Leeds Ram

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

I think we have to worry about getting out of this league first before we start musing on whether Warne is the right person to keep us up in the Championship.

But you may get what you wish for if it takes us another full season for us to get promoted which will see Warne towards the end of his contract so should be more affordable to get rid of if we do have a poor start.

Assuming he isn't given a contract extension when we do get promoted in this scenario obviously.

I think successful teams think about both things. If you look at Ipswich and Plymouth they clearly had projects and an identity moving beyond merely promotion. This is why I didn't want Warne in the first place.

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks and feels that.

At least Billy waited until we'd gone up to tell us! 😄

Yeah I think maybe relations since the start of the season has poisoned the relationship with Warne tbh.

1 hour ago, jono said:

I know what you mean from yesterday but these players are largely experienced men, and football is in constant motion. Regardless of coaching, where is the natural instinct ? When Fornah came on, his first touch was a one touch layoff and then he darted forward in to free space. That is from learning basics as a kid, they should know that anyway. 

The problem with it being a team game is that it does need to be coached otherwise chaos will reign. I get what you're saying some basic instinct should come in but if the players who are passing it aren't aware of where someone is they'll take a crucial extra second or 2 to find it and then be put under pressure. 

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

From the Indy Curtis Davies interview:

"...When he started, it used to be about centre-halves dominating their individual space. It’s now about totally submitting to the system.

“I was actually having this conversation yesterday with a few of the lads,” he says. “When I used to get a video, it’d be a tape and it’s just ultimately you watching the whole thing and trying to find your bits. There’s no cutting individual clips.

“Now, even the youth team at Derby have analysts for under-12s and under-14s. It shows how far the game’s evolved in terms of that information that, one, you get on your own play and, two, when we break down the opposition.”

It is what has better enabled more systemised play, too.

“The challenges are so different,” Davies explains. “When I started off in League One with Luton Town, everyone plays 4-4-2. It’s usually big man, quick man. That’s the way it would be, big man flick-on, quick man gets onto it. Even as you go up the levels, a lot of teams were still playing two strikers. There weren’t that many playing 4-3-3.

“So, as a centre-back pairing, you’re going one to one against the two centre-forwards.

“Now, it might be a front three, but the two of them are literally standing on either touchline so you’re having to keep your full-backs in. The attacking threat more comes from the positions you get taken into, rather than the actual players you’re defending against.

“It’s all about structure now. It’s all about the way, by being in certain positions, that allows a teammate to get onto the ball. It’s no longer a case of ‘this guy’s running the game, I’m going to kick him up and down all day long’… unless a manager tells you to do that!

“But it’s not just about taking charge. It’s about finding space and another player over. It’s about structure, about everyone knowing exactly their job and the job of the man next to them. So, if I played any position on the pitch, I would have known what I was doing. Everything’s automatic, and your thought process, not to say we’re robots but more in terms of once you get the ball in one position I know my passes are A and B. That allows anyone to step into the system..."

Everything we're not doing. 

Yeah, it does make you wonder what they do on the training pitch. I honestly can't remember the last time I had less enthusiasm for the team than I do right now. I've got no love for the manager and if I'm honest it doesn't seem like he has much love for us. The football when I've seen it has been pretty shocking and it feels like we're limping into the playoffs in a division which we should be putting a marker down for everyone else. 

I went to the game and honestly felt little to nothing when we scored apart from a hint of relief.  I've been going for over 20 years, followed them home and away through the good times and the bad and I just don't see how this is going to work in the long run at all. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

How about getting away with playing well but losing.

I'd call losing games more of an issue but that's just me I guess...

It's such a false dichotomy you're posing. You strip out the context and pose a pointless question which no one can really answer. If over time you play well more often than not you'll win more games than lose. If over time you play poorly you'll see your form drop off. What people are concerned about is a pattern of poor play which will see results drop off.

