OhForAGreavsie

Some narratives seem able to acquire a lot of resistance to the truth. I exchanged posts with someone a few years ago where I explained my own surprise at Ray's admission. That person wouldn't have it. He was adamant that Roman had driven the Torres deal and that Ray must be lying. Unambiguous statements to the contrary from Ray made no difference.

As was entirely predictable, and in fact predicted by me. Never good enough and fairly obviously so I think. I haven't watched Everton Soares but he doesn't look great on YouTube.

Good news. Thank you. I've been watching transfers since before the days when there was a window. Well since the days when it was open for about 46 weeks of the year, so I'm not sure 'by the way' is warranted. 🙂 It any case the comment is just a cliché. I'm sure you could make an even longer list of important January transfers than I can.

😞 I was hoping this wouldn't become a possibility until January, when we might be back in the game. http://www.sportbible.com/football/news-transfers-luka-jovic-set-to-leave-club-on-loan-this-summer-20190820

I thought Emerson was as poor as usual in the first half. Indeed it looked like we should shift LB from second priority in the transfer market, up to joint first. I thought he had a better second half however, even when everything around him had gone to pot. I don't say he was good, but I felt he was definitely better.

The lot around me (West Lower) were on form again. Only really get loud when they're moaning.

Only seen highlights of him so I can't say anything about his all-round game but he's a heck of a finisher that's for sure.

Just can't agree with this. Against ManU we did some things well, though not well enough. We also did some things badly. Badly enough to concede four goals. As for Leicester, we got more than we deserved, not less.

I think this is a Lukaku situation. ROM scores goals but neither United fans nor management were ever truly happy with him. I think that's how it was for Bats at BVB and how I guess it would be for him here too. Bats is criticised because he isn't good at the whole job, but that's how it is with all of our strikers. If there are times when Frank wants to use Tammy's strengths, and times when he wants to go with Ollie's strengths, then why wouldn't there be times when he chooses to deploy Michy's? The thing is, he hasn't really shown any sign of wanting to do that yet. Worse, he's used the code phrase, "Michy is here. He is one of our strikers.", and we all know what that's code for. Perhaps Frank and Jody want to leave a path for Charlie Brown to serve as our third choice striker. I've seen Charlie twice this season (once on TV) and he's seemed a bit lacklustre to me. I like Charlie, but using him as number three looks bold. That's OK, I've no problem with Frank being bold. Assuming this is his decision of course.

I'm not feeling negative about our prospects. It's just that I think the Liverpool game was not a good barometer for gauging the shape we're in. There were definitely things to like; Pulli's speed of thought, quickness of movement and accuracy of execution in setting up the first goal for example. From the moment I saw their team sheet however, I felt we could play against that Liverpool line-up. So much so in fact that I was convinced Kova was going to score at last. That didn't work out but we did manage to play our game. How we do against Leicester will be a better indicator I think.

Anyway... I think this is going to be a pivotal game for our season. We all enjoyed the performance against Liverpool but I think we have to acknowledge that they produced a fairly open display which gave us a chance to play our game. Largely speaking we took that chance well but I expect Leicester to try to close spaces a lot more than the Reds did. If we can overcome that and come up with another encouraging performance, along with the right result this time, I think the positivity will spread. If not, the doubts and the criticism will grow.

Am I right that most tennis players do not take part in both singles and doubles matches at non grand slam tournaments during the year? As a result only two players each week, usually different players from week to week, play the maximum possible number of games. Most of the players get most of the week off. Off from playing seriously competitive matches at any rate. What's more, no players play every tournament of the season. They all take breaks.

It's odd. It's impossible to watch a game of basketball without appreciating the brilliant talent which is on show and the fantastically aesthetic things they can do. Yet the game is a complete bore for me. As you implied, the problem is that the basic objective is way, way too easy for professional players. In fact, as far as I can tell, it seems that about half the rules have been added over the years just to try to make the game a bit harder to play. Gridiron I love. Baseball I adore. Basketball? Wouldn't give you a used Tottenham ticket for it.

