Abacus

Gordon has more of a record as a striker with England, so picking him up front to start vs Everton made most sense. As the game went on, I think at 0-0 away, holding out for the point was probably the right thing to do rather than gambling on Osula for ten minutes. But that's even assuming we hadn't used all our subs up in the first place making that whole argument irrelevant. I do think he'll get minutes as the season goes on, thought he's looked good in flashes pre-season (for what that's worth) and in his movement against Wimbledon, where the whole team created very little due to the way they'd set up.

Frustrating result, a few snatched shots and definitely missing a striker. But a point away to a place where we've struggled is OK. Ultimately, that missed penalty really cost us - put that away and I think we win by a couple. Though I suppose you could say the same about the flukey goalline clearance from Bruno's shot. Either goes in and I think it's a different game. Still, like I say, a point away and a few signs we're clicking into gear over the last few games, two of which have been against sides quite happy to sit back and both of whom created virtually nothing against us. It's breaking down those sort of teams where we struggle at the moment.

Was pretty sure Fernandez one was a red at the time. Looking again though, I think it was just reckless and clumsy and more of a yellow. So, fair enough to overturn it. Schar wasn't a red either, but was also reckless in that it gave the ref an excuse/reason to send him off and may have looked like a headbutt from the ref's point of view. But that wasn't overturned on appeal. I don't know why the bar is different between the two Sometimes a frivolous appeal gets an additional penalty, doesn't it? So that one was presumably not thought to be frivolous, which suggests they had something to think about. Why I would have liked it overturned though, was because if so it would demonstrate that it was Brereton Diaz who was initiating contact and / or playacting. Those are the things fans actually hate and that you want stamped out.

With his pace and those runs in behind, I think he could be very useful to turn defenders with the right through balls being played to him. If Wimbledon had tried to come forward a bit to push for an equaliser, he'd have been a danger to them given a bit of space to run into. Definitely looks like he's got something in time, and once the rest of the team is firing.

Thought it was a pretty professional performance, so in a minority here. Comfortable win, controlled the game and some good minutes for the likes of Osula. I don't think anyone should expect to steamroller a lower league team in a cup tie. Not the most exciting watch, agreed, but actually quite enjoyed it anyway for getting the job done with no drama.

He's rapid, Osula

They brought out a matching pair, but he wasn't that bothered, just stuck one on and jwanted to get on with it. I was dead chuffed he was so keen to just get playing. Was also really pleased to see him hollering at the defence and passing up front. Felt like he was really up for it, in fact it felt like they all were.

Had to replace one midway through the game and it was a different colour, is all.

Cracking game, thought Trippier was really up for this as well.

Terrible news. Wish him all the best

Not really trusting rumours, but if that's so, surely all teams would know this?

I suppose we don't really know how the fans of those clubs feel, those decisions are on the owners. Can be little more dispiriting than bumping around in mid table hoping for the odd big win, a cup run, maybe a run at the fringes of Europe. On the other hand, you look at the option, which would be to let other teams through the glass ceiling and reduce those ambitions even further. Can see it both ways really, but I do feel for the better run teams, say a Brighton, likely always being roughly where they are despite how they are run. It's why the Leicester miracle season was so important, to show that it could be done, to most semi- neutral fans.

Went to a bottomless brunch where I had literally three drinks as the staff all pretended to be busy. Even though it wasn't at SJP or anything to do with NUFC in the first place, I still blame Paul Mitchell, Saudi Arabia and most of all Richard Masters and the ESL six.

Emotionally, I don't want us to move away from SJP, so a proper revamp and extension would be my personal preference, however that is done, and that's how I'd have answered it at the time. But I've been kind of persuaded by some of the arguments on here that Castle Leazes and much bigger capacity might be the best option. Outside the city centre is a no-no for me. Also, if PIF don't want to be in it for the long term and just want to maximise their investment, then that's fine. More than fine actually, given what went before. I'm probably more fussed about the training ground and academy etc as that's something shorter term they could add lasting value to, if they do recalibrate ambitions or move on. Think we've lost a lot in terms of vision and ambition with Staveley going, which is probably why I'm even typing all that. Eales has big shoes to fill.

Top tip - pre-load on Greggs and ignore all the annoying food they try to foist on you. Then just stare menacingly whenever your glass of cheap supermarket bought prosecco is empty. I suppose we've all got a system.

These bottomless brunches are a reet con. Add a go-karting rink for afterwards and then we're talking.