Personally, if we had played well over the past 6 weeks and we played well yesterday and lost I'd be less concerned than seeing consistent patterns of poor play as we saw yesterday and winning. Winning when playing poorly is acceptable and even the mark of a good team if it occurs occasionally. If it happens consistently it speaks to something much more concerning that has the potential to go badly wrong. A bit like our terrible start to the season which could have seen Warne given the chop.

12 hours ago, jono said:

Except that after a dire first half, he did change it and we won. 
 

yes, Warne seems wedded too much to Bird Hourihan, that’s for sure. We were so much better with Fornah and Tommo on the front foot.

but looking way beyond tactics and all the anti Warne statements on here ….If you look at that first half (and it was a horrible watch )  It’s the players who are misplacing passes, it’s the players who aren’t passing and moving, it’s the players who aren’t showing for the ball, it’s the players who need 3 touches before deciding to pass the ball sideways. Berate Warne all day long but for me a heck of a lot of that first half misery rests with the players today. And for all those saying Warne hasn’t got a plan B ? .. looks like he did have didn’t he ! 3 at the back did work .. funny game football. 
 

Nelson, Collo, Sibs (and Bird for 45 minutes ) the stand outs for me in what was a fine example of League one football .. God I hope we can escape, that wasn’t pretty 
 

 

I was close to the pitch today and in the section of the pitch (on the right hand side in the middle) that I could see it was obvious there was a lack of clarity leading to mistakes being made. Players didn't know when or where to run to, who they should be passing to, or the pattern of play they should be exercising. Laing was getting frustrated as was Wilson who had a stinker but oftentimes he was put in a poor position because he had so few options and Laing was all over the shop. To me it stunk more of poor coaching than anything else. 

12 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Would folks be happy if we'd played well and lost 

Ofc we should be beating teams like Cheltenham at home, goes without saying 

I think the fear is (which I have) is that if we're playing like this in league 1 what on earth will we be doing in the championship. We all know Warne's record in the championship with Rotherham and the more people are seeing the more people are likely thinking it was not a lack of resources solely at fault for his dismal record there but the type of play he instills in a team. I do think he'll get us up (just through the playoffs) either this season or next because of the resource gap between us and other teams. However, I've got no faith in his 'football' in the long term. 

I went today for the first time in a while since my move and new job and my god it was painful. Just struck me as pure warneball with little changing or being learned from the problems we had earlier on in the season. I thought on balance Cheltenham deserved at least a point and possibly all 3. I don't understand why we're allergic to middle of the field and I was sitting low down and close to the pitch today. The players didn't seem pleased with each other and oftentimes confusion reigned especially in the first half.

We'll finish in the playoffs but based off today and what I've seen on the tv recently I doubt we'll make it through them. I'm off to Barnsley in a few weeks and am praying we play better then than the shower we put on today.

2 minutes ago, Rich3478 said:

Similar, really didn’t see where we were headed. Just all seems to have clicked hasn’t it. Looking forward to every game now. Long may it continue.

Definitely. We seem to be coming into form at exactly the right time and starting to really find our rhythm now. Get a couple of extra bodies in Jan, tie down Cashin and Bird and get out of this godforsaken league never to return.

I was firmly in the warne out camp, and since my move to york a month ago I've barely been on here. But my god, I'm so happy we didn't pull the trigger and I'm so happy the league 1 Guardiola (yes, I've said it) has proven me and every other doubter wrong. Jumped off my sofa twice and scared the cat when we scored in the final 10. Sounds like we absolutely dominated them after the first 25 mins which were ropey. Atmosphere sounded class and in the past 6 weeks this club has turned from a mutinous ship ready to throw its captain overboard to full on master and commander 'lucky jack' as we're downing rum and heading towards the championship

Taking a break may be useful and also using the ignore button for some users may help. Ultimately, it's a forum and there will be disagreements and these will sometimes boil over. It's usually confined to a few posters who simply cannot let something go or make the same point about a billion times, either about a topic or other posters, but yeah it can get frustrating. I don't visit so much these days but that's mostly just because my work has gotten out of control time wise. But don't leave for good would be my advice. 

