May Contain Nuts

It's important to history.
I think the death of a King or Queen is something to be marked by British people. It's the story of our history. The story of our past. And also many of the commonwealth nations may feel the same. 
I don't think I'd say the whole world has to be flipped on its head for an event to be of significant interest. 
It's an event that has rippled across the world. It's gained huge attention. It brings the end of an era. It turns a new page in the history books and there's a new chapter. 
I don't expect everyone to cry over it. I don't expect everyone who doesn't care to shout from the roof tops that they don't care (they obviously care), I don't expect it to cure cancer. 
And what will surprise some people is that you can care about this AND other things too. Or you can care about nothing. 
I don't think there's been an outcry of "why don't you care!!?". I've seen more of people asking "why should I care". Well, don't. That's fine. 
I just thought it was a shame we can't all be brought together in one of the few events that brings about an excuse to celebrate our land, our people, our heritage, our history. 
Just as it's a shame, to me, that my Mrs gets bored in Slovenian museums and vanishes off leaving me to look for her! I just love history and think it plays an important role in giving us all identity. A belonging. Which is something we all seek. 
Plenty of people have died that are of significant interest to millions and millions. Life will go on. But I don't feel the need to jump in and say I don't care. Or call it irrelevant. If that person has impacted millions of lives in any way I say that's significant. Worthy of a page in history. 
I think it's a shame that France no longer has a monarchy. French Kings, Emperor's even, it all links modern France to it's deep history. Its influence on the world. It's fascinating characters. It's the foundations of modern day France and I think it would be nice to see that still living today. 
You're right, the Queen was a face on a stamp etc. But that's the breadcrumbs for future generations. Her death is a significant day in history. 

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

Obviously I've caught a few bits here and there where it couldn't be avoided, but I haven't intentionally paid attention to any of it tbh. I'm not really a 'joiner-inner' anyway, any hint of 'expected' active participation and I get uncomfortable, just let other people get on with doing their thing and hope nobody tries to force me into action.
I'm not sure I even think of it as a significant world event tbh. It doesn't really change anything about the way most people go about their lives. It's just replacing one head of state who doesn't actually influence much of anything meaningful these days for another. The new one might not be present the same 'cuddly' image but well, oh well.
Clearly though it's important to a lot of people, many do care about it, but as far as I can see its actual significance is really quite confined to those who already feel it's more significant that it is. A self-perpetuation of perceived importance that ultimately amounts to a different face on a few coins & banknotes, changing some song lyrics and watermarks on product packaging and everyone proceeding to live their lives exactly as they had been doing before.
That's how I feel about it all anyway. Not saying I'm right.

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

It may not be, but all signs so far point to it being the case. Rotherham may not agree though?
It's not about whether Rosenior deserves the job or not, but  if you aren't going to keep him on then surely you look for a replacement who will continue to do the positive things we have been doing, not tear them jup for a different style?

Yes, and Gary Rowett's style of football got us to a Championship Play-off semi-final.
Very few would want to see us play like that again though, most felt they'd had enough of watching it after less than a year.

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

Yes, and Gary Rowett's style of football got us to a Championship Play-off semi-final.
Very few would want to see us play like that again though, most felt they'd had enough of watching it after less than a year.

Obviously I've caught a few bits here and there where it couldn't be avoided, but I haven't intentionally paid attention to any of it tbh. I'm not really a 'joiner-inner' anyway, any hint of 'expected' active participation and I get uncomfortable, just let other people get on with doing their thing and hope nobody tries to force me into action.
I'm not sure I even think of it as a significant world event tbh. It doesn't really change anything about the way most people go about their lives. It's just replacing one head of state who doesn't actually influence much of anything meaningful these days for another. The new one might not be present the same 'cuddly' image but well, oh well.
Clearly though it's important to a lot of people, many do care about it, but as far as I can see its actual significance is really quite confined to those who already feel it's more significant that it is. A self-perpetuation of perceived importance that ultimately amounts to a different face on a few coins & banknotes, changing some song lyrics and watermarks on product packaging and everyone proceeding to live their lives exactly as they had been doing before.
That's how I feel about it all anyway. Not saying I'm right.

