Cronky

As it happened, it all came right, but was it really smart for us to do an outswinging corner in the final minute of the match like that? It could just as easily have resulted in a breakaway. An inswinger doesn't eliminate the risk, but it reduces it.

The usual inability to keep hold of the ball. Got to get better.

It's true he lacks pace, but how many great midfielders could that have been said about - eg Scholes, Lampard? Everything else seems to be there, including a certain aggression in his game. It's been good to see him get into a few confrontations with opponents and stand up for himself. We could do with seeing a bit more of that from his brother. In fact, he does remind me a bit of Scholes. I gather he has been offered a new contract, and it'll be a big boost if both the Longstaffs can be secured on longer contracts. There are mixed feelings on here about his emergence. Obviously if you're pinning your hopes for the future on the team doing badly and Ashley being forced out as a result, then it isn't good news.

I agree. This was the application of common sense. If that goal had been scored a year ago, all the pundits would be screaming for VAR to be introduced.

I think he will field what is virtually a reserve side, and in the circumstances that would be the correct decision.

On current form, he'd be lucky to get a place on the bench at Man U. He needs to develop a bit of mental toughness. He comes across as a nice lad, but he needs a bit more to survive at the top. His brother seems a bit more feisty and looks the more likely to succeed at the moment. Both should do very well though.

I'm a bit baffled as to why Almiron didn't get a pen. Refs don't always give penalties for those kind of tugs, but it would have been obvious with VAR.

On reflection, and having seen the goal again, I think that's a bit harsh. Martial had the opportunity to pick his spot and could have gone either side. Dubravka momentarily shifted his weight to the left because Martial looked like he was going for the far post, and then couldn't get down quite quick enough to save at the near. The main fault had to lie with the defence in general, for allowing an opposition player so much time and space in the penalty area.

He just looks generally hesitant. That pass back wouldn't have actually reached the keeper. It would have stopped 10 yards outside the penalty area. I think the sending off has affected him as well. Some of his tackling looks indecisive. But for all that, the potential is still there. He's a young local lad with expectation heaped on him, and he needs time to get his head back into gear again.

To point out the obvious, he was resting some players, and 3 of the goals were clear defensive mistakes.

We don't really counter attack any more, we just launch it long. That's why the comparison with Liverpool and Leicester is a bit disingenuous. Is that down to us having poor quality players compared to those sides? It will be a factor certainly, but you also have to wonder if the coach is capable of actually designing methods to improve it. We have seen Brighton and Sheffield Utd improve their football significantly thanks to the direct input of their managers, you can't tell me that is down to them having better players. I suppose I should have said the 'main' difference. We're never going to construct a formula for rating every manager, but there is one factor that Bruce (and our previous managers) have had to deal with, which isn't the same problem at Sheffield United or Brighton. That's the pressure of being a 'big' club, with high expectations, historically low achievement over the last 60 years and a strong local involvement hungry for success. Our status as the great under-achievers pre-dates Ashley and Bruce. In terms of the combination of those pressures, we're quite unique. Bruce has managed that syndrome pretty well, and I'd say better than most.

The difference between Longstaff last season and this is between his ears. Expectations have been raised, opposition players are now aware of him, and he's under more pressure. A lot on here are blaming Bruce, but Longstaff is the only one whose form has dipped significantly, and I don't see that he's being asked to play a different role. He's in the middle of a second season syndrome, and isn't handling it properly yet. But I strongly believe he'll come good again.