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

There is little point trying to quantify Gazan opinion of the Oct 7th attacks, after the IDF bombardment began. Views will understandably be clouded by anger and hatred towards Israel right now, that much is obvious. The relentless bombing by Israel has hardened Palestinian opinions, even retrospectively, which is depressingly, exactly what Hamas would have wanted. So if the 'overwhelming support' you are referring to is support since the IDF bombs started falling, then that's a rather empty observation that should surprise nobody. 

What Gazans opinions were before October is what is interesting.  Polls conducted in July by the Washington Institute (admittedly a pro-Israel American 'think-tank') found that 62% of Gazans supported Hamas maintaining it's ceasefire with Israel. It also found that 50% of Gazans supported a 2-state-solution based on the 1967 borders and the polling revealed that Fatah had considerably more support in Gaza than Hamas (+12%).  

I honestly don't know how reliable the Institute's polling is but the point remains, they were at least conducted before all the recent horror occurred.  Trying to gauge public opinion right now is a pointless endeavour.  

Just seen from your recent post that those polls were taken after much of Gaza had been turned to rubble by IDF bombs and more than 10,000 Gazas killed, including thousands of children, as well as multiples of those figures injured.  Garbage reporting that, what on Earth were they expecting to find? 

Usually I'd agree with polling after a major event. However, what I'm concerned about is how the conflict will inevitably shape opinions and the options on the table for solutions. I do fear this could concretise public opinion in Gaza and Israel in a deeper and longer way than the usual quick, short, sharp reaction we see from some events which then recedes not that long after the event. This does have the smell of Hamas in the 1990's who conducted suicide bombing operations in an attempt to derail the peace process which in the end worked. 

35 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

And I merely responded to the point you made, did I not? You could have chosen to do likewise and address the points I made, but instead you've chosen to simply smear the Palestinians further. l think I'll take a rain check on further 'debate' as the whole 'the Arabs are just as bad' schtick isn't remotely compelling for me and I seriously doubt that the Palestinians are sat around completing polls right now anyway. Too busy burying their dead, I'd imagine.

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791

https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10719/Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip 

 It's not a smear and there have been opinion surveys conducted. I was making the broader point that conflict has a tendency to polarise opinions further entrenching pre-conceived differences. 

17 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Does this mean we won't be friends?

On a serious note though. I explained that I was annoyed with how dismissive you are. That's it. Comments like "Land Grab" and "won't be the land of milk and honey" rubbed me the wrong way. 

I try to bring it back to reasonable debate and you won't engage. I don't mind but let it go or engage. Don't keep mentioning me unless you will engage with the reasonable posts to you and Crewton

Me rubbing you the wrong doesn't mean you get to lie about what I think or what I say. It's absolutely no defence, and I don't know why you'd think it is. Anyway, that is the last I'll say on the matter, and I won't respond further. 

Gouging us as they know we'll pay it. Think clubs who make us pay like this should be on the receiving end next season if we're stuck down here. 

another win on the board is good news. Finally in the top 6 and looking like the top 2 isn't a million miles away even if the performances aren't great. 

22 minutes ago, Alpha said:

@Leeds Ramwhat is it about this post that's distorted or dishonest?

Those are actual things said by Israeli politicians etc. 

The terms "land grab" and "disputed land".... Come on. You know what goes on in West Bank amounts to more than a land grab and you know that Netenyahu and Co name those lands with ancient names. You know how many people are killed and displaced and exactly what the UN, ICJ, Amnesty, HRW, Save The Children say. 

Like I said, there's a fair amount in here I agree with. But there's some I don't. And I've not been unreasonable explaining them. If you want a little door slamming moment as you reach for the moral high ground then that's fine. But as I said, don't cry that I can't have a conversation where here I've said nothing unreasonable. Except perhaps mocking your dismissive condescending attitude towards me. I just found it a bit funny. 

