STM

It won't be Casemiro against us...... It will be Evans.

I don't think Ten Hag or his players can climb out of this slump, not with the injuries they have. They aren't playing for him, they have no defence, it's a right mess.

Man United want to thank their lucky stars that their opposition on Sunday are shite and have nowt to play for.

Evans just retire man.

A fair point but I'd suggest much of them were out of necessity, rather than choice.

Palace please get that second man.

Soft but always been the same for keepers.

Perhaps the worst Man United side I've ever seen. Man United to win 1-0.

100% I'm as guilty as anyone.

Spot on. I was genuinely shocked at when I heard the above. Like it was so simple as player in=player out.

Seems like we've gone first with an offer. I've said before that our footballing pitch will be very good, whether that beats the financial offer of someone like Chelsea, that remains to be seen. In fairness to the lad, feel like he could easily get an offer from a Milan, Bayern, Dortmund etc. Which would be tempting to anyone.

I'm sure we will pay what they are asking, or there abouts. Really seems weird to me that Freedman could be our director of football mind. Was a bit of an average Joe as a player and felt synonymous with the Championship. I recognise that means nowt like. Would be like if someone in 10 years time told me that Chris Brunt was becoming sporting director.

Its astonishing how many journalists still don't understand transfer fees/amortisation etc. I was watching everything is black and white podcast with Andrew Musgrove and he said he wouldn't sell Wilson for anything less than 30m (I know its ridiculous) his reasoning was that it would cost "at least that" to replace him.... but that's not how it works right? Correct me if I'm wrong but let's use a hypothetical where we wanted to replace Wilson with Solanke and let's say we got 12m for Wilson and Solanke cost 50m. 12m for Wilson is now full profit on our books. 50m for Solanke would be (let's say 5 year deal), 10m each year for the next 5 years. So in affect, Wilson for 12m would pay for the first year of Solanke on the books? Of course I'm aware that we need to be able to pay for the other 4 years but someone confirm I'm at least along the right lines.

No worries. We can all see the advantages of having another big lad in the back 4. It's more to do with the ability of the individual.

It's just bollocks. Of course having a big full back has its advantages.... when they are as good as Ake and Co. We've got Dan Burn trying to do the same thing. So we get the good side in the air but we don't get the good side on the ground. We've looked much more balanced with Hall LB and Burn CB and we shouldn't be switching back. If we sign a quality LB who is also a 6ft+, fantastic.

The reason those City players can play fullback is because they are absolutely exceptional players, who cost over 100m quid to aquire. Just wait until Pep signs a traditional left back. Quick Quick, we need a tradional one.

So you've already changed your arguement? You said tall full backs, not a tall side. Everybody already knew that in order to be a really top side you need to have a certain physical presence in your side.

I know exactly who plays for what side and how they line up, I'm also fully aware of the pros and cons of such systems. Do Liverpool play with CBs at fullback? Do Villa? Do Real Madrid? PSG? Bayern? Or are we simply wanting to copy Man City and Arsenal who play one of their two fullback positions with a CB? And one of those sides literally played two traditional fullbacks two seasons ago. I'm not saying having CBs at fullbacks doesn't work to a degree, I'm just doubting the logic of merely coping successfull sides because they do it. If you think Arsenal and City are top two because they have White and Ake playing in fullback positions, and not because they have a vast array of the best players on the planet, you want your head checked. You quoted me first, not the other way around.

The level of contempt in this post is amazing. Its also factually nonsense.

Also, Man City play centre backs at full back and are notoriously leaky on transitions. They only get away with it because they have Kyle Walker and score 5 goals a game. Be careful what trend you follow.

This, tall lads at full back, thing is just a phase. Don't follow the crowd. Of course ideally you want a fullback who is not only an absolutely monster but can also play football. Literally 3/4 years ago you had Liverpool and City playing with traditional fullbacks and they were the two best sides in the world. Also worth baring in mind that Tino is actually a monster physically. He would outrun and out battle Ben White (for example), who I think is a very good defender. There might be games where we feel the need for a big full back, like away from home against big sides but for now let's just concentrate on being the best possible team we can be with the ball. If we are fighting for titles and fullbacks are the issue, then fine but we are nowhere near that.

Man United have no defence tommorow and Palace will be well up for it.

I'm absolutely of the opinion that if we beat Brighton we will have done enough for top 7. Anything beyond that gives us a chance at 6th and at an absolute punt 5th.

On this form Spurs wont win their remaining games.