t accept this situation. I have done so much for this club. “I cannot say it is impossible (to resolve), but from what I feel, I have done so much for the club, I love the fans and the club so much. I don’t know what is going to happen next. “With respect, I love everyone. I love (Erling) Haaland, I will talk about him. I am the current top goalscorer in the Premier League (last season’s Golden Boot winner). He is not yet. He is going to win it, hopefully, and that is fine for him. I love him and he knows that. I am the top goalscorer, best player, winning the league in such a style, but I am the one who has to defend himself in front of the media and fans. “I have been at this club, scoring more than anyone in this generation. Since I came to the Premier League, I don’t think anyone has scored more goals and made more assists than me. If I am somewhere else, everybody would go to the media and defend the players. I am the only one in this situation. “Can I give an example? It’s silly but I am sorry. I remember a while ago, (former Tottenham Hotspur striker) Harry Kane was not scoring for 10 games and everyone in the media was like: ‘Oh, Harry will score for sure’. But when it comes to Mo, everyone is like: ‘He needs to be on the bench’. I am sorry, Harry! “After what I have done for the club, it really hurts. After going from home to the club, you don’t know if you are starting. Tomorrow, (Jamie) Carragher (the former Liverpool defender turned TV pundit) is going to go for me again and again and that’s fine.” What You Should Read Next Mohamed Salah ‘not happy’ at Liverpool omission but reacted professionally – Arne Slot Sunday was the first time the Egyptian attacker had not started a Premier League game since April 2024 and followed a poor run of form. Salah has been the subject of sustained interest from Saudi Pro League clubs in recent years but has always wanted to stay at Anfield. Asked if he had an offer from the Middle East on the table for January, he said: “I don’t want to answer this question because the club is going to take me to a different direction.” Pressed on who inside Liverpool allegedly wants him to leave, Salah replied: “I really don’t know.” Salah revealed that he had a meeting with Slot at Kirkby on Friday when he was informed he would be left out of the team for the third successive Premier League match. He has only played 45 minutes across those three games, with Liverpool collecting five points out of a possible nine. “I knew yesterday that I was not going to play so take it, swallow it and go home,” he added. “He knows my feelings. There’s no relationship between us. It was a very good relationship and now all of a sudden there is no relationship.” Asked if he now regrets signing the new contract in April when he could have left as a free agent in the summer, Salah said: “Imagine how bad that I have to answer it, honestly. That hurts, even the question hurts. This club, signing for this club, I will never regret it. “I thought I was going to renew here and end my career here, but this is not according to the plan. I’m not regretting signing for the club for sure. “Somehow it will end but the thing in my head is, like, ‘Why it should end this way?’. Because I am too fit, just five months ago I was winning every individual award, so why should it go in this direction? I’m sorry that everybody in the team is not in form, yet I’m the one who has to defend himself now.” Salah is set to join up with the Egypt squad in Morocco on December 15 for the Africa Cup of Nations. Liverpool are next in action against Inter at the San Siro on Tuesday before facing Brighton & Hove Albion at Anfield, Salah’s final game before he departs for AFCON. Salah’s angry reaction will stun supporters Analysis from Gregg Evans The news will come as a surprise for fans, who will begin to wonder whether they have seen the last of the club legend in a Liverpool shirt. Salah says he doesn’t know what the future holds, and that’s hard to process after so many happy memories. The thought of him leaving as early as next month’s transfer window cannot be ruled out after Salah’s latest comments. To see how quickly this has unravelled is also a huge shock, given the efforts that went into keeping him at the club last season. It was less than eight months ago when Salah was sitting on a throne (literally) as Anfield’s ‘Egyptian King’ after signing a new contract. His form and physical condition convinced executives at Fenway Sports Group, which owns the club, to rip up their usual policy around older players and offer him the two-year deal that he eventually signed. Even more surprising is that only 22 Premier League games have passed since then but Salah’s form has dipped significantly. He has scored just six goals in that time and after starting every game under Slot, he has sat on the bench for the last three outings, sparking such an angry reaction this evening. Salah rarely conducts interviews and thinks carefully every time he discusses his career in public, so coming out with such strong comments is a sign of how badly he feels he has been treated over the past week. Is Salah on the wane? Analysis from Thom Harris Salah’s output has decreased dramatically this season. He is attempting fewer shots, completing a lower proportion of his take-ons, and taking fewer touches in the opposition penalty area than ever in a Premier League season. As we can see from the graphic below, the quality of chances falling Salah’s way has fallen sharply. He has been unable to get into dangerous goalscoring opportunities with the same unerring regularity as previous campaigns. On top of that, Salah’s usually reliable shooting technique has let him down. While he isn’t notably underperforming his expected goals (xG), he has only been able to keep around 29.0 per cent of his shots on target, down from an average of 41.4 per cent in previous seasons. That tallies with the eye test, and though he scored emphatically against Brentford in October, a shanked effort against Manchester United a few weeks earlier felt more indicative of his unusual lack of clinical edge. There have also been concerns surrounding Salah’s impact without the ball. He is being more easily bypassed in the press and is slow to offer defensive support. That can be accounted for when the goals are flying in, but Slot’s preference to play Dominik Szoboszlai can be understood given current form. By James Pearce Liverpool Correspondent