You've frequently distorted and lied about my political beliefs, my arguments on this thread and how I address the question of Israel and Palestine and Middle Eastern politics. You've said I believe in the 'western way or the highway' and that I don't give a damn about ME politics despite the fact I've spent 1/3rd of my life studying it. You've said I cherry pick experts, even experts who strongly believe in a Palestinian state simply because you disagree with what they have to say. You've lied about what I've said about Ilan Pappe, you've lied about my beliefs about how we should treat Arab states and claimed that I see hamas and other groups as nothing more than Islamists living in caves 'shooting ak47's in the air shouting death to the west'. You've lied about how I believe Palestinians should just sit there and allowed to be killed. You've lied about how I supposedly believe most Palestinians are terrorists.I could go on and on but what's the point.  

This is all just since Saturday btw Alpha, I couldn't be bothered to go back before then.  Simply put you distort, obfuscate, and lie about other people's opinions and the facts when they don't suit your argument. That's not serious discussion, it's not right and it's something you should be called out on. It also renders you utterly pointless to have a genuine discussion with. 

I don't believe I was being condescending but merely explanatory. Then again on an online forum it can be difficult to discern between the two and I'll try to take that into account next time I post. 

25 minutes ago, Alpha said:

So you can't reply to my reasonable response but you can talk about me? 

Talk to me or if not then don't speak about me. What I did was try to bring the debate back to  reasonable with Crewton. Now you have a problem with that too? 

Get on with it or get over it. 

He clearly didn't find it that reasonable given his response. Perhaps the fact that multiple posters are having issues with you suggests you are the problem and not us? 

40 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Well that's a revealing school of thought, though not in the way I sense you intended. If, as you claim, there is almost wholesale support for the systematic slaughter of Palestinians, which the phrase 'very supportive of the war and its execution' unequivocally implies, then perhaps they've no right to whine about the anger of those who find said actions and the support thereof, utterly repugnant. 

I was merely highlighting was Israeli's thought of the war nothing more. I find both sides (there is overwhelming support in Gaza for the October 7th attacks as well) responses depressing in the search for peace. 

29 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Call me whatever you like. ICGAF. It certainly does nothing to change my mind, that's safe to say. The IDF's conduct was genocidal in every sense of the word, as far as I'm concerned and it seems a large proportion of the planet agrees. Even plenty of Israelis. Doubtless you'd label them all racists and / or  antisemites, though plenty seem to be decrying Hamas and the atrocities they committed too, which might suggest otherwise.

Israel went too far too far this time, even by their standards, though one concedes that the provocation was extreme. That's a simple truth that whilst you push your rhetoric around legal thresholds, you have steadfastly failed to acknowledge. As Netanyahu will soon come to realise, as a result of the wholesale slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the eyes of the world will now be very much focussed on any further civilian killings in Gaza. Had Israel's response been remotely proportionate, public opinion might well have differed quite dramatically, but now many of those who were undecided or indifferent, are now anything but and there's no easy fix for that.

 

Genuinely have you read opinion polls of Israeli's because that's not what they say. Israeli's are very critical of Netanyahu but are also very supportive of the war and its execution. 

6 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm not sure how much of what you accuse me of saying I actually said and I haven't got the time or the patience to check. I feel I've added some balance and context to what has largely been a one-sided thread with regard to those two important facets of any discussion. What I've certainly NEVER said is that innocent Palestinians deserve what Israel is currently doing to them. I said right at the outset that I thought Israel's response would be counter-productive in the long term and I stick to that view. I also still hold the view that Iran are the biggest barrier to peace in the region because in Israel there's always the possibility of change, but next to zero chance of that in Iran.

