madras

They did do it for Isak, I wonder why they stopped? Oh aye because one regularly gets into those sorts of poitions, the other doesnt or at least hasn't.

It hasn't like. When we were the Superior team we went years without them beating us. We'll see what December brings, will we be settled and less disjointed? will they still be high on adrenaline?

I went to the Strawberry (fuck me Old Peculier is a sneaky git, OK when your in the pub but mix with daylight and fresh air and its lethal) then over to the breweries site where they had a festival thing. Got to see Lindisfarne live.

Kessie. What happened ? I thought he was going to beat the world when he joined Barcelona.

And we havent been able to use half of it in the way it's meant.

No it isnt.

Re Trips being 35, I did say that would be a priority summer of 26 as he'd be away. Agree re CM but enough to get by when we have 1 no 9.

I think it required Tino and Hall not to be out at the same time. How many full backs should we have ? I'm sure it was you who was saying we can't have two first XIs when I was saying about needing another forward which is a more pressing need imo.

Didnt that come when Miley had a run of games and switched from right to left. I think his run on the right coincided with Trips bad run. Its possible Howe might have wanted more experience with Miley in mind.

Fwiw if it hadn't been for the Isak shit at the start of the season (let's say he left amicably and we'd got Wissa and Nick earlier) Id still have been after another 9 rather than a LB or RB if things had to be done e in order. Burn at LB is 3rd choice when all fit. We have Osula and Nick after Wissa and neither are capable in the 9 role as we need it. Going forward to the Summer even if we keep who we'd like (Hall and Tino) an RB is a minimum as Trips will likely be away. RB being more important than LB given Tino ability to switch which I dont think Hall has.

Is that skewed a little by, for a large part of the time since Hall has seemed ready, either he or Botman or Schar have been injured. On many occasions could it be Burn played because he was available ?

Its ok when its original but gets boring when its do everything to death, like most things.

I guess hes just talking generally. He has said Wissa and Hall have stepped up their training as they get/got closer. Are you taking what he said a bit too literally?

Cole Palmer really needs to get in quick to trademark his "I'm an utter twat" reputation.

Would you play Trips at LB and Krafth at RB if Hall and Tino are out ?

There were at couple of occasions V Fulham when we did this and the next phase (the ball to either of them) never came. Definitely need a CM run off him which I thought was the point of Ramsey and of which Murphy has been the only one to really do in Nicks first couple of games.

Are you not saying the first one could easily uave been given purely because they often are with mamy refs buying lnto the "there's contact so he has every right to go down" line of thinking. Its quite simple really, even if there's contact the contact has to be sufficient to to impede the other player. Its a no on both occasions, if not every time a player challenges for the ball and doesnt get it its a foul. Every header in the box a defender challenges for but gets beaten to is a foul if the player who wins it is put off by the challenge, its a pen.

On the first one was there enough contact to bring him down ? Just saying there's contact isn't enough.

Does that mean poacher type goals?

I dont think so but Hall has got better and better to the point when.....

The FBs won't be casualties. They are only playing due to injury and recovery of the first choices.

Ha ha ha ha ha

I have absolutely no idea how I managed to quote that into here.

Hard to say. Getting brought on in shit situations mainly.

If Halls not fit enough to start and Tinod out what would you suggest?