Optimistic Nut

True. It worked with Isak because he's world class. Murphy's putting them on a plate but it's on his weaker left foot, going to need an outside of the right foot finish, or quick control and finish. It might just be he's not yet up to speed but might need to find a different supply. At Brentford their RW was Mbeumo who was all about cutting in. It's a different type of supply all together at the minute.

How many of his goals at Brentford were first time finishes? Murphy's crossing is brilliant but from I've seen, I don't think it meshes with Wissa. I don't think he's a pure first time finisher like Isak was. Don't think it's either's fault, but think we need to play to his strengths and I don't think the early whipped ball is that.

He's close. Really close.

It was, but daylight was always the guideline for referees. I remember the first 10-15 years of the PL coverage on Sky and the widely accepted interpretation on whether they agreed with the call was, "was there daylight?". I think it's a sound basis to roll out the change. Never thought I'd agree with Wenger on anything but I do on this.

We want to be a top, top side like Man City. They can play through anyone in the world at ease. They don't need handouts giving them cheap possession to do it, but here we are.

The rule was brought in to stop goal-hanging. So strikers didn't stand up in the opposition's half so the ball could be pumped up to them. It wasn't brought in so that we'd be having to see if a player's foot may or not be ahead of play in a marginal bit of play. There was no skill from us to play him offside, he wasn't intentionally trying to be offside. It's just crap, man.

Not debating that it's the correct decision under the laws as they are. I thought the outcome was spot on under the offside law. It's the offside law I don't agree with.

If he does it several times every match consistently for 3-4 years then aye.

Looked brilliant for about 2 and a half minutes. Reverted to type pretty quickly after that.

I don't think it should be offside just having a part of the body partially behind the defence. Nobody would complain about that being allowed, so why have a rule where it could (and to the letter of the law, should) be ruled out?

It was the correct decision. It's the law I don't believe fit for purpose.

Pope's fault they get the throw-in.

We're consistently in this position because of it. We can't work to improve the way we play when we have an absolute liability in goal doing this on a weekly basis.

Trolling? They scored the second goal because he can't kick a ball properly.

I don't think the score is any different with either keeper. We concede 2 but in different ways. I'm not having that Pope is better than Ramsdale though. 6 and 2 3s.

The arguments we keep seeing in his favour are he's commanding (was nowhere for the disallowed goal) and he keeps the ball out of the net. The ball ended up in the back of the fucking net because he can't kick a fucking football.

Tie over.

Seen enough to think he'd be our number 1. Go get him.

The couple of weeks off might be what Elanga needed. Looks much better.

Don't care if I'm a broken record at this stage but the law is not fit for purpose. No way should that be disallowed.

Offside rule is a fucking joke man. Goal all day long.

PoPe ClAiMs ThOsE.

Can hear a pin drop.

Actually fine with Tonali, Barnes & Woltemade coming on for 20-30 minutes. Means we can spread out for the full 90 minutes a bit of a goal threat and engine in midfield.

PL clubs are trying to get in on the ground floor with these types, rather than paying 2-3 times as much from the Bundesliga, but they don't get the same first-team football opportunities to kick on in the same way as a move to Germany or Portugal for instance would.