80

It was more the standing and walking around like he didn't give a shit at various points in the match when he should've been doing other things etc. Strictly speaking I had him down as our worst performer. But I really don't believe in the slightest that was down to a lack of effort, though. Having a bad touch, yeah fair enough that happens.

Yeah, there's no point in getting on him about it. He definitely wouldn't choose to play this badly, he's just doing what he can and we clearly feel he's still the best option we have.

Yep, think I said on here when it first came up that it would need to be 9 figures for us to even have a conversation. He seems really happy here and is best mates with our other fullback for the next decade so any suitors should be told to forget about it, frankly.

Been rumoured since at least last summer so I'd guess there's something to it. Think it'll be a firm no from us though.

Sad but completely true.

I didn't think he was that bad yesterday. He did some things very poorly, and some important things very well as part of a winning team performance. He definitely wasn't a dead weight on us. I find it weird to want to pick on him in the circumstances.

Was funny how utterly unbothered he was in contrast

No idea how we ended up with twice as many yellows as Chelsea.

Back to his best today, really cool, calm and collected. Did a major service for us in our own half.

Ha, that takes me back. Crazy what eventually became of him pretty shortly afterwards.

He did it more today than I think I can remember ever seeing. But fuck it, he was otherwise excellent today. Really helped set the tone. It was the game I could see him having at a crucial time in our run in, much more like his old self. Just need him to return to putting that out consistently now.

Thought he quietened down a lot in the second half, just think he was more tired.

We do a fair bit of that ourselves to be honest so I'll take that as part of the business... Thought he had a great game, particularly considering the incident.

Think it has to be Burn for all the reasons that have been said. Hall was probably mine prior to his injury, but Burn's been a colossus for us all season long, even in the bad times.

For what it's worth, if it's going to change I'd rather have a big change e.g. those on the previous page. If we're gonna fuck off the current crest, fuck it off properly rather having some simplified Fisher Price version of it. As an aside, I've always thought the 80s one was embarrassing.

Literally no one could've seen this coming.

I assume it's only playing parts of your body, but aye, someone like Isak just needs to stick a leg out.

We don't play a high line as an offside trap, you're right, but a rule change as extreme as the example I posted would raise the risk and pain of getting your calculations wrong so high that it wouldn't be tolerable anymore. Get it wrong under the current rules and you've got a solid chance of recovering, which makes the risk acceptable. I agree the example you've given there created by the current VAR-enforced rules is appalling, but I don't agree that either extreme is in keeping with the spirit of the original law. And I don't think the VAR issue can be dismissed. Offside as an idea was there to keep competitive tension in the game and prevent it being purely run by quarterbacks hoofing it from one end of the pitch to the other. It was done by the eye and it didn't really matter whether one instance was precisely the right decision or not either (so long as the referees were impartial) as the risk of the decision going against you, whether you were attacking or defending, was enough to generally keep players honest. In de facto terms, offside used to mean 'does it look fair?'. It didn't really matter too much whether it was a nose or an arse past a defender, so long as it felt about right and kept the game fun. Which let tweaks like the 90s daylight rule be introduced. The newly suggested daylight rule in the world of VAR is way more extreme than the old version, though. Combine it with 'not interfering with play' and it's a recipe for disaster. I keep saying it as a joke, but I'm serious - if you want to choose the right body part to judge offside with, go with the perineum. It lets feet, heads and chests cause no problem, but doesn't put defenders at a game changing disadvantage.

The bottom two characters - I'm struggling to see if the man in red is playing the woman in blue onside when they're frozen still, nevermind if they were in full motion. Obviously, no defence could risk a situation like that happening so in real life they'd just keep the attacker half a yard in front of them at all times. There'll be a lot more battling so it'd probably fuck Isak's career

And conversely, attackers 'not affecting play'. Total horseshit.

People are driving themselves mad in here. Watch the games play, shout your lungs out to help get the right result. That's all that really matters. Stattos still think we're significantly more likely to qualify than Chelsea, Forest and Villa, and we only need to beat two of them.

Wow that's classless.

I like the thinking, although we'd be lacking a lot of physicality in the centre if so. He's never going to be the tallest or quickest. He's more of a Bruno stand in, in fact.

Haven't watched this, but saw an interview with him a couple of years ago which was very similar. Said the same things about us being relegated soon after etc. etc. Dunno if it's dementia or he's told the same self comforting lies so many times he actually appears to believe them.