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

Ironic.
We're not here to mess around but we're going to give someone the job on an interim basis, let them develop a certain style of play suited to the players we could get (the only players we could get) and then, 2 months after the start of the season, we're going to look to employ a manager who's style of play is the polar opposite of the one we've done all that work on and which doesn't suit the players we've signed (the only players we could get).
Sounds suspiciously like messing around to me!

Yes, and Gary Rowett's style of football got us to a Championship Play-off semi-final.
Very few would want to see us play like that again though, most felt they'd had enough of watching it after less than a year.

Yes, and Gary Rowett's style of football got us to a Championship Play-off semi-final.
Very few would want to see us play like that again though, most felt they'd had enough of watching it after less than a year.

Yes, and Gary Rowett's style of football got us to a Championship Play-off semi-final.
Very few would want to see us play like that again though, most felt they'd had enough of watching it after less than a year.

Try telling that to the poor souls who have to go through every episode of Kavanagh KC, dubbing and editing where neccesary.
 

Obviously I've caught a few bits here and there where it couldn't be avoided, but I haven't intentionally paid attention to any of it tbh. I'm not really a 'joiner-inner' anyway, any hint of 'expected' active participation and I get uncomfortable, just let other people get on with doing their thing and hope nobody tries to force me into action.
I'm not sure I even think of it as a significant world event tbh. It doesn't really change anything about the way most people go about their lives. It's just replacing one head of state who doesn't actually influence much of anything meaningful these days for another. The new one might not be present the same 'cuddly' image but well, oh well.
Clearly though it's important to a lot of people, many do care about it, but as far as I can see its actual significance is really quite confined to those who already feel it's more significant that it is. A self-perpetuation of perceived importance that ultimately amounts to a different face on a few coins & banknotes, changing some song lyrics and watermarks on product packaging and everyone proceeding to live their lives exactly as they had been doing before.
That's how I feel about it all anyway. Not saying I'm right.

Nah, I'd send her down Tesco to get some chicken. I want chicken! ?

Alien, the sequel to Alien and prequel to Alien

It was a mistake allowing people to select Rosenior in a thread titled "if not Rosenior" though tbh, made no sense at all.  Didn't warrant a meltdown, however.

Having listened to Rosenior post match it seems that NML was injured hence not starting, so had he been fit we may well actually have seen us start the game with him and Barkhuizen as wing backs. As you say neither of them enjoy that, and just because it worked in the second half doesn't automatically mean it's a viable option from the start of games.
There was no need to experiment / change to wingbacks at home to Wycombe is the point really, they're no Plymouth in the way they play, our home form isn't an issue and changing things caused us to be be in the position of needing to overturn a deficit in the first place; the players didn't look like they knew where they were supposed to be, two going for the same ball gifts them the first goal. 
Perversely had Wycombe not got that goal they probably wouldn't have sat back, and it's debatable whether we'd have improved first half had they not done that. 
We made an unnecessary change and it very nearly backfired. The last 35 minutes were promising but shouldn't have been needed, even if ultimately the end result was good and we've gained some experience of 3 at the back along the way to take into other games.
Had we not capitalised on our chances (or had they gone 2-0 up when Cashin made that saving tackle) we'd be on the end of a demoralising home defeat (may have draw had it been 2-0) and it would have to go down to us not getting it right for the first part of the game.
Not totally specific to this conversation because it's been going on a while... I get that people are naturally very protective of our staff and players after the past couple of years, but at times I think it's bordering on overprotective, where the notion that someone may have made a mistake seems to cause offense and shouldn't be talked about, like it's not OK to admit that something was an error just because it worked out in the end and you're being negative / disloyal if you question a decision.
As I said in my initial post I'm fully on board with Rosenior, and he deserves praise for changing things when they weren't working, but I'm not going to go overboard with the praise and rubbish any concerns anyone might have, or pretend that (what I see as) an error isn't an error.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.

I'd probably maybe potentially have said Darren Ferguson.
Good record in this league and plays nice football.
Only caveats he'd need replacing as soon as we go up, he may have learnt all he's ever going to learn so you're stuck with any faults he may have no matter what, and his success has only ever been at one club anyway.
Talked myself out of it.