dvaughanwilliams

Some of the runs that are being criticised for being aimless may have a different purpose, to create space for other players. He starts a run next to the central defender and then moves towards the full back, if the CB goes with him, there's a big gap, if the full back moves infield to mark him there's space on the wing, sometimes both defenders go, sometimes neither. The uncertainty he creates in the defence has really unnerved some teams. The only criticism is that he maybe isn't quite strong enough to hold off defenders. Referees are more lenient in the Championship than I think he is used to. When we play very physical teams, like Wet Spam, he would be ineffective. You wouldn't want him to bulk up to the extent that it compromised his speed though.

In the season we were relegated from the Championship, he had the passing, but nothing else. Since then his tackling has got a lot better and also his decision-making. He has also controlled his temper a lot more, in the past he had a few red cards for silly, petulant kicks at the opposition. He has been the player I have been most worried about losing for the last couple of seasons and really hope we can keep him for at least one season in the Premiership (if we get there). When we have the ball, he is always available for a pass, even when he's being marked. When the defenders break forward, he has the sense to fill in their position. When we don't have the ball he presses and tackles well and doesn't dive in. He doesn't shoot enough, but the one shot he had today wasn't bad. However, if he knows that he doesn't have the composure to finish well, then I would rather he kept possession and found a team mate, than pointlessly blast wide or over. Deserves to get a nomination for player of the season.

First half, he was poor. He doesn't really fit as a winger because he won't try and take on defenders, but would rather play a pass inside to the strikers or to the full back on the overlap. His movement wasn't very good either and didn't close down the opposition as well as he normally does. When we moved to the diamond he played a lot better. In the second half I thought he was one of our best players. He was almost always in space and available to pass to. At least half the times he received the ball he played an instant, first touch pass, most of which seemed to reach their intended recipient. Playing upfront, or just behind the strikers, he looks to be a very effective player. His game is all about retaining possession and playing neat, one-touch passing. If you don't rate these attributes then, you'll never like him. I know people want to see players burst past the full backs or beat them with a trick, but Guly won't do this, maybe this is why he gets stick.

First Half. We played ok for the first 10 minutes and then had a spell of about 20 minutes of being awful. When we switched the formation to the diamond, we started playing a bit better and the goal certainly helped. Second Half. We were a lot better. We had loads of possession and I thought Guly was great. Loads of one touch passes playing other people in. Tadanari Lee was outstanding setting up Lallana's second goal. Had a couple of decent shouts for a penalty and Connolly looked lively until he got clattered by their keeper when through on goal. That incident caused some discussion about whether it should have been a penalty. I thought it wasn't as the keeper got the ball first then followed through on Connolly, others disagreed, would be interested to see what people sat in the Northam thought. Lambert had a quiet game, but I was surprised when he came off.

The principle problem that I see for public services is the difficulty in defining success. In a private company it is easy to measure by turnover, net profit, profit margin, EBITDA or whatever. However, how do you measure success for the army? Setting targets in the NHS lead to perverse behaviour in order to meet targets without necessarily improving the experience of patients. Like capping waiting lists resulting in people not being added to the list, but still waiting. Equally, the most efficient use of money might be preventative. Spending a particular sum of money in benefits, say, might result in fewer people committing crimes, but it would be difficult to prove the correlation, let alone the causation of this. So it is easier, politically, to spend the money on catching and locking up criminals, than preventing crimes. The first is measurable and the second is not. The problem is the second is better for society. To answer your point about transport and logistics, the reason that money isn't being spent here is that it is expensive, but few voters care. The papers focused on soldiers having a lack of body armour and the vehicles used in combat, so this is where the money was spent. Overall, the government wants to reduce spending on defence, but this isn't easy. Probably the best way to do it would be to reduce the number of senior ranking officers, where we almost certainly have too many. I can't see this being suggested to ministers and it would be bitterly opposed by the people who stand to lose the most. Defence procurement has a terrible reputation for poor negotiation. Think about the aircraft carrier that we are getting built because cancelling the contract would have cost more than building it then immediately scrapping it. There isn't much competition in the industry so the manufacturers get away with it. Also it would be very embarrassing for a government to get too much of the stuff built abroad by foreign firms, further reducing the number of potential suppliers. However, for all the criticism of state run services, I would remind you that in health all of the countries with the best outcomes per £ spent are state run, especially when compared to the US which has worse life expectancy at a higher cost.

