May Contain Nuts

Am I allowed to say Knight had a very average game today even if it does goes against this week's obsession? 
 

We sort of played a back 3 all game really when we had the ball..

For me, Wildsmith has done very well since he came in. Like any lower leagues keeper, his game has the odd weakness, but he's very good value at L1 level. 

Here we go again, no control, sloppy errors and losing ..Why keep playing Hourihane .

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

I'm a Rosenior fan and want him to be stay for a long spell.
...but the changes were only needed because we totally messed up our starting lineup and formation. Wycombe had nothing to offer in any moment where it wasn't us missing a header (which happened a worrying amount of times and always left us horribly exposed), none of their own play warranted a goal. Our players looked like they'd never met, and nobody seemed to know their own jobs let alone how to link up with the other players.
Once he did make the changes though he did something different to his previous setups with McGoldrick & Collins both on the pitch and only one of Bird/Hourihane. THAT deserves a lot of praise.
It doesn't change the fact he got it badly wrong for the first 55 minutes though.
Today is proof of his learning, hopefully, but the first half resembles what we saw under Cocu's latter days where he was making big changes just in the hope that something would work.

Steve Cooper

There remains nothing wrong with Knight playing RB in and of itself, he's not the first RB in the world to be turned by an attacker and for them to fall over at the slightest touch while he's running alongside them to recover and he won't be the last.
He's been asked about the role and seems comfortable with it, no real sign if any at all of being unhappy about his development by being played there.
It isn't stopping him having chances to score, had another good one against Lincoln saved by the keeper. It doesn't totally remove him from CM as his inverted role means he does get the ball there from time to time, but yes, not enough.
I think there are certain sections of our support who've simply decided that Knight playing RB is BAD and are seeing whatever it is they want to see to back up their opinion. Lincoln was the first game he's had an overall under-par performance in and predictably it's been jumped on as ultimate proof that it's a terrible idea despite there being  more evidence to the contrary.
It does take something out of our midfield, but that's more a problem with the midfield itself. Despite the issues we're still getting more than enough chances to have won every one of our games this season, but for a combination of poor finishing and, if not poor finishing, the luck of the bounce with poor officials and borderline decisions.
There is a concern we don't dominate midfield which is fair in some games against the better teams, but there have been others where we've overwhelmed the opposition with our possession, and missed some good chances, we're probably 5 or 6 points away from where we should be.
I've forgotten what wider point I was making here now tbh, think I've typed too much of a ramble already and don't think I've being covering the counterpoints to my argument very well ..  I am a bit hungover tbf and a couple of pints in to today's pre match session.
 

There remains nothing wrong with Knight playing RB in and of itself, he's not the first RB in the world to be turned by an attacker and for them to fall over at the slightest touch while he's running alongside them to recover and he won't be the last.
He's been asked about the role and seems comfortable with it, no real sign if any at all of being unhappy about his development by being played there.
It isn't stopping him having chances to score, had another good one against Lincoln saved by the keeper. It doesn't totally remove him from CM as his inverted role means he does get the ball there from time to time, but yes, not enough.
I think there are certain sections of our support who've simply decided that Knight playing RB is BAD and are seeing whatever it is they want to see to back up their opinion. Lincoln was the first game he's had an overall under-par performance in and predictably it's been jumped on as ultimate proof that it's a terrible idea despite there being  more evidence to the contrary.
It does take something out of our midfield, but that's more a problem with the midfield itself. Despite the issues we're still getting more than enough chances to have won every one of our games this season, but for a combination of poor finishing and, if not poor finishing, the luck of the bounce with poor officials and borderline decisions.
There is a concern we don't dominate midfield which is fair in some games against the better teams, but there have been others where we've overwhelmed the opposition with our possession, and missed some good chances, we're probably 5 or 6 points away from where we should be.
I've forgotten what wider point I was making here now tbh, think I've typed too much of a ramble already and don't think I've being covering the counterpoints to my argument very well ..  I am a bit hungover tbf and a couple of pints in to today's pre match session.
 

Nah, hear it all the time because I quite like crumpets the foodstuff. In the other context though yeah it's gone, but if you have crumpet you must also have strumpet

 
 
 
 
 

Alien, the sequel to Alien and prequel to Alien

Plane Train & Car
 
(Can't think of any funny/interesting ones)

People forget that we’ve been absolutely awful playing away for 3 years playing this style of football - nothing will change until we stop playing this style of football in away matches. 
it hasn’t worked in the past, doesn’t work now and will never work in the future !!!
it’s very simple really, the manager needs to change the style of football, or we need to change the manager,,,,,,, it’s that simple !!!!

Joyce Dawson, 54, from Middlesbrough, was watching the news on Tuesday night when she decided to make her first ever visit to London to see the Queen lying in state.
“I texted my daughter and said: ‘We have to go to London tonight,’” she said. “It was a spur of the moment thing.”
She and her daughter Shelby, 26, took the midnight coach from Middlesbrough to join the queue at 8am on Wednesday.
She was one of tens of thousands who flocked to the capital on Wednesday for the first chance to glimpse the Queen lying in state at Westminster Hall.
“It’s just nice to be a part of this,” Joyce said, while she waited. “It’s exciting. I’m like a little kid.”

Debbie does a phallus

I dunno, don't think he is shot, with Bird and Hourihane we are kind of playing with two deep-lying playmakers who are not the quickest. The midfield is crying out for more energy. We know Bird doesn't offer that, and neither did Hourihane at Villa. I just don't think they can both play together, and it is making them both look very underwhelming. It has to be one or the other for me, if we do that, then maybe, just maybe, we shall start to see the best of them.

Yes because no actual right back has ever conceded a penalty before.

Yes because no actual right back has ever conceded a penalty before.

The last 30 years? They haven't won the league since 1927 (before that it was 1909), the FA Cup since 1955 and their only European title is an Anglo-Italian cup win in 1973. They've spent a quarter of their entire history playing below the top level.
How long can you be massive underachievers before you accept that your level is the one you've consistently been at for the majority of the past 100+ years?
Are we really holding something they achieved 5 years short of a century ago as evidence to their size as a club?
What success exactly is it that's being brought back? Ah yes, the glory days of 1905-1909 & 1996-1997. 7 seasons out of 129 years.
They had a couple of flash-in-the-pan spells under Dalgliesh(?) & Keegan where they challenged for the Premiership title (as it was called all 25 years ago) but they were seasons in which the club overachieved, they weren't the norm, nor an indication of their true level.
Their true level is lower to upper-mid table "Premier League" , with the odd flirtation with the top two, and the occasional drop down to a lower level. Exactly as it has been for the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90+ years.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.