Thumbheed

Get the press right/going and it'll all fall back into place.

Surely you can only judge how far he can take us when he's got the tools to take us as far as possible?

Bit of a naughty way of wording the question, this. Howe vs Mitchell - Howe. Alternative question with the same implications as above: A club strategy and structure based on a specific footballing identity that recruits proficiently inline with that strategy (including managers) vs a club strategy based entirely on a manager's footballing identity that recruits to said footballing identity and the hierarchies ability to identify successful managers - Probably the former.

Distribution too

Basically. I dunno if it's a strategy or a failing at this point. Firmly bekeive, there'll be a 'click' moment though, Barnes aside there doesn't really look like a single player who's in any sort of form at the moment. Once people get into gear it'll come, I hope.

I don't think it's too much to do with the formation but rather our application. We simply haven't pressed well enough and won the ball as high up on the pitch as possible. The change of formation at half time certainly helped but I don't think it or any other personnel adjustment would make a great bit if difference at this stage, we need more intensity.

I just want to see his quality on the ball further up the pitch.

The game vs Girona in pre season made me think we'd be back pressing wise buts it's seemingly no way near effective as it was when he first took over. If you don't get the press right the whole strategy falls apart.

I feel like we really miss Trippier's playmaking ability. Tonali will hopefully pick up that mantle but for now, it seems we're lacking any real incisiveness in our passing.

Yeh that's a fair point but surely there's some recognition that there did need to be some rules implemented? Particularly with Abrhamovich turning the game upside down and with clubs like Leeds and even us overextended ourselves in pursuit of the same success. Tbf, the main point was that their income was gained in unethical ways rather than the amount they spent.

I thought Villa's suggestion was perfect tbh, in fact I'd probably go higher than the £135m loss they wanted. We've just about managed to build a fantastic squad with £105m loss, imagine the scope we'd have with growing income and say a £180m loss?

The asterisks on that asterisks is that the volume of money spent was illegitimate in the first instance. Barring Chelsea, every other club has built their success and revenue legitimately and within the scope of whatever the rules were. I accepted that any success we have will always have an asterisks against it the moment the takeover went through, which is exactly why I have the view that I'd rather success be got against the tide rather than riding with it. Being able to offer £20m more and £100k extra wages than Real Madrid because Man City won a case they seemingly deserve to lose on grounds of ethics rather than legalities does not appeal to me at all.

I know right? Imagine wanting fair rules that encourage competition and not ones that accelerate the lack of.

Think people are seeing the pot of gold that Man City are fighting for which would benefit us and forgetting/ignoring the fact that they have essentially cheated their way to success in quite a cynical way.

Said it before, but if they win the case and open the floodgates to PSR then it'll fuck football. Can't bitch about cartels then willfully hope for a result that will essentially shift the balance favourably to 3 state owned clubs.

In spite of never actually bothering to improve himself at any club he played at, he was still widely regarded as being good enough to play at any club in the world had he done so. His entire career was based on talent and talent alone. That makes him unique to any winger we've ever had.

Think they need to prioritise their 0.000000003% investment tbh

Because he's a Tory cunt who has no desire to call out right or wrong but feed and thrive off the misery of others.

I largely agree with this but there was HUGE scope to sign players who have the potential to be top quality RW and CB. If we can't spot potential, or are unwilling to take that risk then that's a significant proportion of our recruitment which has failed.

Neck on the line - they'll fold. They'll never get a better price for him and they know it.

If the measure of progress is based solely on how we've done it via the market only, which is seemingly your definition, then no we probably haven't. If the measure of progress is, 'is the squad is stronger than it was last year?' then my argument is it is. Both can't be true.

I've explained why I think it has improved so won't recycle that, but fair enough

This is where we ultimately disagree. I think "raising the floor" is a sign of progress, you don't.

No ones under any impression that many players can't be improved on, but why is improving the RW for example (the season after we scored +85 goals) seen as a far bigger area of concern than addressing general squad depth which directly contributed to our struggles last season? Unless you're arguing that the squad as a whole isn't stronger than it was last season, then I'm not sure how your definition of stagnation - and the risks associated with it - can be true? Ideally we'll get a first teamer in over the next 24 hours, but if not, really poor, but certainly not indicative of a club that's stood still.

How so?