BarberSaint

It'll be FUN

They're a very poor outfit. 3-0 to us because they can't score goals and if DCL is the focus for their attack then they'll be slow and predictable, which we like. Ashley Young to foul every time he goes near the ball and possibly to dive a lot. Perhaps even together. They travel badly. Don't we usually do well the game after we win in the League Cup (insert sponsor somewhere)? Wolves will be much harder as they'll keep the ball and we'll be confused as to what to do. The crowd will be as energetic as it always is with all those muppets (sorry, "Uber Fans") who like to film the whole game on their phone so they can then post on Utub a video for their mam and pa to marvel at, on a high at how clean their seats are. There will be a commentator who hates us, several who don't know a thing about us but understand we once had Theo Walcott play for us and we're not Arsenal, a referee who'll make it up as he goes along and VAR who will either try to get involved to make the game interesting - Ooh! Controversy! - or will be watching the darts and then just pick something up to show how busy they are. There will be warm beer, cold hotdogs and a lot of grumbling after the game. No one will put it in the mixer - health and safety.

9Pepe Guardiola: "Attack is the best form of Defence" Russell Martin: "Aha! Defence is the best form of Attack!!!" (That'll learn 'em)

Hmmm Thank you for not reading the third sentence. Added just because ... I do hope you mark homework better than you post.

I'm interested in the 10 year plan. Martin has a three year contract, why not ten if he's not part of the plan? For those who already have, don't take that at face value. Martin's way of playing is contingent on good players. It doesn't work with crap ones and he doesn't get more out of a group than the sum of its parts. They also can't defend in that a lot of goals are given away. If the club goes down it loses its good/better players and has to find ones who are good at the level below, but not the top tier e.g. (but almost certainly not) Wood. Promotion is then achieved and better players are required. They usually cost a lot of money and you'd probably need a good spine, say six, in order to stay up and be competitive if we're going to play "keep ball but don't shoot". Without staying up and there being a chance to build then the cycle simply resets itself again and again. So unless this is an accounting exercise as someone has already suggested then there effectively is no 'plan' other than to cross your fingers/legs and hope. If there is a plan and it's related to football, then it must involve staying in the top division because the financial and footballing advantages of that far outweigh any other option; it's not quite a members-only club yet, but it's getting that way i.e. it does to all intents and purposes mirror the American Football leagues and that's without next year's intervention of 'pitch side interviews' - wonder where that idea came from and how many clubs are owned by parties with heavy American interests or non-English owners? So I do wonder if the ten year plan is yet more guff like the five pledges and what it involves and how it includes Martin. There's a lot more to consider e.g. youth development, infrastructure, new stadium, 'growing the fan base' all the other stuff that gets rolled out but where it's key is if those who drafted the plan are confident that in ten years' time the club will be where they want it to be and if they think it will then they'll keep Martin because that's all part of the master plan. As we're probably talking RA here, what that plan is is anyone's guess.

My thought was that had Haaland not scored then Bednarek had clearly fouled him and DGSO they'd have had a penalty and we'd have had another red. Yes ,they kind of coasted; I think after the goal and a while they just switched off a bit. The Man City fans said at times it was like watching them play but with shit players and no intention of attacking which about sums it up. They don't seem to like teams who set up to defend and perhaps snatch a goal, bit like Jose Mourinho's rant against West Ham's "15th century football" or whatever he said. They also said their press was half-arsed and that they were wasteful in front of goal. I don't see the likes of Liverpool being so generous to us as, unlike Manchester City, they have a proper killer instinct; City are a bit lazy in that regard. Also other teams will press harder and better and we can either persist with 5 at the back and look for breakaway goals, which I think are very unlikely to occur frequently, or we can look to attack more and our well-known defensive frailties will open us up and then we'll probably be chasing a game or a win. So we really seem to have a choice of 'more of the same' but allowing for the fact that other teams won't be as generous as MC. Overall, do we look like a decent team that's not quite there, just like under Adkins? i don't think we do but i think we could and could get enough points to stay up. That's probably not in the 10 year plan though. Whatever that is.

Well we know he likes the KWP/Manning combo so it'll be Capn Jack on the bench to start and then: Ramsdale Sugawara Janny B Harwood-Bellis KWP Downes Manning Dibling Aribo Fernandes Archer Subs - a number of people

1-1.

We will win 75-0 and Pep will retire hailing the genius that is RM. Man City will appoint Mousinho in Pep's place.

iI hope everyone agrees that trying to stay up is the best option as doing so gives us greater certainty and probably financial stability. Otherwise we should get rid of the remaining lot from the season before last and probably our better options and we're almost certainly going to have to expect the playoffs as our best way up and then we'll be in the same situation as we are now although we may have more money to spend overall. I see no reason to keep Martin if we do go down. His record will be of relegation and there's nothing to show that he'll suddenly become a good manager and do well with what is likely to be an even weaker squad, assuming we again come back up. He's shown what he's about and it's nothing. I think if we're in the mire in January that making as much money as possible is the sensible thing to do. I wonder if the owners are going to seek other investment. Nothing suggests they are e.g the loan on assets and I don't see what they'll do. I'm not sure they have any idea, either. I think we just stumble on.

No one. It was a smokescreen to divert attention away from it having happened before and the loss of a two-nil lead.

