mrfahaji

You might be right, but this is rather sympomatic of every Brexit argument - there's a genuine risk that something bad could happen but there is confidence without knowledge or information that it won't. In some cases, that confidence might be vindicated, but not for everything. If the response to every piece of expert analysis is "but they've been wrong before" or "but it might not happen", then you may as well not try to be informed about anything. At least if we make the wrong choice in a general election there's chance to put it right in a few years time. And why are we actually taking all these risks? What is so wrong with our current situation that we need this upheaval? It was originally inspired by the anti-immigration sentiment, but that doesn't even seem to be the main focus anymore.

You're right that in the campaigning Remain went overboard with the negatives, which played into the hands of the opposition, but while all these things haven't happened (yet) and some of it not as bad as claimed (yet), I think it's incorrect to say that none of it has happened, that the experts were totally wrong, and we're actually on the up since voting to leave. Just out of interest, what will be the positive things about us leaving the EU without a deal? Or even with a deal? I'm sure there are some, but most of the comments I see from Leavers are either knocking away warnings as "negative and project fear" or using emotive language about the good old days.

As somebody who is currently attending the hospital for my wife's cancer treatment, the doctors have told us that after Brexit they simply don't know what the situation will be for the medication. Obviously there is a possibility that it will all be fine, but I'm sure you can appreciate that the risk of it maybe not being fine is not really a scenario that bears thinking about, so it's quite frustrating to read people's opinions like this when actually you don't know one way or or the other. Hospitals have been instructed not to stockpile drugs, so if there is a hold up due to whatever bureaucratic reason (and also, pharmaceutical companies are still profit motivated and don't do things out of sheer kindness), the risk of running out of crucial medication is a real one.

Unfortunately that's assuming even a small percentage of people (especially leavers) will actually read it. Or in some cases, even care. They are far more likely to read the headline and then listen to Farage saying it's more project fear.

Which is a reflection of how we ended up in this mess in the first place, if you consider that the referendum was only really called to appease the more extreme in the Tory party and to prevent ending up in another coalition. It's pretty depressing, no matter which side of the fence you are, how the fate of our country is at the mercy of people putting their party, but in some cases (Corbyn!) not even their party, ahead of their country at this crucial time.

Not sure if that's sarcasm... but a lot of the criticism - and probably the reason Remain lost - before the referendum was that of 'project fear', which if nothing else was warnings that this kind of thing could happen! One thing that seemed pretty obvious to me was that the EU wouldn't allow us to leave with a great deal, despite claims from Brexiteers that "they'd only hurt themselves". Purely from a political point of view, if they allowed UK to leave and cherry pick what parts of the arrangement they liked, then everyone would do that!

Yep, at first it's almost funny, and then you realise that there were and still are people who think that way and in those terms.

I’ve been working for 15 years, so perhaps I missed the bad years... but if the last 15 years have been good that’s more relevant, right? I understand the feeling that the government messed up the negotiations, but they did, not sure how that can be rescued or changed now.

I definitely should have taken heed of the 'enter at your own risk' part of the thread title.

So you think leaving the EU with no deal is either not a problem or not likely? Because while you are right that a lot of people clamouring for a second referendum ultimately want us to stay, the main gripe is that we have gone from a very marginal vote to leave based on claims that "of course the EU won't want us to leave without a deal" to a very real prospect of not having one, so that is clearly not the same situation. If you have endured the EU for over 40 years (what exactly have we 'endured' though? I've long thought the issues of this country are to do with our own government decisions rather than the EU...) then that suggests you are close to (or in) retirement and therefore aren't facing the challenge of building a career or bringing up a family. In some ways, I guess that's a win for you, so well done.

If it was a 2-year EU membership we were voting on then fine, but this is supposedly a decision that can be changed. So don't see how it's possible to implement the result and then call a second one... IF the majority of people, seeing what leaving actually means, now wish to remain - and I'm not claiming they do - isn't it better that we do so? It seems to be the equivalent of signing up for a bungee jump, getting to the top and seeing the ropes aren't in the condition you'd like them to be, and when you say that you've changed your mind, being told you have to jump anyway!

