Theregulars

Pisser that it’s another 12:30. Need the crowd for this one with half the squad dead so more liquid accumulation time would have done us a lot of good.

People have moved onto Longstaff as misery flavour of the month.

Yup, that’s Howe shown.

Is it not Almiron?

No, you fucking dullard. I am saying that he is instructing us to press less because he’s having to adapt tactically to the personnel available and the levels of fatigue / physical possibility. It’s grating enough to read your incorrect analysis spouted like a hot take of concrete factual certainty, but you then take it to another level telling people what their points are when you’ve misunderstood in the first place. Genuinely: you don’t have the brain or knowledge for this.

Ah fair enough. Maybe wouldn’t work vs West Ham who weren’t attacking; they invited us to take the initiative and tried to hit us on the counter (doing so effectively a few times). If anything this discussion is further evidence of Howe’s tactical flexibility within a system.

Yeh tbf pointlessly philosophical argument. I guess at Arsenal he spends a lot of time watching his team in the opposing half. Nonetheless a really weird thing to say.

Perhaps because we’re having to be more balanced because of the injuries, totally undermining the already wrong point that he offers no tactical flexibility.

I can’t help you. Mind how you go.

I completely missed that. If that’s accurate then yes, best avoided. Although, being pedantic, does a goalie need to concentrate for a full 90?

And what about the sacrifice of attacking intent and pressing which that involves?

If you think Howe is actually inflexible then in my view you’re not watching the games or you don’t understand football beyond surface level. Clearly on Saturday our tactics changed to overloading their right back with hall, Anderson and Barnes and we went all out attack with the fullbacks. One can make tactical changes without fundamentally changing the formation. he sacrificed 2 defensive positions for an offensive overwhelm and he was richly, totally and justly rewarded.

You really must write all this to the manager - I’m genuinely concerned he’s not noticed or thought about it.

DCL will score; it’s that season. Hope we just attack them constantly with no let up as long as we physically can.

I profoundly disagree with you. It’s being miserable and unduly focused on negatives. Either way, as you’ve so eloquently said, your opinion is yours and you’re entitled to it. Have fun with it.

If this is enjoyment for you then I’d love to be a fly on the wall during one of your down days.

I agree, would seem odd to swap back up gig for another, unless we rate him higher than Pope. I reckon they’re about neck and neck, altho rambo better with feet. Perhaps they may go horses for courses?

It’s difficult as I’m not convinced you can read, but, in a nutshell, my arguments are that your interpretations of the match and the manager’s performance and strengths are unrealistic, not supported by evidence, tainted by needless negativity because you don’t have adequate emotional control / cognition and that, all things considered, the manager is doing a good job with heavily depleted resources and an unusually concentrated amount of misfortune / difficult circumstances. If you take the simple fact that the team is literally worse than the one we put out most weeks last year, is it not surprising that we’re not as good as last year? Could it be possible - at all conceivable - that you’re just upset that the team isn’t doing as well and you are taking that out on the one thing you can without any real cost or consequence? It’s painful watching tbh.

Better than all our other options behind Pope.

And, for clarity, my argument is that yours isn’t supported by the facts, you weapons-grade Olympic-standard windowlicker.

Not a functioning mind

Sure; yours is invalid. It isn’t borne out once you test it on reality.

No he just thinks it’s more valid and accurate because reality backs him up.

No issue with different opinions; just those which have no basis in reality but which are persistently rehashed with a misplaced certainty and confidence.