OhForAGreavsie

Lol

P.S. Checked and it was N'Golo that was referenced in the post to which I replied. 🙂

Oops. Sorry I thought it was Kante being discussed but ditto Rudi

Especially the next game since that gives us a credible reason to request he's left out of the French squad for the upcoming international games. If the French agree that will give him a timely break of three full weeks to recover.

We all like Callum, but it would be going too far to think that he has fully proved himself. As for Bayern's interest, we should recognise that as nothing more than them being willing to invest in potential. Look for example at the ridiculous fee they paid for Renato Sanches. When I said that he wasn't very good, and that his award as young player of the tournament at Euro 2016 was based on nothing more than name recognition due to that fee, someone told me (elsewhere) to shut up because I was just making myself sound foolish. Let's hope the lad makes a go of it at Lille, but his story only proves that Bayern's approval can't be seen as a guarantee. Callum is super talented, but so is Sanches. Now it's about Callum showing that he can do more with his attributes than the young Portugal international has so far managed to do with his.

It's good to read a few more realistic appraisals of Marina's role in transfers because the nonsensical version seemed to be in the majority for a long time. I confess I often avoided the 'The Board' thread because what I usually read there just annoyed the heck out of me. Perhaps I just wasn't reading the right posts before now.

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.