Erikse

When we bought Barnes and didn't get a right winger, I suspected that part of the reason was that Howe might have been happy with how Almiron and Murphy fit into his system. We know he likes players who can press like Almiron. Unfortunately pressing isn't everything for a winger, and Almiron hasn't even been close to replicating what he did in the first half of the last season. Maybe it was a bit naive? It feels like whenever a player has a really good run of form, Howe has this belief that if he keeps playing them then they will find that form again eventually. Some players only have 1 purple patch in their carreer. Mediocre players can be key players for some months, and then return to normal. Then again, maybe Barnes was just all we could get in terms of wingers at that price point.. I wasn't against it, but I was also puzzled that we didn't seem to focus on the urgent need for a quality right winger.

Over a short period of time, many injuries at once can be bad luck. But consistenly getting a bunch of injuries every month throughout the entire season, the manager will have some responsibility (look at Bielsas last season at Leeds, Howes last season at Bournemouth). Wouldn't be surprised if we break a Premier League record with the injuries. The first ones last year involved some freak ones, but in 2024 most of the injuries are of a different kind. The manager runs the training sessions, decides who will play and when to bring someone off etc.

Palmer made a fool of him at times. If anything, yesterday was a good example of how much better Tino is than Burn. Crazy how Burn just automatically got his place back after injury.

The first injury of Barnes was a freak one, but a hamstring injury is very unusual for him. Kind of alarming. Hope he is fine, obviously.

I don't think that was the real problem. It's more about how some players who join us goes from never injured to allways injured once they sign for us. It's not something you can predict, but surely it can't be pure coincidence at this point?

He has had 1 injury in his entire senior carreer before joining us. Similar to Isak.

The point is that every club gets decisions like this against them, but somehow Man City almost never do. The fact that it was accidental doesn't matter all that much, accidental penalties are made all the time. It was dangerous play.

I know we hate Liverpool, but how can these decisions keep going Man Citys way? Is it really just pure coincidence? If someone made a statistic from the last few season, I'm sure that whenever VAR/referee got it wrong in a City game, 90% of the time the decision went Man Citys way. While their rivals for 1st often gets these decisions against them.

Do you remember the goal that he scored against us? We had all 3 midfielders chasing the passer and de Bruyne could run 20 meters without a man anywhere near him. Why are we trying to deny that we messed that up? He played 30 minutes against us when he wasn't even match fit, and yet had his best league game so far.

Bar the Luton game in the cup he hasn't been given the kind of space that we gave him on those occasions very often this season. He has 1 goal in the league. Would've had more if he had gotten that kind of space in games. I think he has lost some pace after his injury, but that's just a thought.

De Bruyne has a brilliant right foot, but he looks kinda slow. You just need to not give him space to pick out that pass or shoot. We kind of did the opposite when he came on.

Went tripple Bournemouth though. 4 players including my captain has given me 5 points. Garnacho who is on my bench got 9 points.

Ironically you could hope for him to fail, despite him being your captain. Nearly everyone has captained him, and some has him as tripple. Unless you're one of those who trippled him.

Going by influence, him and Bruno. Isak aswell when he's fit, but Gordon and Bruno are more realiable. I feel like Gordon has taken Trippiers spot on that list in the last 5 months (no dig), atleast in terms of performance.

No worries, was a misunderstanding. I can't speak for TCD, but I know several people who would plan and think about the game like what he was saying in that post.

This was too complicated for you to understand, so he must be autistic? What kind of question is that

Hmm. If I ignore all other factors, surely taking a player from 0 to 1 game instead of 1 to 2 games is the same? 1 to 2 games also has the increased chance of rotation/earlier sub. Right now I have 5 players playing next GW, I'm sure I will have more players naturally in my team on a double later, players who I would also want to keep anyways. I think it's fine to use it in both cases, depending on current team. I used my wildcard in january, so yeah, either I have to go with 6-7 players, or I have to take hits only to be stuck with players from those mostly shit teams after. In my case I will need to use it imo.

I think you forgot the Villa game which was the first one, and that was kind of a horror show compared to every other game that season. Southampton (first half especially), Leeds and Arsenal wasn't all that impressive either, but the Brighton game was really good. I guess the sample size is probably just too small to judge.

That midfield keep being mentioned as someones percieved strongest one, but has it really ever worked that well? A few games maybe, but this midfield 3 had some issues last season. I remember us calling for Longstaff to come back from injury as soon as possible at the end of last season. It looks good on paper (Joes + Bruno), but it just hasn't really worked yet, unless there's something that I'm forgetting. Ofcourse that doesn't mean that it can't work in the future though.

Some players really annoy me. Ofcourse we only remember the unlucky ones, rarely do we remember or react to the times where we got lucky.

We did the same against Tottenham last season, and Arsenal have more games coming up than we did. Maybe it matters more in Arsenals case though, as you need every bit of advantage vs Man City.. I said it at half time, it's going to be a boring second half, so I'm not that surprised.

This is one of the areas where I think Howe really shines, man management. He went from seeming like a spoilt entitled brat to becoming a humble guy with an excellent mindset, in just months. Huge turnaround, not just on the pitch, but also mentally. I know you could argue that he wasn't treated well at Everton by their fans, but there was also that incident last season where he was going berserk for being subbed off in the last minute.

Second half going to be pretty darn boring.

I agree! I think it works against teams like Copenhagen, but for us it would probably be good, since we're not as much of an underdog as teams like that, but we're still 4th seeded. Edit: I guess it makes it a bit more difficult for the top teams aswell, after all less teams go directly though and they are competing against all the top teams for the spots instead of just a couple of bad ones and a good one. I have no clue who this really favours. Maybe underperforming top sides, who will usually get another chance in the playoffs and possibly face a weaker side over 2?

Hmm.. Does this favour the big teams or not? In one way, atleast the seeding will make sure that the 3rd and 4th seeded teams aren't mainly facing the big teams in the group stages. On the other hand, only the top point earners overall progress directly, so you can't get it over the line because some big team underperform (Like Copenhagen going through because Man United underperform). I'd say this gives the smaller teams less of a chance, even though it may look like it makes things more even by also facing teams of your own seeding.