BaaLocks

Maybe Warne will play Wildsmith at left back against Port Vale?

I know we are all focusing on Cashin last night but the strange thing for me is that NML was having a bang average game and yet we kept punting it out to him, even when Corey Blackett Smith came on. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. This team should be so much better than it is, in the like of Cashin, Nelson, NML, Gayle, Hourihane (supposedly), Bird we have stand out players in this league throughout our team. We should be tearing it a new one. And that is not arrogant or "we're a big club in the wrong division" it is just that with these players we should not be letting teams like Wycombe, Charlton, Shrewsbury, Lincoln, Reading take points off us. Currently, we are nowhere near top two quality yet we should be eating this league alive.

I loved the One Day book, devoured it in 24 hours. I'm also in the minority that I liked the film, I just thought it worked and it is exactly my timeline so nostalgia was high. I'm still only two episodes in of Alice and Jack so don't spoil it - if we're three down after twenty minutes tonight I might switch to episode three.

· Edge Of Darkness · Ashes To Ashes (just for the final scene) · Hill Street Blues · Northern Exposure · Star Trek (original series) · Quantum Leap · X Files · Tales Of The Unexpected (till the Americans got hold of it and it turned into Tales Of The Bleeding Obvious) · Boys From The Blackstuff · Our Friends In The North

If you haven't already, give Alice and Jack a try on Channel 4. Angela Riseborough and Dominic Gleeson (plus a robust support from Aisling Bea). Two episodes in and find it so much of what I was hoping to get from One Day. Well scripted, genuine chemistry between the leads, a bit of aching over what a mess they seem to want to make of it all. Well worth it, and I hope it continues in the same vein.

Great soundtrack as well, yes it has some plot holes but far from the worst film you'll see this year.

Memory: Jennifer Chastain plays a troubled care worker who goes to a school reunion and is reminded of an event that happened during her time there. At the same time one of the attendees is also suffering from early onset dementia. Sadly the film really doesn't live up to the premise of uncovering what happened, who is at fault and what the point of our memories are. Even Chastain couldn't carry it - I expected something quite interesting but it just never got there. Hence: Kamil Jozwiak / 10

Good point, well made. I came into the chat for chance to have a rant about how it can't be right that Peter Sutcliffe gets to keep his passport while a 15 year old girl groomed and pretty much trafficked doesn't, how having a second passport means you can have your British one taken off you (but only if you have a second one) seems kinda, well, racist. But I read your post and I thought - you know what, that gadgie makes a good point. Cheers to you for it.

Jethro isn't it?

It's happening - offical site just X'ed this - I think I like this more than the actual signing. Very good!

Frankie Boyle: it was good, strangely I liked it less the more time has passed and I've had a bit of time to mull it over. Lot of his content I had seen before on other shows, he was full of cold apparently but it felt a little dialled in. Stewart Lee: usually love him but he was in a particulalry truculent mood and lost the room a bit (his whole thing was that it was a spillover gig, sold out the first night so put a second one on, and all the people in the audience were people who weren't really that bothered to make sure they got a ticket). Still a cracking night out but maybe not the best night I've seen him deliver Jonathan Pie: There's a lot of energy in it, I wasn't really looking forward to being ranted at for one hour about much I kind of know to be true. There was a bit of that, preaching to a choir given the audience. But he had some great content, even if the last twenty felt like he was just stretching it out a bit.

Based On A True Story: Premise is that a couple (one of which is Kaley Cuoco) of true crime fans work out the identity of a current serial killer and convince him to make a podcast about his murders. The first couple of episodes are interesting, there's some good humour and the plot runs along nicely as they work out how this is all going to pan out. Then, by about episode five, you realise they are all out of ideas on how to move it forward and the whole show gets silly and self consuming. But no worries, they've only got eight episodes so they can bring it all home in time without it getting too flabby, can't they? Get to the end of Episode 8 and, cliff hanger, they've set it all up for a second series. Why, oh why (rhetorical) do they do this? Why can't they just tell the story, wrap it, without having to stretch the whole thing so thin it eats itself alive - as this will do (without me) in series two.

Sorry, did the first one and quit. Anne Hathaway got pelters for the film but the point is that Emma is supposed to be that girl Dexter never noticed but as soon as he does he realizes she is gorgeous. The girl in the series just doesn't have that allure and sense of mystery about her. And Dexs parents aren't as good as the film either.

