mrfahaji

Wow, nothing wrong with being a fan of Claude but this is really something. To the extent that I'd assume you were trolling if it weren't for your pro-Puel history!

Normally you find that they include the Arsenal 5-0 defeat but don't include any others.

Even though Turkish and Saint Benali (amongst others) write conflicting things, I find myself agreeing with parts of both. Puel set us up to be difficult to beat, perhaps because he felt our players weren't good enough to play an open game. But for the most part, we were difficult to break down. The fact that there were games where we played well, admittedly mostly away from home, made me think that there was hope for improvement and that perhaps Puel was trying to get us to be better as a counter attacking force, albeit unsuccessfully. Contrast that with Pellegrino who set us up to be hard to beat but ultimately failed even in that. The reason I still want to wait before deciding on Hughes is that there are some positives in terms of our attacking play. His defensive coaching was questionable before he arrived and there hasn't been much evidence to suggest otherwise since he has been here, but at least it feels like we might try and score from time to time. Next 4 games against Wolves, Chelsea, Bournemouth & Newcastle should give a good picture. The continued omission of Yoshida is one decision I am bemused about - I don't hate Hoedt like many do, but I just think Yoshida would make a better foil for Vestergaard.

Looks like the only option is to have stripes with a little panel for the numbers. I think that looks a bit naff, and probably why teams have gone for plain backs instead. Having said that, it looks like being the only alternative. Either that or maybe UEFA are trying to phase out stripes/hoops/checks altogether. Given that United, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea would be unaffected by such a rule I wouldn't be surprised if the PL suggest it.

Definitely not the only one. You and probably 15,000 others I imagine! (including me)

I'm not convinced about Hughes yet, but just my take on those specific points. I realise that "being better than Pellegrino" shouldn't be a yardstick, but on some of the points you make that comparison so I have too.

Forgot about that one, good choice!

Ah right ok. Fair enough.

Really? Why those three?

Being an instagram 'influencer' is an actual thing though, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, the whole idea of them makes me sick, but she's not necessarily claiming to be something she's not. Unless it's the sort of thing that you just because you are one, doesn't mean you have to label yourself... Nevertheless, I agree that anyone who is, wants to be, or a claims to be one is stupid. And probably rich for doing fck all, which makes it all the more nauseating.

These three for me. Two other Pahars goals stand out - away at Old Trafford after the Stam nutmeg and his goal against Pompey. I'd be tempted to stick Beattie's opener/winner in Hoddle's first game back as Spurs manager too. In terms of celebrations away from the ground, I remember going a bit mental in a pub when Viafara equalised against Derby in the playoffs. I don't normally watch football in the pub, but had gone there after work with some colleagues and a minute or two earlier had had to endure a few Derby fans celebrating their goal.

I'm usually quite understanding of handball, so struggling to see that some people thought it wasn't deliberate. Perhaps 'instinctive' rather than planned cheating, but Wan-Bissaka clearly brought his arm down as an attempt to stop the ball. Even his hand was in a position where it looks like he is trying to block/catch the ball. As for the double jeopardy, I thought the rule was if it is an accidental foul (but a foul nonetheless), then the player is spared a red. Not just because it is a penalty. So if you deliberately hack someone down in the box, you still get a red card. Since handball has to be a deliberate action (I think?), the only way it could be a yellow and not a red is if it wasn't preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity. The fact that the ball was going in when Bissaka saved it suggests to me that it could have been a red. The only argument you could make is that the ball was travelling slowly enough that Hennessey would have saved it. I don't know how the rules interpret that situation.

I think you are wrong on this. Most of the talk was whether we would be signing a new goalkeeper, either to replace Forster, or at the very least offer some competition. Then there was news of a "goalkeeper signing", only for it to be Forster getting a 5 year deal. I was astonished, as were a lot of people. I have long thought that Les Reed tried to be clever, as despite Forster playing pretty badly, he had still recently been in the England squad, and had had a few noticable moments (eg penalty save at Anfield). By offering him a new contract, we were signalling that he must be great, and at the same time ensuring that we got a big transfer fee. The reason I have this theory is that it is the only reason I can possibly see for the new contract. Of course, where such a plan falls down is that other clubs could just watch him in action and realise he was rubbish.

We can ill afford to have them? I thought you were going to say that because they offer different things, we can ill afford to not have them both!

He wasn't questioning your English, he was helpfully pointing out a mistake so that you will know in future

Do you think there might also be a case of the players mentality changing, and with it losing the key thing that makes them so good? Last two seasons they were "Burnley - favourites for the drop, with no good players", yet they were the embodiment of a team because they had to be. Now, they are "Burnley - who qualified for Europe last year", and maybe the players no longer see themselves as pure grafters. I could be wrong, but I think it happens to a lot of teams, us included (not just recently, but even under Strachan when we got up to 4th only to collapse), and the levels of quality in the PL are so marginal that a slight change in mentality can be the difference.

They are certainly the team that continue to defy my expectations. I have heard their director (might be Scott Duxbury) speak about how they do have well laid plans, even if it doesn't appear so from the outside, but despite that I'm always sceptical. And yet, they always do ok. This year I looked at their squad, and the manager who didn't do brilliantly last season and who felt a bit of a sudden, left-field appointment when Silva left, and yet here they are, four wins from four matches!

More that I/we don't have faith in the club being successful with an unusual appointment, added to the fact that given our position in the table, player quality and lack of support/commitment from the owners, we are not likely to attract anything more than average or unproven managers right now anyway. I think most people found the appointment of Hughes in the first place "uninspiring but probably the only option", and since then have changd to "he's made some improvements, so better the devil you know". I get that you think that somewhere along the line there are/were better options that also weren't risky, but for the reasons above you can see why people accept Hughes for the time being and are prepared to give him more time.

I eventually lost patience with him as England boss, but I've always liked Hodgson.

UJ had been resolute in his concern about Hughes. It doesn’t matter, even if you don’t agree, he at least has his reasons. Even starting this thread after 3 games, while it seems ridiculous, is at least consistent with his concerns. However, I don’t think this thread should be bumped after every match, by the pro-Hughes after a win or anti-Hughes after a defeat. It’s predictable but also pointless. Let’s wait until we have 8-10 games on the board, and have a better idea of what kind of season we are in for.

I didn't think Hojbjerg was great in the first half. Gradually improved second half and was superb for the last half an hour, I'm guessing that is why people think he was MoM (as well as the well taken goal to seal victory). I thought most players played well to be honest when we were under the cosh - certainly felt like they were all putting themselves on the line. There was of course the inevitable terrible Hoedt clearance, dodgy Cedric header thrown in, and a few other hairy moments but more good than bad. Not sure we would have won if Zaha had played. I wasn't convinced of the line up but given we played well and deservedly led, not sure you can complain about Hughes (though some people will). Long injury couldn't be helped, but if the plan is to have your two strikers chase the ball and stretch the game, you know eventually they will tire, so strange to only have Austin on the bench (the less said of his performance the better). So the choice of substitutes can be rightly criticised, in my opinion.

Zero to Hero for Hojbjerg, stayed composed. Good awareness from Targett. But superb from Hoedt, instead of hoofing it clear, had the composure and presence of mind to start a break.

The Long was a problem not just because he gave us an option, but also because Ings had put in a tireless shift and was looking knackered. He probably would’ve come off first but obviously couldn’t once Long went off.

Yeah, was thinking Forster might have saved it but probably pushed it back into the danger area.

Think it’s driven by the opposition. At 0-0 both teams are a bit cautious, but at 0-1 the other team has to go for it. They start to, the crowd get behind them, which encourages them, and we start panicking and dropping deeper.