Sometimes you come across as more balanced in your outlook, but many of your posts have, in my view, come across as rambling hate-filled rants, often disrespectful of other knowledgeable posters who hold different views to your own. I don't think that's done you any favours and your reaction to a plea for a less antagonistic thread has regrettably gone the same way.

To paraphrase Mickey Flanagan, I was out, but now I'm out out.

Yeah this is what I've found. If you write something he doesn't like he simply either lies about or ridiculously distorts what you say and interprets what you think in the worst possible light in response. It makes the conversation utterly pointless. Using a term like 'triggered' in that manner also triggers the f*** out of me tbh.

Gutted that I've had to give my tickets up for this. We've hit a bit of form in the league this season so hopefully we can follow it up with a win here. We really need to string 5,6,7 wins together to mount some pressure on the top 2. The game against Rovers didn't sound great so we need to put that right here as well. 

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well we both agree the 53 Coup was wrong then, maybe for different reasons but at least that's a start.  I think all that has been said here is that Iran should have been allowed to continue without the malign influence of the US and UK.  Who knows what may have happened if the West hadn't interfered, it could be a democracy now or it could have regressed into something as bad as exists there now.  The point was, merely, that it grates when Israel is praised in the West for being the only democracy in the region, when the West actively prevented another country in region from having any chance to become a democracy, as well as supporting friendly dictators in the region (against their own populations) whenever expedient. 

I think you are under representing the difficulty in proving genocide. It's always extremely difficult to prove not only that some event happened but also the intent of the perpetrators.  And does it have to be the prime minister, or will a general do? Or a government minister? I accept that a few rogue soldiers is insufficient.  How many successful convictions of genocide have occurred since WWII and how many actual genocides have taken place since then, by your definition of the term?

Here is an interesting article on whether the current situation in Gaza should be classified as a genocide or not. 

https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

I don't really care how the unfolding events are defined, it's not like Netanyahu would ever be convicted for his crimes as the US will have his back regardless.  All I know is what has been happening in Gaza is an atrocity, conducted by a state actor and that's all that really matters.  Needless to say, the attack by Hamas was an atrocity too. 

 

 

I do get that it grates, especially so since the Arab Spring. On genocide it is a high bar to prove it but so it should be. Genocide is the most serious crime of all. It requires policy directed at the highest levels of government/group. I am not an expert in all areas of world politics or anything but when we look at Rwanda and Serbia there are clear examples of genocide that are well known. You can add in China's treatment of the uighurs and tibet, Islamic State, Syria and Iraq and you have a few legitimate claims there as well as well as in Myanmar. There have been a couple of convictions on different incidents I believe, I know there has definitely been 1. 

12 hours ago, Alpha said:

You got me. I'll try to care less. 🤣

There's is no nuanced discussion until Palestinians are considered equal to Israelis. Until Islamophobia is as criminal as Antisemitism. Until the IDF are held to the same standards as Hamas. Until we stop claiming "democracy" has some moral high ground when Israel isn't a democracy for all its population. Until we examine the things said by the Israeli government that definitely have genocidal tones. Until we can hear what all experts are actually saying instead of discrediting the ones we don't want to hear. Even if their point is valid. Whether it be Pappe or Gideon Levy. Historian or journalist. 

Your condescending tone annoyed me. Your support of American foreign policy. The most destabilising nation in my opinion. From WMD lies, Gulf Of Tonkin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... Their world policing has an ulterior motive. There's plenty of experts who will say worse about them. 

I'm totally comfortable with you ignoring me or whatever you said. So add not mentioning me to that if you want 

Oh and your article. "The state of Palestine wouldn't be the utopia... Would give terrorists more freedom. " that was offensive. Palestinians have a right to national security. 

