Kid Icarus

Just win+shift+s and screenshot it

Mine was as well until... Feels a bit sad now though

I've slagged Spurs off all season because they're absolutely shit to watch, have been propped up by Kane, and shouldn't be anywhere near 4th, but it is still canny mad that a team sat in 4th is potentially about to sack its manager and is deemed to be in a kind of crisis with no one really thinking that's unusual.

I'll refer to the better Ian on this one. These changes are always presented with the positives, rarely the negatives, we saw that with VAR. The net benefit means that it's probably just about worth it imo, but we all know that it's nowhere near perfect in its intended form, needs to improve, and even beyond that there's an argument to be made that even when it works perfectly, it still has a negative impact in football as a spectator sport. The arguments that were made for it coming in look incredibly naive now. If we have VAR, then obviously this will happen, obviously that decision wouldn't be made, obviously things will be clearer, fairer, less biased. So now it turns out that although we have a net benefit from VAR as a whole, the wrong decisions are scrutinised even more and are even more maddening because the officials are being shown to be incompetent, indecisive, and inconsistent even when there are 5 of them, they can watch incidents frame-by-frame, and they have the rule book in front of them. Not only that, but there are repurcussions from VAR's existence, with two unwritten implications between officials that are imo clear to see in the behaviour of the officials. 1) a 'to-you-to-you' setup whereby a referee doesn't make a decision, with the implication being that if they're wrong, VAR will correct it. Meanwhile the referees non-call is implied to be a decision in itself by the referee, received in that way by the VAR and because it's not a clear and obvious error, they don't correct it. Another issue here is that despite the above, there's still clear inconsistency and displayed incompetence when the VAR does intervene and it's not a clear and obvious error, or they've flat out made the wrong decision. 2) That the referee being asked to review an incident implies that the decision should be changed. There is no impartial review taking place, the referee is watching an incident with the implication that they've made the wrong decision going through their head. So the referee reviews the incident and 9 times out of 10 they change their decision, again often exposing incompetence in a couple of different ways - one, they change their decision and it's either not clear and obvious, or completely the wrong decision (see our match vs Forest, Palace, and others), or 2 on the rare occasion that they stick with their original decision, if it's wrong or contentious it looks even more imcompetent and ridiculous because it's so rare (see foul on Traore last weekend) So we get the refs mic'd up. The idea being that at least we get a layer of transparency and know what's going on. You don't think that, just like with VAR and the issues above, there are unintended consequences that could maybe make our curiosity being immediately satisfied not worth it as a benefit? 1) when they fuck up, we get to listen to them fucking up in real time. We get to hear them misunderstand and incorrectly apply the rules. We get to hear them being indecisive and unsure, we get to hear them confidently assert that the black that we can see with our own eyes is actually white - even more maddening. 2) nothing actually changes, so we're all sat there like Matthew McConaughey screaming through the bookcase in Interstellar when they fuck up. 3) referees and the VAR will know that for every big call they make, there'll be an expectation for them to get on the mic and communicate it with millions of people listening into their conversation in real time. Consciously or unconsciously, that will impact upon the referee's and the VAR's courage to make those big calls. Who's going to stand up and make the big call, then get on the mic knowing that them not just looking stupid, but sounding stupid might become a meme? - again leading to more non decisions that should be made. 4) An additional arbitrary layer of what constitutes a decision that should be communicated over the mics And probably other consequences that we haven't even considered. And for what? So that we know what the rationale behind a decision is in real time rather than later? Something that we've never explicitly known in cases like that anyway. Total waste of time imo and opens another can of worms. It's like we learned nothing from begging for VAR to come in. At least with VAR you can argue the case for the worth of the net benefit we get from it. With this the net benefit of immediately knowing the rationale behind a decision is barely worth it for all the additional problems it would cause.

I disagree. If the commentators don't know, we still find out eventually. I also obviously understand the idea, I just think it's not worth doing for what is barely even a benefit, as it changes nothing decision-wise.

Yeah, after Trippier's free kick.

One of those ones where if you were shown it 18 months ago you'd have hyperventilated.

This one takes some beating.

I bet you'll struggle to name an all-time defender who wasn't also class on the ball.

I agree that it's teamwork like, I just think it's a lot easier to play that way than it is to get on the ball and attack.

A couple that I really like.

It's much easier to defend than attack in my experience like. Teams like Stoke, Wigan, Bolton, Burnley etc weren't relatively successful with a team largely full of cloggers who got everyone behind the ball for nothing.

I don't go along at all with the idea that the hatred stems from them winning things mind. In fact that mindset, usually from their fans, is a big part of why I can't stand their stereotypical fans. If I hated teams that won I would have hated Arsenal in the late '90s and early '00s, but I thought they were absolutely class and I loved Wenger. Likewise I loved Barca from 08-14, but have never liked Real Madrid regardless of whether they're winning or losing. I've never liked Man United, Chelsea, Spurs likewise. Why? Because the running theme with all of those clubs is that their stereotypical fans - including all of the pundits who cover them - are unbearably arrogant. The insistence that no one likes them because they're big and successful just feeds into that even more

'scoring is the hardest thing to do in football' was one of my recent football pet hates. I really don't think it is, for me it's dribbling past defenders that know what they're doing when you can't just rely on pace.

madras is definitely right there like, it's not a scalp. It's enjoyable because no one who grew up in the '90s likes Man United and their fans, but our 3-3 home draw with Man City felt like a scalp even though we'd been 3-1 up, our 0-0 draw at Old Trafford was a good result, but nothing more.

Ironically it's exactly that sort of arrogance that makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy and means in the end, you're actually absolutely right.

Now put that 2 and 2 together...

You're basically saying what I'm saying - like for like and it's a different conversation to the one that we're having - about who is the most talented player in the Newcastle squad. Trippier is up there because there's no one on the same level as him or higher in our squad imo. If we were having the same conversation where he's still in a team with Suarez, Kane, Son, Modric, Dembele etc then the conversation would be totally different, but because we don't have players like that, Trippier is our elite.

Dunno if it's just a case of me getting older, or learning more, but as I've got older, the stuff beyond how good a player someone is beyond physical attributes takes on much more importance. The whole leadership, setting an example, being a positive role model stuff. Supporting Newcastle, it's usually been the case that players who have those qualities almost have them as a cover for not being a particularly good player. Smith, Butt, Ryan Taylor etc. Having someone like Trippier who's like that but also a really good footballer shines more of a light on how important those things actually are imo.

Yeah, you can easily disprove that concept by comparing Dani Alves with Marlon Harewood. Everyone has their own strengths and it's about the level you play at. It just so happens that at Newcastle rather than Athletico Madrid or Spurs, he's right up there.

Even if he's not the most talented footballer over say Bruno, he's near enough and his leadership and example setting put him at the top for me.

Think it's the exact opposite tbh. Now that he has to work in a system under Howe and he's working on being that type of player, he's gone too far with it, thrown the baby out with the bath water and he isn't using the main strength he's known for as much as he could and probably should be.

Each to their own like, but it's hard to present an argument to any of those things without it just being me saying that I think everything you've said is very, very wrong, really.

Not for me Jeff. Total waste of time and just another layer of confusion and arbitrary opinion on what is and isn't extreme that would end up in every decision being listened to.