I deeply regret reading this thread. I had vaguely heard about that Ukrainian video and after reading a couple of the comments and the Wiki article, know more about it than I ever want to. In part, I think that threads like this on forums across the internet contribute to incidents in the OP. By people being aware of these videos and watching them, it may de-sensitise them or encourage them to do something awful. By having a thread like this, even for the purpose of criticising, it just publicises the existence of disgusting material. I know that people who want to find terrible material will find a way of getting their hands on it, but we don't need to advertise its existence.

After Ipswich had a spell of good possession in the second half, I think we switched formation to the diamond in midfield. Guly may have then had too much discipline to the formation, playing narrow in midfield and being pushed back when their winger had the ball. It stopped us from being overrun in midfield from their 4-5-1 formation, but didn't suit the players we had on the pitch, in my opinion.

I only had one experience trying to make fudge. I burned it. Then I made the fatal mistake, put it under the cold tap to wash out the saucepan. Had to chuck the saucepan and buy a new one. The 'fudge' was like concrete.

I could ramble on about the impossibility of proving a counter-factual statement, but for some reason, this doesn't seem the place to do it.

I think you need to be a bit more specific about what you're complaining about. Do you dislike that particular song? Do you think it's inappropriate? Should we sit in silence and only applaud politely? I don't like the fact that there are too many anti-Portsmouth songs. I would much rather we focused on songs about our own club and our own players. But as gammon cheeks says any sing ing is better than no singing. If you have suggestions about alternatives, I'd love to hear them.

I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else. We do need to keep perspective and not use too much hyperbole, but there is still a place for reasonable debate about who should or shouldn't be in the team and their performances on the pitch. I certainly think that some of the language to describe the performances of Harding and Guly is a bit over the top.

The difference now is the option that Lee gives us for the ball over the top for him to run on to. It's not pretty, but it was very effective at winning possession in attacking positions. Also De Ridder, when he came on, was the perfect player to run in behind their defence. I'm not suggesting that the long ball should be our preferred playing style, but it is the best way to counteract a high line. Used appropriately, we have the players to exploit it.

Lee has played well recently. He hasn't had a lot of shooting opportunities, apart from the wonderful goal he scored. His link up play is very good. His main weakness appears to be his strength on the ball. I don't know what Barnsley's defence is like: if they're fouling ogres, I'd play Sharp as he can hold the ball up well and you can't doubt his strength; if they play a relatively high line I'd play Lee, who got a lot of joy running in behind Ipswich's defence.

I agree with most of your ratings except the comment on Harding. In the first half Harding played some wonderful balls for Lallana to run on to. Second half he was pretty poor, though.

Guly played OK in the first half, with a header going narrowly wide and some decent closing down, but ran out of steam early in the second half. His second half performance was woeful and he was looking at the bench after about 10 minutes. Tadanari Lee had a good first half, using his pace to get in behind their defence. He did go down a bit easily under some challenges. No good shooting opportunities, but excellent link up play. Lallana had a couple of absolute sitters that he didn't put away in the first half. De Ridder was very good when he came on. After the goal that he set up he put in another good cross a couple of minutes later. His passing, movement and end result have all improved IMO. I think he deserves a start against Barnsley on the basis of the impact he made in the game. Hammond was disappointing. His energy was good and he won the ball, but his passing wasn't great. We were dominant for most of the first half, but Ipswich did have a couple of decent chances. In the second half, Ipswich had a lot more possession, winning the midfield battle, so we switched to the diamond formation with Hammond on the left, Guly on the right, Lallana at the point and Schneiderlin at the base. It left us narrow and Guly was often in a poor position to close down their full back as a result. Davis pulled off a magnificent save from a header that kept it 0-0. Then Lambert's goal from a great cross from De Ridder. Ipswich started getting a bit more success from their "hoof and scrap" approach, especially when Scotland got on the end of it. Their goal had an element of luck with Scotland getting hold of a hopeful ball, Schneiderlin slipped and then the shot went in off a deflection. Not enough time to get a second. Overall, disappointed because we could have been out of sight after the first half. Also when we were leading we should have closed the game out. Still, 1 point is better than none.

I thought that KD remains club captain, but Pardew decided that he wouldn't be captain on the pitch and that has continued. I'm not sure how important the captaincy is. Fonte seems to do alright at it, Richardson was captain at Leeds and there are a lot of other leaders on the pitch; when things need saying Lambert and Lallana don't hold back at expressing their opinions too. Can't see Jos and Fox as shrinking violets either.