Totally agree, and they are likely doing more than we can see. Would like a statement from Eales at some point re the club's ambitions but that's probably for when they're ready to announce something re the stadium and / or training ground / new sponsorships etc.

Just a couple of minor tweaks I can think of. Then again, we haven't seem to have the same levels of fitness yet either. But it was a bit of a tongue in cheek question as going back to his job description in the post on page 1, I think it's broader than that, including stuff like the psychology dept etc. Main thing I'm wondering is what a performance director actually does day to day. It's not meant as a criticism - I genuinely don't know if he does get involved directly or is mainly there to provide stats, analysis and new ideas to the manager, and then to what extent the manager has to listen to those.

Person wise, it's got to be Howe every time for what he brings on and off the pitch, what he has done for us and how he fostered a collective spirit and, up until recently, a style of play. Mitchell so far has done nothing, but hasn't had much of a chance to. If it's about the role though, do you trust a DoF model or a manager led model, I can see why many/most would be opting for the former. But even that kind of relies on a series of assumptions - the first being that they establish a long term footballing vision and that everyone else is then a replaceable part of it. I'm just guessing that's why anyone who has voted for Mitchell has gone that way - not on what he's done for us, but on the principle of how it should work ideally. For what it's worth though, I can see why that model should work but it doesn't always. Especially if a DoF doesn't stick around that long and a new one comes in with their own different 'vision'. I think that vision actually has to come from the owners, not any employee, as they are there longer and I'm not sure what ours is other than a stated desire to be the best and win stuff. Which is quite vague. I also think if you look at some of the best managers over the last few decades, they have basically not just been a coach told to stick to what they're best at, but involved at all levels of decision making. I'm not convinced many of the best and most successful ones would have put up with it any other way. Yes, I'm told that football has changed. But has it? How many fully DoF led clubs have been that successful compared to the number that are out there? Most successful club recently being Man City, and yes there's been huge money there, but also under Pep who they'd have bent over backwards to accommodate and played a canny game in only extending his contracts when he wanted to and felt the conditions were right to stay.

This fella sorted all the performance issues out yet?

Season one - Miracle worker. To take us from disorganised relegation fodder rabble to comfortable safety was quite incredible Season two - Miracle worker. Some astute signings, yes, but to gatecrash the top 4 and send shivers down the spine of the PL elite whilst playing in a coherent, consistent way with a squad still mainly inherited and improved beyond recognition was not something your average manager does. Season three - very, very good. Coming off a transfer window where the main signings either weren't ready, were banned or injured, with a series of ridiculous cup draws and a crowded fixture list with some of the hardest European games, some bad luck with injuries, to take that squad to a position which would normally have gotten us Europe again was amazing. Season four - jury out so far. Very good points tally, but performances not yet there, albeit with a squad still largely from season ONE, unbalanced, unstrengthened, and seeming off field issues, players looking either not ready or not motivated or clear in their roles or system, with odd selections at times. So far, it's not quite clicking but how much of this is down to Howe is very unclear. There's plenty of time to get this right despite the start we've had performance wise, but based on what's gone before, I think anyone calling for Howe's head is daft. I haven't seen much of that on here tbf.

We think Hall is the long term plan, whether that works or not is a bit up in the air. In the meantime, we have Kelly, Burn, Livramento and Trippier who can all, at a push, cover that role effectively enough. We don't have that kind of cover at ST or RW, so I guess it's about priorities and seeing what Hall develops into.

Haven't watched the CL games much if at all really this year. Group stages even under the previous format weren't all that exciting, as they were always weighted towards the bigger teams from the bigger leagues. Should always be a knock out where every team has a chance to go out and the minnows have a chance to go through. That's what cup football is all about, though I suppose it's not really a cup any more, hence champions league. Never really was a true champions league after they expanded and expanded the number of teams that 'qualified' instead of being the actual champions. And somehow fourth place (or now sometimes fifth if you're from a big league) became as good as a trophy. Not only that, but player fatigue and therefore poorer tournaments and viewer apathy with the sheer number of games are becoming more obvious. And on that note, I'll take my old fashioned opinions away.

A win here would make this a sensational start points wise. Excited for this. So now watch us get 3 serious injuries and two red cards.

I love how Schar sometimes takes it on himself to win a game by surging forward and firing in an exocet when the rest of the team are struggling. "That's how you do it, lads!"