egg

This.

watch it again. Exposed by midfield.

Shocking decision by Lallana. Got out of position and dived into a tackle leaving men over down the left.

Yep. Great touch but poor decision making. Just played Fox into trouble again.

We're panicking at 0-0! Mental.

Quite. Any LB would look poor in this system and playing behind Lallana.

Not tonight so far. Lallana exposing him and horrible distribution from just about everyone dropping him in the sh:t.

Sheffield Wednesday. My Dad's team and my first football experiences were spent on the Hillsborough kop. Would love to see them back in the bigtime.

You don't have to be convicted of a crime to have done something. Many guilty people were lucky enough to be found 'not guilty' in a criminal court but were found to have been guilty by a civil court/tribunal. Oj Simpson, John Terry etc. The victims will try to bring a damages claim against the estate. They won't have it easy though as the allegations all appear to be statute barred.

What planet are you on? NC won't judge the player. He'll ask football men if the player is decent and an improvement. He'll then approve the signing , or not, based on information received and the financial aspect.

Which one person carries the can for recruitment if not the man in charge of recruitment?

So NC makes the ultimate football decisions as well as the fiscal ones? Don't think so.

Rubber stamp/sign the cheque = same thing. If Reed (as the recruitment main man) shouldn't be blamed for putting forward the signings to be rubber stamped, who should?

Oh ffs. You're banging on about formation generally. I'm talking recruitment. Simply, some dingbat decided to play 433 but we recruited a shedload of players that didn't suit that formation. What we do with these players now is a different subject.

No doubt he ultimately authorises the signing of the cheque. That's different to deciding which player is best.

We ain't got the players for 433. Our middle 3 don't pull wide to cover the full backs. Our wide forwards the same. Our fall backs aren't good enough, or pacey enough, to deal with being left one on one. Other than that are players suit the system perfectly.

Because I don't believe it works in that way. Unlike you, I believe the man at the helm of recruitment makes recruitment decisions.

Glad it was quoted before being edited.

No.

I was responding to the suggestion that NA wants the 433. Simply, if that's the case, he's been given the wrong players by recruitment. That's Reed department.

So we agree NA isn't at fault for recruitment. Good to hear. It's clear to me from all the links that Reed is the recruitment boss. I'd hazard a guess that Mitchell is one of his staff.

What's all this maths dept nonsense? Scools and football clubs are different. Football clubs are ultimately judged on the results produced by players, and schools by pupils. Footy clubs buy their players, schools don't buy their pupils. The maths analogy is almost as bad as our recruitment.

So of NA wants the 433 how can it be his fault that he ain't got the players for the system and been given loads of central strikers instead? Perhaps the recruitment men messed up.. .

That is not a sensible balance. It's top heavy on attackers, and weak on quality defenders. The bottom line is we have a squad that struggled at times last season and has been outclassed this season. The recruitment man must carry the can, not the fella who has to make something from the wrong parts. As for contracts you omit Barnard and Butterfield amongst others. Only an idiot would have given those extensions.

Eh? I don't give a bollo@s about apparent agendas. I simply think Reed has performed poorly on recruitment and NA is the fall guy.