Precisely. I'm really not sure what the outcome of a second referendum would be, but at least people wouldn't be under the impression that leaving would be painless and immediately better. Plus the one thing a second referendum isn't is undemocratic. If everyone feels exactly the same then result stands, if they don't then surely it's a good thing we checked?! Unfortunately the main thing to come out of this is that roughly half the population will feel let down by and angry towards the other half regardless of how it ends up, and I struggle to see how that rift will ever be healed.

We spent all that money and didn't even end up with the best player called Elyounoussi

At this point Cedric is still backing off. I'm not saying he should have dived in straight away, but the moment the striker is going to have a clear decent shot on goal (i.e. from 15 yards rather than 25) that has to be the priority. Most likely the ball is going into the blue area for Mata. Sure, he might score from there, or he might put over a perfect cross for a simple tap in, but surely at this point in time the preference is for the ball to end up in the blue than the yellow. As I said before, I don't think Cedric is wholly to blame, and I can understand why he backed off, but to exonerate him completely is equally odd.

Similar to me, I had 3:50 left on the clock. Can't really claim that there was any skill with reference to Beattie though - I basically just named all the clubs I could think of! Helped that with 1 left - the last one on the list - I noticed they were in alphabetical order...

It's true that Cedric was outnumbered and left without any help. But the idea that he wasn't to blame at all is quite ridiculous. I understand why he didn't want to commit to a challenge on James, as a full back you know as soon as you do that he's just going to slot in the other player. However, if Mata gets played in he has time to pick out a good cross, if James is allowed to cut in, he has a free shot on goal. Which is worse? Had the ball been 5-10 yards further out then Cedric probably did the right thing, because you are restricting someone to a speculative effort, but James is well inside the penalty area at this point. Granted it was still a great hit but it's still a good position for a forward. Cedric always starts backing off way too early and leaves far too much space - so much so that even if Mata got the pass, he would still get a cross in. It's also pretty poor to do that back-shuffle thing (remember someone doing it when Costa scored for Chelsea a couple of years ago).

Yep. The likes of Hoedt, Clasie and even Elyounoussi are ones which were the right type of signing but make you question the competence of those making the assessment. Carrillo and giving Forster a new contract were both decisions which were met instantly with a mixture of disbelief and concern from nearly everyone, that’s why they stand out as the worst decisions.

Yeah, I thought the same. Wan-Bissaka put in a maginificent performance here last season and he was on similar form today. Putting Boufal against him felt like we were negating his best attribute. That being said, I thought Boufal played ok in general. Some people might point to his poor pass to Hojbjerg as typical-Boufal, but the failure was not putting him earlier, after that it was a poor run from Hojbjerg, didn't give Boufal a good angle to play.

I even wondered what the odds were of a Danso red card as soon as he got the booking, felt inevitbale, surprised you didn't make some money out of that one. Thought he looked a good player though, encouraging signs apart from his crazy yellow.

For large parts of the half we looked on course for a battering, but we have also had a few spells where our passing and tackling has been ok. Unfortunately it's that final stage of the move that lets us down. Sometimes a sloppy pass, sometimes a crap attempt at a cross. Thought Boufal was decent, but Wan-Bissaka is too good - for Palace last season no-one could get past him and that looks set to continue! Ings has also has some good touches/moves but just lacking something at the end - either a touch of pace or skill - to make something meaningful happen. Adams started off ok but has looked pretty poor for most of the half. Danso has looked good, Cedric being outnumbered but for goodness sake don't back off someone who can cut in and have a shot at goal when they are in the box, and then allow James to cut in every single time even though you know that's what he wants to do... Still a chance I suppose, my main concern is that our tactics seem to leave us open to counter attacks, which our defenders aren't great at dealing with, but when we do create openings at the other end we don't have the quality to make the most of it. Same as it has always been really.