Agree, I'm a big fan of Katherine Parkinson. She does knowing glances and exasperation as well as anyone. If your ever hear her interviewed you get the feeling she's pretty similar in real life. As for CYE, it is just the cleverest and best written comedy of the last few years. I struggle to think of anything out of the States that betters it.

Yeah, I've also heard that when he's good he's special. To be fair, one of the times I saw him was at Wembley Arena - I think you could see The Beatles supported by Jimi Hendrix (with Janis Joplin on backing vocals) there and it would still be underwhelming.

It is wonderful, I would say though don't spoil it by going to see him live. I've done it three times now and he has been less than average on each occasion.

2023/24: 10th February (Sheffield Utd) 2022/23: 26th December (Wolves) 2021/22: 23rd January (Burnley) 2020/21: 4th March (Sheffield United) 2019/20: 22nd December (Watford) 2018/19: 27th February (Huddersfield) 2017/18: 13th December (Swansea) 2016/17: 19th December (Sunderland) 2015/16: 18th January (Aston Villa) 2014/15: 29th December (Leicester) 2013/14: 26th December (Sunderland) 2012/13: 2nd January (QPR) 2011/12: 31st December (Blackburn) 2010/11: 27th November (Wolves and West Ham) 2009/10: 19th December (Portsmouth) 2008/9: 8th November (Spurs) The Blunts now are the third club (after Sunderland and Wolves) to achieve the feat twice. This is the third closest any team has come after, strangely, Sheffield United in 2021 and Huddersfield in 2019. To put it into perspective, Sheffield United still passed eleven points a full 48 days before 29th March, which is the date we were relegated in 2008. This record is going nowhere.....

Well done, you've made my day remembering

Anyone who ever considered subscribing to a doorbell in the first place deserves everything that they get. Sorry but!

You need to get some perspective 😉

Because at the moment you have two sensors in a line, and a very close line (width of a finger nail) - see picture one, no technology is going to be smart enough and today the sensor might be onside but the finger nail is offside. If you then have sensors - for example in the front of the shirt, and your requirement is completely offside you are looking for a single individual to be further forward than any other player (or all but one, by the strict rules of offside). If the onus is on a player having to be offside, whereas now it is on them having to be onside, you introduce more 'forgiveness' to the rule - innocent till proven guilty and all that. The ref ultimately decides what 'clearly' means - for me it means there must be grass between the attacker and the defender if you draw a line across. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it is a much, much, much more accomodating interpretation than the one that exists today. You'll all thank me one day.

Which works perfectly well until the team you are playing scores a goal after being offside by a finger nail. Then the world is in meltdown. My view on offside is that all they need to do is make it so that the player has to be completely (and clearly) offside rather than the other way round. It would encourage attacking football and shift the onus (yes, that reads onus) of blame. And with regard to technology you can then use sensors in the shirt (which are not possible on the current system) which is much more clearer and manageable as a technology). As for the last sentence, 140 years ago we didn't have crossbars, or much more. Games evolve, even football.

Which is why I didn't - I merely said he had a couple of moments, and that is all it was, that helped define him. Had Taylor not walked onto one, when Froch was well behind on the cards, had he been stopped in the first Groves fight (or Groves not been stopped) we would be talking about him in the same way as someone like Rocky Fielding or Callum Smith, game fellow who fought a good 'un but ultimately didn't get to the very top. As it is we, as you say, remembering him for his wins against Kessler, Dirrell, Abraham and Bute (his finest night after Groves II imho).

Carl Froch was a very lucky fellow, he was seconds away from losing against Jermaine Taylor. Had that happened no way would he gone on to have had the big fights that defined his career. That first Groves fight even he would have to admit it could have gone the other way, both in that he could have been stopped and then that Groves was when some refs would have let it go a bit more - who knows what might have happened. I liked Froch's grit, he never knew he was beat, but it could so easily have been a far less impactful career. As for him ever being able to beat Calzaghe - oh don't even go there, no chance. And as for every clickbait article where he's rent a quote on who will likely win the U-18s amateur flyweight of Kazakhstan, he might want to take a moment to realise his view is of little to no interest.