Thanks DB, This is really interesting. Do you know what the comparative stats are for the mileage covered by basketball players over the course of a game? Whatever the mileage comparison, I wonder if that really answers the question of who works harder. An example of what I mean:- When I was reffing, especially in the early days doing park football, I would easily out run any of the players on the pitch. I would often have a jokey conversation with players about how they were struggling to keep up with me, when I should have been struggling to keep up with them. Yet, when I played, I'd be blowing hard after 20 minutes. My point is that it's not just about the miles that you run when you play football. As a referee I could judge the run that I needed to make. I could judge whether I needed to extend it, sprint it out or just jog. As a player, you're not in that much control. You can be called on to do three peak sprints in succession followed by big physical confrontations when you get there. I promise you it's harder to run half as many miles when you're playing than it is to cover twice as many when you're reffing. I wonder if we can ever gauge the amount of work done by a footballer in comparison to that done by basketball player? I'm sure calorific expenditure has been measured in both cases but is that enough information to make a judgement? P.S. The first result I found on Google suggests an average NBA mileage per player, per game of about 2.6 miles and claims that this is roughly one third the average distance for a footballer. My guess is that the physical strain on a footballer is also tougher because of the nature of the sport. That said, I more or less only played basketball at school, so I'm ready to be corrected on this.

Yep Klopp would, and in fact did, mention it. 'It' in his case being about facing a long away trip on Saturday. The thing football people do most is play. The thing they do second most is moan.

I'll talk about the clubs playing their prior games at the same time, or perhaps at least on the same day, in a minute. First I'd just like to look at the swings and roundabouts resulting from what happened with the fixture differences last weekend. Would Frank have taken it if you offered him the reverse situation; where we played Friday-Wednesday-Saturday away from home in the north of England? I don't know, perhaps he would. I do know that I wouldn't. I would much rather return to a home game on the Sunday, rather than to a long away trip on the Saturday, as Liverpool do. The Leicester game is way more important in my opinion and I think the Foxes will pose a much bigger challenge than we faced on Wednesday. Liverpool wanted to play and were pretty open. Short of us getting a couple of early goals Leicester are not going to give us anywhere near that kind of room. I expect us to find it much more difficult to get behind them, than it was against the Reds. Ok that's my little aside. Now to your point about Liverpool and Chelsea being scheduled to play at the same time ahead of Wednesday's game. The situation with staggered fixtures is not new. Managers, players, and fans have been complaining about it for years. The Premier League, and remember the Premier League consists of its member clubs who make all of the decisions by voting. If the clubs wanted to stipulate the kind of fixture scheduling you are calling for, they would have done it a long time ago. The fact that they have not done it is evidence of 1) the difficulty being fair about it, and 2) the value the league places on maximising its TV income. Perhaps on the first weekend of the season shifting fixtures around is less complex than it is at any other point in the season. It is normally very complex however. If a team competing in Europe wants to advance the fixture before, or delay the fixture afterwards, and when it suits them they want to try to do both, then there are other clubs involved in those decisions. What if, as is often the case, the other club does not want to change and considers any change as being against their interests? That's just one of many complications. Even when the fixture list jigsaw would allow games to be moved, what about the TV companies? They want Liverpool for their prime time Friday night game and Manchester United for their key Sunday afternoon slot. If you are regularly going to tell them that they can't have the fixtures they want, when they want them, they are naturally going to want to reduce how much they are paying you. Premier League clubs have obviously considered that equation many times and have never decided to change the way they do things. The money is a priority and that would appear to be even more the case now that the last TV contract represented the first ever real terms reduction in what the clubs are being paid by the television companies. The Premier League controls its fixtures and the 20 clubs control the Premier League. This matter is entirely in their own hands. If they wanted to change it could happen tomorrow. They clearly don't want to change and I think they have sound reasons. Clubs, or actually their coaching/playing staff, love to moan when the schedule appears to disadvantage them. In truth though it advantages them just as often. The worst example I remember was when Spurs played away in a far-flung part of Europe on a Thursday evening, and then away at Stamford Bridge on the Saturday lunchtime. It is swings and roundabouts. Even if we change the system there would still be losers and those losers, sometimes including Chelsea, would still be complaining.

