Kaizero

Genuine question, but isn't there a form of inherent dislike of England in general from people having grown up in Northumberland and adjacent areas? As in "England = London/The South = England not caring about the North East"? Might just be me having misunderstood the political climate of England the time I've semi-followed it, but just never been amazed when North Eastern Englishmen say they don't support the national team

Why on earth would our five previous matches have any impact on how well we'll do in our next four?

It's not "none up front", man Howe wanted to shore down things defensively and not let Spurs back in the game, Willock provides counter-attacking abilities whilst at the same time being used to battling in midfield.

When you're shoring up a win away from home, it's not very common tactically to put on a striker. I think the reasoning for that is the fact that it'd increase the probability of you conceding instead of seeing out the match to secure three points from a winning position. So, you have the following two scenarios: 1: Sub on a striker and increase the likelihood of conceding a goal in the final minutes of a match you are winning. 2: Sub on a midfielder to tighten things up defensively, whilst still being a player that can be very useful in the event of a breakaway opportunity for the team to score a third goal. One of the scenarios is way more likely than the other to end in disaster. I'll leave it there.

Welcome to an Internet forum, mate. I think you'll find that people agree with other people over a variety of topics as well as disagree with others Fully stand behind deriding your post, however. That was some insane shit. No need to lick Ron's arse though. I post insane shit multiple times a day though, so no need to feel hard done by either

I think you missed out on including your own comment, which I'm quite certain is what you are referring to here.

I love how he's adamant it wasn't a tactical decision because it happened during the time period of a match where 99.9% of tactical decisions get made

Did.. did that really guy just... ...just... say Liverpool are Sabrina Carpenter and Real Madrid are the Hawk Tuah girl?...

I wasn't meaning to compare 21yo Delap to 33yo Wood Comparison was meant to be that Delap's career will most likely end up looking similar to Wood's due to their similar level of ability (in my subjective opinion).

Not sold on Delap at all. Another Chris Wood, at best. Just really doesn't strike me as anything special and his pre-Ipswich record has been okay- to bad+ Prepared to eat my words in ten years time if I am wrong, though

You answered the question in your own post as the reason he gets jobs in football management is the same reason you won't get them, because he used to be an okay+ player once upon a time and club owners still haven't realized that having played the game doesn't automatically translate to knowing how to be a manager in the game.

1-0 win against Spurs on the cards

"When I played football in my youth I kept making crosses as shit as the ones Diallo keep making, but I decided to call it a day thinking "I'm not good enough to be a professional footballer", but apparently I was wrong, what is Diallo even trying?"

Because of what turned into over a decade of stocking up on Uzbek talents playing FM, I have had a vested interested in Uzbek footy for a while With that in mind, I'd cream my pants if we signed Khusanov.

So you say it's not feasible he could have left the atmosphere?

Cheers

I appreciate that, fair do's Also appreciate the fact you say you want to respond with a longer post, I have no issues with differing opinions and I much prefer an actual discussion about various issues rather than short form answers. I'm not dying on any hill and welcome instances where someone makes such a convincing argument for why I'm wrong about something that my opinion about something changes. I've often used Bill Maher's viewpoint on him being right/wrong about something as an example of how I view my own take on things, which paraphrased goes something like this; "I have an opinion about certain things that will I have reached through how I have understood information that's been available to me to form an opinion about something. As many people who've debated with me know, when I have formed an opinion/view about something, I 100% believe my opinion is correct and I will enter any debate from that standpoint and do my best to explain my views and provide relevant information to others that may not share my views, in hope that this will change their viewpoint from what it was at the start of our debate to what mine was. This doesn't mean that I do not understand the simple fact that I may very well be wrong, no matter how confident I am about something going in. If someone with a differing viewpoint to mine manage to provide enough evidence for why my viewpoint is wrong and theirs is right, I'll hold my hands up and say "you know what? you're correct, I'm in the wrong here". That's why we discuss things we don't agree on and not only what we already agree on." Then he goes on a bit of a rant about how the world today has abandoned civil discourse because social media and the Internet has made it so that you only see shit that backs up your pre-existing opinions/views because everyone gets their own individual online echo chamber to exist in, which leads to them losing their shit when they happen upon a person existing outside their echo chamber that has a different opinion/viewpoint than them about something, leading to shouting matches instead of discussion. Can't say I disagree with that, even when using N-O as an example. Ten years ago this discussion would have looked 100% different on here, people would explain their views and respond to posts with actual responses. Not just "nuh-uh", "you just love the US", "you're wrong" or some form of personal attack. I miss those days. Hell, I miss HTT straight-up writing novellas to express his opinion(s) about something. I'd love to discuss the effects capitalism has had, is having and will have on modern football rather than reaching a stand-still about semantics. I'm beyond nostalgic these days, just feeling so incredibly fed up with how things are today

Saw on my betting slip that the York match today ended up being cancelled. Anyone know what happened there?

This. Went to VAR as well and was upheld.

Theoretically, if City were to kneejerk and sack Pep... who would they replace him with?

I'm on the Internet these days for a reason, and that's because not being on the Internet would not be a very good option for me right now. I appreciate the concern, though, but I'm just grateful I have something to rant about/focus on. This time of year already wasn't my favorite anymore, but this year is next level. Genuinely struggling, so whilst I understand I might be annoying some people at the moment, I hope they'll manage to look past it until we've reached the new year. I didn't mean to let it out on you in the sheep quiz thread, that was not acceptable of me at all and I'd like to apologize to you for my behaviour.

This right here is the crux of my issue, KI clarified it quite well. It's not "US influence", it's "capitalistic influence" you're against, and is something that's a very valid and interesting subject to discuss. Given that the US is essentially the home nation of Capitalism, I do understand why people find it easier to say "US influence" - but again, it just makes it so that the actual issue isn't debated as it just devolves into "fuck US owners" very, very, quickly. I've seen it happen on here a million times, and elsewhere as well. The discussion never goes anywhere and just ends up with a circle-jerk of hatred for "US ownership" of English clubs. It's counterproductive and it boils my piss, so much so I couldn't ignore it anymore and started ranting. I 100% agree with the actual concerns and arguments, but it doesn't matter what nationality the owners have if they champion changes rooted in capitalism. Again, the biggest offenders amongst PL club owners since the PL began were the Norwegian owners of Wimbledon, moving the club from Wimbledon to Milton Keynes as they believed there were more available fans to line their pockets there. The "moving" of a club to a new "market" is extremely "American", yet the only time it's been done in England, it was done by Norwegians.

I really enjoyed that they started the article off with this note: What to Know It’s never a good sign when we start seeing a massive increase in lookups for two closely related and unwelcome terms like racism and xenophobia. However, our place, as a dictionary, is not to judge the words that are being looked up (or the people looking them up), but instead to provide, to the best of our ability, as much information about them as is possible.

Side note; I googled "PL All-Star Game" and saw an article that applied the NBA All-Star selection rules to the PL to select theoretical squads. Which one of these two XI's do people think would've won? North All-Stars (4-3-3): Martinez; Dalot, Van Dijk, Botman, Shaw; Rodri, De Bruyne, McGinn; Salah, Haaland, Nunez South All-Stars (4-2-3-1): Vicario; Porro, Saliba, Dunk, Emerson; Rice, Gallagher; Saka, Palmer, Son; Toney Based on the 23/24 season.

i actually looked at the Merriam-Webster article about the difference between "Xenophobia" and "Racism" before deciding which one to go for In short, Xenophobia is the fear and/or hatred of strangers/foreigners and Racism is having the belief that you/your culture/your politics/your religion is superior to those of another race, religion or nation.