Wilfully misinterpreting what’s been said. The point about Leicester was that they are proof that you can outperform Xg over a season, see even more so Man Utd in 17/18, so it’s not necessarily ‘inevitable’ that you will tail-off because you’re currently outperforming Xg. Xg is a useful metric, but it’s far from an exact science. So the one team that basically won the league in the most miraculous of seasons ever, against all the odds prove that it’s not an exact science. There’s always a statistical anomaly in everything In a sense, statistics are exact, but they're only as good as the quality of the information that is put in. In this, I suspect that, in addition to the factor of luck (which can exist even in the course of a whole season), the information that's inputted doesn't quite have the predictive value that is claimed. With Leicester there were other factors that season that were influential in their success. They won with 81 points, which wouldn't be enough now. At the time, the bigger clubs were all in a state of some transition and that opened up an opportunity. They were also remarkably free from injuries, didn't have the distraction of cup runs or European games, weren't under the same pressure as the bigger clubs, and had players in Kante and Vardy who were far better than everyone was expecting. Being underdogs, I also felt that referees were treating them with some leniency. All those factors are unlikely to come together again for some time.

I think the xG stat is interesting, in that with the main over-performers - Liverpool, Leicester and ourselves - their chief strength is the ability to counter-attack with pace. Rather than say that's not relevant, it perhaps suggests that the formula that the statisticians use doesn't take into account that the sort of chances that are created on the counter attack are far more likely to be converted than the ones created through a slow build-up. Three against three is more likely to result in a goal than ten against ten. Likewise counter-attacking is less likely to lead to a team over-committing and leaving their defence vulnerable. The difference between the three sides is the quality of the players. We struggle to retain possession and create chances any other way, whereas the other two don't.

Short memories, some people.

That's good. I had to google it though. And FYP, as I know you youngsters say.

I'm pleased for Liverpool. Klopp used to irritate me but I can now appreciate the qualities he brings. There was so much diving around and feigning injury from the Brazilians I thought I was back in the Sixties.

Even though that's the rule a special exception should have been made for Miggy for what is arguably the most deserved goal ever. Ref put his arm around him and was almost apologetic. Ref knew what it meant. It's a stupid rule! But I also don't understand why players does it? Don't they wanna wear the shirt? If I was a manager I would fine a player two weeks wages for taking off their shirt. Whether or not it's a stupid rule, they know it's there and getting a booking that way is really stupid. Pleased for Miggy of course, who for all his limitations, always gives heart and soul and is an important player for us.

He's done okay, considering he's had to feed off scraps. Our main problem is our inability to play the ball on the deck, from the back through the midfield. That's our big limitation.

I agree. A bold and talented manager who never got the opportunity that he deserved.

Except that we're much worse with the ball now compared to before. No we're not. We're the same. Your memory is playing tricks with you.

Come on guys, Rafa wasn't producing brilliant displays of attacking football. He was getting 10 men behind the ball and relying on counter attacks and set pieces. Bruce is getting results in the same way with more or less the same team. Hopefully the emergence of the Longstaffs and some good signings (yeah, I know) will make us a bit less one-dimensional. We can but hope.

Man Utd are starting to look like a team with an identity at last. Ever since Fergie left, they've seemed to be a team in constant transition, with no particular pattern emerging. Changes of manager have prolonged this problem, not solved it. Sometimes a team needs to hit a real low point before moving forward. Against Man City, they looked like a team that had found itself. It might be a very important win for them, which will allow them to escape the burdens of the past. Plenty of work to do yet, but I think they now have a foundation.

Managers were clamouring for VAR and then moan when a decision goes against them. No surprise. VAR is actually working better than I thought. It was naïve to think that it was going to eliminate controversy and debate, but it has definitely helped with offside decisions, which are decisions of fact. It was always going to be trickier with matters of opinion, like penalties, but I think they've got the policy right, with not over-ruling the ref unless the mistake is 'clear and obvious'. Replacing one fallible decision with another just holds things up and doesn't eliminate uncertainty. We won't get to a point where decisions are perfect, but we can make decisions better, and so far it's doing okay. Re the linesman, he made a mistake but I don't think he was wrong to put his flag up. I thought the instruction was to keep the flag down until a player touches the ball. Do correct me if not.

Dummett is limited, but when considering the alternatives - Enrique and Santon - the choice isn't great. But Barton was a good player, when fit, on form and not incarcerated.