Annoying when people comment about the team without posting what it is, so here we go! Gunn Cédric Soares Vestergaard Bednarek Danso Højbjerg Romeu Boufal Ward-Prowse Ings Adams McCarthy Yoshida Stephens Long Armstrong N'Lundulu Valery

Yeah... strange. We (and them) do have one of the highest % out of all clubs though, on first inspection it looks like only Exeter's hatred of Plymouth and Port Vale's disdain for Stoke are stronger! Surprised Norwich only have 70% for Ipswich.

First half was pretty poor, Fulham could have been ahead at HT, but neither side looked particularly great. We looked threatening when we finally did get into attacking areas but didn't happen very often. We were playing a 4-2-2-2 which sometimes turned to a 4-4-2. Second half was generally better, and for the last 20-30 minutes we were dominant. Couldn't put the game to bed though despite a number of good chances. You would expect a forward to put one of Ings' chances away and I would expect any professional footballer to score Romeu's chance, albeit the keeper made a good save. You can see the press starting to work more effectively, particularly near the end of the game when Fulham were tiring. You can see the rest of the team creeping up ready to pounce when the opposition defenders get hemmed in to a corner, for example. I think we will see a lot of games where we don't look very good, but we will create chances out of doggedness as well as individual moments of inspiration. You can also see how important the full backs are in this system as the rest of the team creates very little width. Our left hand side really suffered because we had Hojbjerg there, who is right footed, not quick and not familiar with that position (although he did actually play well purely from a reliable defensive point of view!) Danso had an early test against Kamara and failed. After Kamara knocked it past him, Danso looked to have the pace and strength to get back, but then gave up the ground again and ended up with a deserved yellow card. After 6 minutes. But he didn't do a lot wrong after that to be fair to him, and won some commanding headers throughout the game. Don't think it was a big enough test to draw any conclusions, but there were some encouraging signs. I thought Cedric was pretty good and linked up well with Boufal in the first half. Hojbjerg was solid at left back, but it stalled any attacks down that side as he was always cutting inside to make a pass. This meant Djenepo was out of the game and didn't do much until he switched wings in the second half. As mentioned above, Boufal had some great moments but also patches where he kept trying something too fancy. Interestingly there was a moment in the last 15 mins when he perhaps lost it one too many times and opted to pass it to Hojbjerg instead - who in turn gave it straight back. After this happening several times Boufal reverted to his normal self and starting dribbling again (more successful ones from then on though) Redmond did well but finishing was pretty poor. That being said his injury is worrying and will be a big loss. I thought Obafemi was pretty poor until his goal, and of course then picked up an injury. Obviously he is still young but he struggled to hold the ball up and bring others into play. His game strikes me as more of a 'nuisance' forward, like Long. Having said that, he did well for the goal by pointing to space and making the late dart into space. Redmond did well to see it and pick out the pass. Ings looked tenacious and dangerous, but worringly couldn't score. He decided to cut inside on one chance, but I thought he was right footed and it was there to strike with his right. Long actually won some good headers and it made a difference, but then he fluffed a chance in a fashion we have come to expect.

I think he started well, and ended strongly too, but towards of the end of the first half and particularly most of the second he was frustrating. That's where the decision making comes in - not necessarily to do with his final ball but rather when the ball arrives at his feet his first instinct is to do something clever with it rather than getting the ball under control or making a first time pass. You don't want to coach the flair out of a player like Boufal, he actually causes a bit of excitment, and from an attacking player I would rather have someone who does some great things and some poor things than someone consistently average. But there are certainly still things for him to work on.

Correct on Matip but surprisingly not van Aanholt. He also said this in the Redmond section - "This was more like the Southampton I saw at the back end of last season. They took the game to the opposition and looked dangerous on the break." I can only assume he based his comments on the MOTD highlights, rather than watching the whole game. Absolutely pathetic really.