You're dismissive of all ME politics. It's The West way for you. And you'll justify it however it's enforced

I will respond one last time. Your claim that I argue a free Palestine would give terrorists more freedom wipes away the context in which it is situated. You've basically written a calumny against me at this point, and you should apologise for it. I distinctly argue that a free Palestine without adjustment for its social, economic, and political problems would not be a free and stable state. This is not controversial or new to anyone. Indeed, new political entities that come without those adjustments become internally and externally unstable. This does not mean I inherently believe a Palestinian state would be a terrorist state, as you have suggested but the challenges are immense. 

"a free Palestine is not going to be the land of milk and honey that some imagine. It will continue to suffer from poverty and political instability; the rights that its Western supporters demand for citizens will likely not be met. The suffering—and all that comes with it—shall merely continue with a new label, leaving plenty of room for terrorist actors to operate and even grow. This is not to suggest that we should not support a Palestinian state, or recognize how it creates the political space and rights that we in the West would demand of ourselves. Still, how likely is it to really occur?"

"The two-state solution seems further away than ever before but it still remains closer than the tolerable alternatives. To build back the goodwill Israel once enjoyed, it would be prudent—in time—for Israel not only to cease the terror bombing but also to begin a genuine dialogue to create a two-state solution. " 

"The failure to address the Palestinian question in an equitable manner has and continues to drain their moral legitimacy. The United States and others should focus their efforts not on a vain and ultimately futile attempt to destroy a terrorist organisation, but rather on a genuine attempt to build peace." 

I'm also a big fan of Shadi Hamid's work who argues for Arab democracy in the region whether it contains liberalism or not. He's a democratic minimalist and I've had him on my podcast and written two articles for his website. I generally agree with his argument around democratic minimalism and have written and argued for greater support for democracy in the region, even if it comes with policies we do not agree with or like. You basically just label and distort positions you dislike. 

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

It seems to me that you almost support the decision to instigate the coup that removed Mossadegh in '53. If so then we definitely have different perspectives. 

Yeah, absolutely Israel has committed war crimes (as Hamas have). Are their actions better or worse than Assad? It's a needless comparison, suffice to say that Assad is awful in his own right. As for genocide, it's an unhelpful word really, mainly because the UN's  definition is so vague. 'An intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a religious, national or ethnic group' or something along those lines. An intent by whom, the decision maker?, the army that carried it out? individual soldiers? everyone involved? And In whole or in part? How big is a part?  Are 100 people a part? 1,000?  Who knows? So vague, the definition is almost meaningless. To debating what is and what isn't genocide seems like a wasted endeavour to me. And yet we know war crimes when we see them, and we know that Israel have been committing extensive war over the last several weeks.  It even announces them to the world beforehand. 

Orwellian because at a time when Israel was brutally bombarding Gaza, killing literally thousands of children, to be suggesting that the same IDF are some sort of world leader in the exercise of military restraint was just a bizarre moment on the DCFC forum. 

No I don't. I think the decision to support the overthrow of Mossadegh was easily the wrong one. I just also find the idea that lionising Mossadegh as merely an innocent democrat who would have ushered in an era of free elections and constitutionality to Iran very suspect as well. 

The definition leaves plenty of wriggle room, as you say for sure, like almost all international law btw, but given the context of who the UN is dealing with here (state actors) it's much easier to pin down than you make out. Genocide must be a concerted effort institutionally to attempt to annihilate a group of people with some form of systemisation. The reason why the US wasn't seriously accused of genocide in Iraq when individual soldiers committed war crimes is because there was no overarching aim to destroy the Iraqi people. There was no systemised attempt to exterminate them and/or destroy all cultural trace of them. For genocide to stick legally, it cannot be a few rogue soldiers committing terrible acts of violence that much is absolutely obvious. 

I was giving context to claims of genocide being made and the history of warfare. In the context it was perfectly reasonable to make these statements i think. 

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

LeedsRam you show knowledge and balance. I think you have landed on the wrong thread. 

You may well be right but I live in hope... I've had some good discussions but maybe Alpha cares a bit too much to have a nuanced discussion about this with someone who see's things through a slightly different lens.