mondonewc

Pep says they asked to be taken off

He's genuinely the worst on any platform, really hope Sky ditch him at end of the season.

This is honestly a fucking shambles, the rulemakers are making a mockery of the league, twats!

Well the bookies have Spurs as very slight favourites, Spurs got battered for 90 minutes at Fulham and lost 3-0, they've won two home games vs bottom 4 teams and have 7 points from last 12, same as us and we had tougher games, not hard to frame things either way.

This could be any score, hopefully it's our day and we'll win, would be a huge win for us.

If we finished 6th this season think it's arguably a more impressive season than last year, would be very happy with that, just need to get a bit of a run going. Get Pope back soon, and we can do it.

100%, pure fucking myth, unreal!

Hope Liverpool fucking batter them lot today, Liverpool can slip up for the title another day, 7-0, let's go!

Can someone share info on the permutations of how the European places will work depending on 5th getting CL, FA Cup winner etc? Cheers

Great news given all the bs flying about yesterday of another serious injury.

Fair enough, can you just clarify your opinion as I'm curious regards this, "is the suggestion that if Bruno wasn't in the team we'd get relegated, or we are bottom 6 team, suggesting we can't win without him basically implies that, but surely nobody actually thinks this?" Cheers

I wouldn't make the judgement solely by the sample of matches he's missed when the sample is so small, for example, surely you wouldn't make such a statement if he'd only missed one game right? This season he's only missed Bournemouth away which we lost 2-0, he was admittedly a huge miss and we were poor that day. Six games last season, two against Liverpool, hardly a shock us losing to them, then Wolves and Bournemouth away and West Ham and Palace home, all four finished draws. There's just a huge amount of variance in such a small sample of games, but speaking more literally I genuinely don't understand the statement, is the suggestion that if Bruno wasn't in the team we'd get relegated, or we are bottom 6 team, suggesting we can't win without him basically implies that, but surely nobody actually thinks this? Yet I keep reading this statement that we supposedly can't win if he doesn't play? Stats can be useful at times, they can also be complete nonsense, it's very frequent that stats are manipulated to push a certain narrative that often has very little to zero credibility. For example, commentator in Leicester game yesterday "Leicester haven't won a home game from behind since December" or something of that ilk, ok sure, but how many times where they even in that spot? It's completely pointless statement regardless without providing that piece of information, I haven't looked so no idea but wouldn't be shocked to find out it was zero times, and this happens a lot to push a negative agenda with no basis.

No offence intended and maybe you didn't mean literally, but it's truly absurd to me that some people really actually think we can't win games without Bruno, based on a completely meaningless sample of games.

Yeah, same thoughts but just feels like an overreaction, and undervaluing how poor Everton's form is, we really should be beating these a high % of the time to make evens a nice bet. I try to never bet on the Toon though with the blinkers on

Really surprised we are touching evens for this tmoro, seems big price no?

Pre Pope's injury from the start of season here's our goals conceded: Villa - 1 City - 1 Liverpool - 2 Brighton - 3 Brentford - 0 Milan - 0 Sheff U - 0 City - 0 Burnley - 0 PSG - 1 West Ham - 2 Palace - 0 Dortmund - 1 Wolves - 2 Man U - 0 Arsenal - 0 Dortmund - 2 Bournemouth - 2 Chelsea - 1 PSG - 1 Man U - 0 Average per game conceded 0.90 goals per game Without Pope Everton - 3 Spurs - 4 Milan - 2 Fulham - 0 Chelsea - 1 Luton - 1 Forest - 3 Liverpool - 4 Scum - 0 Man City - 3 Fulham - 0 Villa - 1 Luton - 4 Forest - 2 Bournemouth - 2 Arsenal - 4 Blackburn - 1 Wolves - 0 Chelsea - 3 Man City - 2 West Ham - 3 Average per game = 2.05 goals per game conceded. Fair assessment to say that the list vs Pope is tougher opponents given most of CL games in that period. The big standout for me is there's only 1 game we conceded over 2 goals with Pope and we where abysmal that day vs Brighton, Pope included, but without him it's happened 9 times, conceding over 2 goals 43% of our games without him is absurd! I've been a big critic of Pope for his kicking and I do think it's an issue but it's very clear he's a huge miss for us and he's levels and levels above Dubravka.

Les Ferdinand on stick to football this week and chooses Shearer over Kane, think Walker's the only lock from the current crop to get in.

Yeah my team is from their respective eras, not playing now.

Seaman Walker Terry Rio Cole Gerrard Scholes Saka Rooney Gazza Kane I had Rice in first with Gerrard in Scholes' position but just can't not have Scholes in, such a waste how we used him for England. Feels wrong excluding Beckham and Lampard but can't fit everyone in. So yeah, I get 3 of the current crop in, Kane vs Shearer feels much of a muchness as well, but my point is whilst we do have a very exciting squad, it's no better in my opinion than the previous lot, harmony in the squad seems much better and many of the current bunch are media savvy and therefore likeable to most supporters, but it's just very tough to win an International tournament.

Their own era

Task for anyone with some free time So much hype about the current squad, disgrace if we don't win Euro's etc etc... pick an England 11 choosing players from Italia 90 to now, selecting based purely on ability rather than how they performed for England, how many of the current group are getting in that team? For me back 5 can only really consider Walker, front 6 is interesting...

Fair enough, all gud. I would say the scenario now would be different though given when we made those signings, whilst there was a risk attached, in almost all if not all cases they were always going to be an upgrade on what we had previously whereas now we would be selling our best asset to allow us to manage FFP, and I would expect improve the team in multiple positions, so for me that's not the same as the example you suggested. Time will tell which route we go, hopefully FFP gets changed/scrapped and we can keep Bruno and Isak and build the team around them, one can dream!

Very interesting way you have of communicating with people, would suggest a slightly less arrogant approach rather than factually stating someone's opinion that differs to your own is plain wrong, but you do you! Anyways... Yes, we could sign another unproven Striker who has potential, similar to what we did with Isak, I fully understand that, BUT, it's extremely unlikely they'll be remotely close to his level, as one of the best Strikers in the league. Arsenal want a Striker, Chelsea want a Striker, possibly Man U want another Striker, to name just a few. It's my opinion, just an opinion, that we'll find it extremely difficult, bordering impossible, to replace Isak suitably, but sure we can gamble £80m on an unproven Striker when we are handcuffed already by FFP and hope it works out, it may well do so, but it's not an approach I'm a fan of and would do everything possible to avoid.

Well the discussion I'm having is who would be viable candidates to replace Isak should he be sold, and outside of Haaland, Isak is arguably the best Striker in the league right now with significantly higher potential, in my opinion. You're suggesting that there are hundreds of candidates on a database, albeit with risk, and I think that's a very questionable statement. I think suggesting it would be a risk to find a like for like replacement for Isak who's of similar ability with 100's of other players is inaccurate, I think that number is much, much lower for realistic targets who are even close to the level that he's at, and those who fit the bill will all be targets for bigger clubs than us, and that's the point of concern for me, thus my suggestion he's arguably irreplaceable.

100's who can replace Isak??? Guess we have very different opinions on how good Isak is!