Chaplow and Puncheon not even in the squad? Need a rest, injuries or just dropped? No surprise about Cork being replaced by Hammond, he hasn't been playing to his normal high standard recently and could probably do with a bit of bench time for encouragement. I think Ipswich will make the mistake of trying to play passing football against us and push forward. This might leave some gaps in the midfield for Guly to play through balls for Lee to run on to and space for Lallana and Lambert to cause their usual havoc. Feeling confident. 2-0.

I'd be happy with a draw and both teams finishing with 9 men. And lots of injuries to key players.

see: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?35781-Guly-watch Some people like the way he plays, others don't. You don't. I do. He's good at 1 touch passing and finding through balls for players in space. His workrate is a lot higher than some people give him credit for, he actually does a lot of chasing down. However, he doesn't have pace with the ball and doesn't take defenders on. On the bench IMO.

Gaydamak is owed £2.5m, but is secured against PPs. Chainrai is also secured. In AA's CVA vote, the football creditors were allowed to vote, even though they would not be affected by the outcome, another £7-10m. There are going to be trade creditors, such as the Electricity Co, but that will probably add up to a relatively minor sum. If the CVA officially fails, then the creditors can pursue for the original amount. In the re-negotiation, they are going to be leaned on pretty heavily not to pursue their full rights, by being threatened with getting nothing. The overwhelming problem, beyond getting a CVA approved, is the running costs. They either have to increase income substantially, by getting more people in () or charging more or slash costs, which they can't do because of the long contracts and football creditors rule. From: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-bemoans-pompey-crippling-player-wage-bill-1-3591128?commentssort=1&commentspage=0 "What we are attempting to do"? Would that be rewriting players contracts?

Telephone preference service will stop anyone in the EU from calling you. It's also illegal for anyone in the EU to pass your details outside of the EU under the Data Protection Act. However, if an overseas call centre gets your number, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Especially the calls about 'a virus on your computer' which are from conmen who will then direct you to a site that will install a virus on your machine that you need to pay them to remove. I can't understand how some of the companies stay in business though. I would never buy anything from any of these callers and I can't imagine anyone that would.

Personally, I would play Lee up front and continue to have Sharp on the bench. When Sharp has played, he has been excellent at holding the ball up and laying off passes to the midfield, but hasn't been able to get many shooting opportunities. Leaving him out of the team will make him hungry for game time, but also relieve some of the pressure on him associated with a (relatively) big transfer fee by being out of the limelight. Until Lee is injured, or has a bad performance, he deserves his place in the team. When he has had a chance in the team he has made an impact and carried on in the same way when he's started. When Sharp gets his next chance, he'll have to make sure he makes the best of the opportunity and gives Nigel a selection headache. Davis Richardson--Fonte--Hooiveld--Harding (if Fox injured) Chaplow--Schneiderlin--Cork--Lallana Lambert--Lee If no Lallana, I'd play Puncheon or Guly in a diamond midfield.

When the news first broke to say that Lee Holmes was off to Oxford, a lot of people commented that they were surprised that he had dropped down to League 2. I'm not surprised that he is impressing at that level because I think he's better than that league. I think that there are a lot of characteristics to admire in Lee Holmes, his application, his patience, the work he does away from football, etc. Because of this, I am inclined to give him more credit than he deserves, but consider that he has done OK on the few times he's played, given his lack of match fitness by being little more than a bit part player. I feel sorry for him and Ryan Dickson, who never got over giving the ball away for ManU's second goal in the FA Cup because they both have ability, but never quite did enough to convince Nigel to give them more game time. I think Lee Holmes' contract is up at the end of the season and I can't see us extending his stay.

If Chainrai does buy the club, I wonder if he's prepared to wave more money goodbye and chuck it into fiscal black hole of Nottarf Krap? Or will he continue with the austerity approach and keep on shipping out players until the club breaks even? Liquidation isn't in his interest, but blowing £1m a month for the pleasure of owning a soon to be relegated football club isn't either. Also, would he actually be 'buying' the club or merely seizing the assets that his debt is secured on? There would still need to be a CVA to negate the need for him to put his hand in his pocket to pay off the unsecured creditors.

From the home games that he's played, I've been very impressed with his movement. He is always looking to make a run in behind the defenders, but I was a little frustrated that the midfield or full backs weren't passing to him. I think that this contributes to people under rating him. When the other players get to know the kind of runs that he wants to make and understand the angle and weight of pass that will best pick out these runs, he will then suddenly look like a much better player, even though he won't have changed anything. It might not be until next season, after a full pre-season with the squad. Also having him playing on the shoulder of the defenders allows Lambert to drop deep to pick up the ball in space and allow players like Lallana and Guly to play between the opposition's midfield and defence.