Wullie

They'll be praying he gets off because he's got them flying at the minute.

LD shots and tackles in, fuck off Bamford you fucking crock.

Dendoncker 2 SOT - 11/1 (Betfair) Looks to be playing in an advanced position. Free fiver on: Bamford 2 shots, 1 SOT Dendoncker 2 shots, 1 SOT Leeds 22+ tackles 25/1

@triggs

QF1: Bodø/Glimt v Roma QF2: Feyenoord v Slavia Prague QF3: Marseille v PAOK QF4: Leicester City v PSV Eindhoven All set up nicely for Mourinho to get another arse-kicking off Glimt.

I don't think you can judge a tackle independent of the receiver. If you fly in on someone like that while they're standing still, that's much more likely to be dangerous than someone moving at the speed ASM was, where you're highly unlikely to catch a standing leg full force.

Lyon are pretty mediocre tbh.

I can't believe he's 21, I'd have had him mid-40s. Nee good for the skin this climate activism. I reckon we'll see another attempt tonight at Molineux.

CL draw: Chelsea vs Real Madrid Man City vs Atleti Villarreal vs Bayern Benfica vs Liverpool

I'd say Dan Burn is about a hundred times more culpable for this particular goal. The Chelsea goal was different class (news to some I think that defenders can't stop every goal) but tonight was a big error. Looked like he'd been listening to me rattle on all night about how shit Iwobi is, just had a massive rush of blood and left us completely open.

a) it was almost bang on halfway, b) 7 of his 9 outfield teammates were behind him (against 10 men, this was not some unnecessary risk) and c) he never had the ball in the first place. It did not "lose us the game" Alex Iwobi (!) breezed almost single-handedly through our entire defence and midfield and people are picking on one of the front three for conceding the goal. That is absurd.

He loses it on the halfway line (trying to latch onto a poor pass) against 10 men, with 7 of his teammates between him and his own goal. The fault is not his. The red card nullified him because instead of Everton desperate to win and getting caught on the break, like they did for the red, suddenly they're all behind the ball in their own box. I thought the game looked perfect for him before that.

Had 4x50p card trebles on, got Gordon/Allan/Krafth up at 60/1.

Feel a bit shell shocked that we've managed to lose that match, can't fucking believe it. What a balls up.

I'll take it all day long but it's not a red card.

Have I? I think defending (often) extrajudicial state-sanctioned murder is no less absurd.

This is silly, you could make this vague "well there's arguments on both sides so let's all agree to disagree" about absolutely anything. Some people like to have sex with children and think it should be legal. I disagree with them on that. Who's right? Nobody knows so let's all just get along and accept both sides make a marvellous case.

Quick, get the Super League going again!

Sounds like your neighbours are psychopathic.

If you're still digging your heels in and maintaining that questions about Saudi executions are ultimately grounded in a hatred and jealousy of Newcastle United as a football team, you need to get some help for your severe paranoia.

The bit in bold is just weird, and silly. I'd love to know how a football journalist reports on Chelsea at the moment without mentioning politics. This is what I'm on about. If you're going to celebrate buying football success with money obtained through spurious political machinations, or waging war, or whatever, that's fine. But you can't complain when people ask questions! A is the price you pay for B. If we don't want this in football, don't allow politicians/nation states to buy football clubs in the first place.

But you're comparing two different cohorts of each there I think. A journalist who goes to the WC, covers the football but also writes critical pieces about the hosts etc, You're comparing that example with a football fan, in my post from earlier, who wants the Saudi money but won't entertain any criticism of them and in fact will actively go to bat for them. That's not a reasonable comparison with the kinds of journalists I mentioned.

But what newspaper is going to send a football journalist to a football tournament who refuses to do match reports? If e.g. Jonathan Wilson says "Yeah I'll go but I'll only send back copy about how this tournament shouldn't be going ahead and nothing about Germany's tactics against Italy, I'm not doing both", the Guardian (or any other paper other than the FT) are just going to go "uhh ok, we'll just send someone else then who will just write match reports" as ultimately that's what most people will want to read. I don't think it's the place of the press to be campaigning activists, and reporting on the sport as well as the wider issues at the same time is perfectly justifiable and not in the least bit hypocritical imo.

But it'll only be writers in the former category who get accused of hypocrisy for doing exactly what you say they're entitled to do, and should be doing. It's not the guy giving marks out of ten in The Sun that'll get stick.

It's actually not, although there's a degree of hyperbole obviously. They're both members of the press, it's Delaney's job to cover big football events wherever they happen to take place. This is not unique to him, all football journalists who comment on us/City/Chelsea get this accusation about the World Cup, I've seen it. The accusation of "oh you are happy to go to the World Cup" is to insinuate that being a football journalist is akin to basically a corporate knees-up, which it's not, any more than a journalist who goes to cover a G7 summit and gets put up in a nice hotel is on a jolly.