Enzo Maresca regrets not starting Josh Acheampong vs. Leeds, loss ‘not about experience’ https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6864936/2025/12/05/josh-acheampong-maresca-Chelsea-leeds/ Chelsea head coach Enzo Maresca insists a lack of experience was not to blame for Chelsea’s defeat at Leeds United and admits he regrets not starting teenage defender Josh Acheampong. The club’s chances of challenging for the title suffered a blow with the 3-1 loss at Leeds United on Wednesday night. Chelsea have the youngest squad in the Premier League and with the transfer window opening in Janaury, talk from outside the club has suggested they need to buy some older players. Maresca is adamant it was not a factor in the way they struggled to compete throughout the 90 minutes at Elland Road and highlighted how 28-year-old Tosin Adarabioyo was one of the individuals who struggled. When asked if there should be more focus on buying experienced players, he replied: “We always talk about experience when we drop points. When we beat Barcelona, we drew against Arsenal, no-one was mentioning about experienced players. “I understand that when we don’t win, we are always looking for the reason why, but I think the reason why we didn’t win against Leeds is not because of the experience, it’s because we were not good enough. “We have experienced players. Unfortunately, they were not inside the pitch. One because he was suspended (Moises Caicedo), the other (Reece James, Wesley Fofana) because of (managing) injury. “Who was the oldest one for us on the pitch? Tosin. Did he play good? So, it’s not about experience. It’s about that 11 players, they were not good enough. I know that we are always looking for experience, but it was a bad game for all of us. I love a young squad, I love young players and I’m delighted with the players I have.” Acheampong, 19, has not started a game since scoring at Nottingham Forest in October. With Fofana and James being rested, plus Malo Gusto on the bench, Maresca opted to move Trevoh Chalobah to right back with Benoit Badiashile and Tosin at centre back. Maresca added: “One of the regrets I have after the game is I didn’t play with Josh. The reason why we played with Trev, Tosin and Benoit is because analysing them, we saw that most of the time they were playing long ball for (Dominic) Calvert-Lewin, for (Lukas) Nmecha. And so we prefer physicality to win aerial duels. But even with that, we lost most of them.”

The actual state of our squad. Insane! Lol.

Still yet to be convinced Veiga was a big improvement on what we have already also though. Or am I missing something? I mean our CBs now we don’t need players around the same level. We need top class quality. Same with the GK position. Veiga’s profile maybe would’ve been better for the squad (left foot, cover CB, LB & DM) but one would argue Hato also does the same? Nobody here for sure would’ve been able to say what Veiga’s best position was based on his minutes here because he played all of those roles & was clearly more of a swiss army knife player than someone who specialised as a CB, LB or a 6. I don’t think any of the players Maresca froze out in that January (Felix & Veiga especially), in terms of quality, were vast improvements on what we had/currently have. Felix playing more would’ve perhaps would’ve prevented him from running Cole into the ground but that was about all his worth given how reluctant the manager was to use Nkunku behind the striker. Tosin signing was a bad move though. Always was. Better than what we already had? No. Get the feeling he came into replace Silva in terms of being a more experienced player and it was always going to backfire horrifically because he hasn’t got the same ability or experience. Seen comparisons with him coming in to Cahill signing at the time too. Captaining Fulham and being a non capped England international is not the same.

Everton, Newcastle and Aston Villa coming, we gonna slide down bad.

Salah only speaks when he has an issue, hides when things get tough and when he speaks it's all about him Selfish fucker, get to Saudi you rat

this place nearly exploded when we signed him.

To be fair though, we had like 20 CB's on the books and the club can't find 3 half decent ones? They could have re-integrated Veiga like they did with Chalobah. Instead we have to watch Tosin make mistakes and Josh ride the bench.

WOW Mohammed Salah with bombshell interview.

Defense has improved. Needs to continue with that defense next games. We definitely need a maestro in the mid

Delap takes a massive touch here and slide tackles the fullback

The striker, wingers, all poor. I am sure you were one of the ones who said these attackers would’ve warranted a title challenge earlier in the season too, no? Clearlake/Stewart & Winstanley have no intentions of us competing at the very top it is so clear. Simple as that. You don’t sign Garnacho, Gittens & Delap when your team has been crying out for top GK & CBs for about 5 years. Even when your manager has said about a CB publicly. The recruitment has been wrong for so many seasons now. The manager also has to be reviewed in the summer because his inflexibility against smaller teams is killing us. Like you need to be able to see these teams off to give yourself the best chance of competing for titles, dropping points against the likes of Sunderland, Leeds, Bournemouth just undoes any points gained against the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs & whoever. Tbf his ability was always there but it was the consistency that was a massive concern. Not to mention the fact he was always a luxury player who lacked the bit without the ball. People forget he’s went under a big physical transformation at City, shed a lot of weight & has had to buy into Pep’s approach where everyone has to work without the ball. I am very doubtful Maresca would’ve gotten that out of him, proof is in the pudding, Cole & Enzo still waltz around as if they don’t have to do their bits without the ball. Not to mention none of the defenders or midfielders seem to want to compete in duels. However its worked out for Cherki - him going there to Pep, with top top players, in comparison to him coming here - it would’ve been a wrong move. I was 100% convinced us signing him would’ve been a bad move & still stand by it.

Find that hard to believe , he just started and assisted twice for a much better team than us

we will never fight for a league title with this board They only send to us sand in our eyes to shut up us

He wouldn't make our bench. Basically Buonanotte.

lets post about every player who scored or assisted today

Rabona assist whilst we have spent billions to have big liam barrelling into people. We are so far behind

Those players simply had more footballing IQ. I dont think that sort of stuff can be coached