Actually it would. Mainly the clubs themselves. Top clubs, if offered the chance to vote for your plan, and accept the consequences that go with it, would vote no. I know coaches and players moan about fixture scheduling, but you never hear a peep out of the real decision makers at the clubs. There's a reason for that. The inconvenience clubs sometimes suffer with fixtures is because, within certain limits, broadcasters get to choose the games to show in primetime slots. Sky pay £9.22m per game to cover the Premier League, while BT pay £7.62m a pop. They want their pound of flesh for that money and the league gives it to them because they want the broadcaster's cash. The budgets of Premier League clubs revolve around TV money. They won't give it up, so we are where we are.

While I don't hate Marcus, I do fully agree that Emerson should start ahead of him. My position is that Emerson is our starter by default; he is the best we have, but he is not of the quality we need. In common with a number of people, notably Vesper, I have left back down as priority number two once we are able to sign players again.

People seem to be more enthusiastic about Emerson than I am. It could be that I missing something, but I really haven't seen enough from him yet. I'm on board with the idea that he is now our first choice, but the long-term answer? I just don't see it.

Opinions are great, but before forming this one of yours you should take note of who schedules UEFA games, and who schedules Premier League games. The two organisations who create those fixtures do so without any reference to the FA whatsoever. It's all very well railing away against the FA but, to be absolutely clear, they had absolutely nothing to do with arranging these fixtures. There is a hierarchy for the allocation fixture dates. First, dates are allocated to FIFA, then to the continental federations, then to domestic leagues, and finally to domestic cup competitions. Once the various organisations have been allocated the dates, they are free to schedule their fixtures on those dates as they see fit. UEFA tell the FA when the Super Cup game will be played, they don't ask them. The premier League tell the FA when Liverpool v Norwich and Man United v Chelsea will be played, they don't ask them. The FA do not have the power to schedule UEFA games or Premier League games. Nor do they have the power to change the date or the time of a fixture once it has been set by uefa, in the case of the Super Cup, or by the Premier League's broadcast partners, in the case of Chelsea and Liverpool's fixtures last weekend.

The FA had nothing to do with the scheduling of the uefa Super Cup game, or with Liverpool's game against Norwich, or with our game at Old Trafford. But apart from that... 🙂

During the Women's World Cup they decided not to continue with VAR in the shootouts. Does anyone know if it was meant to be in action last night?

I never believed that VAR would work but I always felt it should be tried. I have to say that, despite teething troubles, the system looks like it might prove me wrong. I think they are getting most of it right and I am 100% in favour of delaying the offside decision until the action has reached its conclusion. I'm convinced this is exactly the right way to do it and that we are all just going to have to get used to it. Let's be generous and say that most of the time offside flags are accurate. Even so, all of us can remember far too many good goals being ruled out by incorrect flags. Far better to let the play go on, the chance be converted or missed, and then assess the offside. Obviously when it's clear to the naked eye, officials should flag immediately but, if there is any room for doubt, play on and let the technology sort it out a few seconds later.

I don't think Liverpool defended well as a team, but the individual quality of their defenders got them out of trouble repeatedly. I thought all four of their starters did a lot of good things last night despite being exposed time and again by their poorly deployed high line.

I'll give the International Board some credit. They have gradually been improving the handball law, and they nearly have it right now. The real key they need to apply is that it is a matter of consequence. They have done that in the case of a goal being scored, or created, with the hand or arm. All such goals and now automatically ruled out, as they should be. From a defensive point of view if the ball strikes a players hand completely unintentionally and, but for that, it would have gone harmlessly out of play, no harm has been done to the attacking team and no infringement should be adjudged in such situations. If the defender is on the goal line however and this time the ball would have gone into the net, then no matter how unintentional it was The referee should award a penalty.