Strikes me there are too many people who think Solak is like them. He isn't. He isn't a fan either. He likes golf and presumably there's a use for the club. He has a 33% stake in his old company which grew from local to very big quite quickly - I wonder how (it was funded)? He seems to want to be Rupert Murdoch. I can see his interest in Turkey as a market, but can't see any reason to take an interest in SR either as an investment vehicle or a vanity project unless he wants to help out RA with his assumed wealth of $5m or thereabouts unless getting into football gets you connections in other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragan_Šolak_(businessman) https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/how-gino-pozzo-transformed-watford-fc-football-club/ https://portasconsulting.com/insights/multi-club-ownership-the-questions-facing-european-football/ https://footballtoday.com/multi-club-owners/ https://footballtoday.com/multi-club-owners/ https://www.sportcal.com/features/multi-club-ownership-the-roots-opportunities-and-challenges-of-the-accelerating-trend/?cf-view https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/how-rich-the-southampton-fc-owners-are-compared-to-the-championships-wealthiest-clubs/ Can't see much interest in the multi-club model although the Americans are taking over the PL so presume we'll be sold more crap so maybe he wants to use it as a vehicle to network with them or move money to the UK or ... ? Can see no sporting interest there and think his and RA's interests aren't completely aligned. Wouldn't be surprised if he's using RA rather than the other way round. Kraft apparently has about £2bn and a background in telecoms. I believe he also was involved in Solak's group, United. Solak is apparently interested in politics, but doesn't appear to want to be one so he'll know a number that he can get on with, just like everywhere. I can see no reason to show any interest in VAFC; having read their history they seem a bit like us, but not a club I can ever see being anything much given the dominance of PSG and to some extent Monaco and the now, richer and more established clubs. I don't see the French football market as, for a long while at least, being able to be as commercialised as the EPL and there are no obvious reasons to have them (all this crap about copying Red Bull's ideas and having one scouting network just means there's a bit of money to be shaved off the cost base, but it's not going to generate large returns). Kraft is their President. Strikes me as an interesting, but odd diversion from telecoms to footy unless somehow the Murdoch model of Sky is to be copied but what other countries are going to garner mass viewership and be able to compete with the "product" that is the EPL?

And an unmentionable lot won a game. Still going back down though.

I agree that he can't read a game and make proper tactical decisions. I suppose in part that's due to having a philosophical straitjacket.

The vegan option. With snake oil and vape to go.

Think a lot of us did similar. Also wall ball with your weak foot moving towards the wall so it came back faster and faster and shifting between your feet and both sides of your feet and taking balls at different heights, etc. Experimenting, really. We did also play multiple ages so 9 year olds with 16 year olds. I suppose size might have something to do with it but when you tried and shoulder-charge an older lad, you'd just bounce off but in a restricted area e.g. 5 a side pitch that tends to lessen the effect of physical size.

Didn't the Dutch invent total football? And actually make it work.

Like we did under Ralph for a while? I'd put AA against him. Quick off the shoulder so plays to JV's weakness, or one of them, tenacious and will keep his engery. He can defend from the front and then attack as well. I think all Leicester's CBs are slow. Keep the ball away from Vardy cause he's quick and our CBs aren't and their manager is slow to react, defensive and not very good. 2-2 draw or we'll win.

I don't know why people thought his concentration would improve over time. If anything, the opposite was likely to happen. That's the kind of thing you address early to make it go away or it'll stick. Serious, no? Nor was I. Last I looked mean, median and mode were still 'averages' though.

I see nothing great about Potter although it's clear he thinks he's great. He won't lower himself to us and I wouldn't want him to. Let's drag out the old favourite: Will Still.

I can just see the perfect candidate now: wind-swept, flowing locks, a beard of manly yet not over the top character, a philosophy to thrill and a WAG in tow. Or maybe just a PE teacher from somewhere west.

The mean average number of points we'll get this season over 38 league games. HTH.

Currently we seem to be on course for one goal scored every two games and two goals conceded every game = 19-76= -57 which is about right. But going like that I really can see us not getting a win or possibly a majestic two wins all season. Games I think we might win are Everton at home because they travel poorly and they're crap and a home fluke against a poor side e.g. Ipswich, but obviously not Ipswich. I'll say Crystal Palace. Someone like Liverpool might manage 5 against us because they have a Dutch manager who won't be sympathetic to our plight.

Arse nil aren't the kind of team that would go all out. They'll get to about 2-0, ease off mentally. Get one or two more and then coast. They'll end up 3rd or 4th because of that mentality and won't win anything. I reckon we can get a goal so it'll be about 3-1 to them.

I don't understand these arguments: "He got us up> he deserves a chance> he's crap> he'll bring us back up> he'll be brilliant (next time) because he'll 'learn'. There's no evidence for that. He's not good enough so we'll stick with him (because that's then guaranteed failure, whereas the unknown is then a greater chance of another result albeit slim) "He's not Nathan Jones." Yup. We know he's not good enough so the only reason to keep him is financial. Ankersen's loaded so he can pay him and his team off and acknowledge it's all part of his master plan. Then make the money back on his next book before his next TED talk: "The Goldmine effect two: how to get stupid people to buy into stupid ideas, which is why you're all here listening to me".