Kooiman

We were a man up for twenty five minutes and barely troubled them.

Am I having to explain why Sunderland winning and us struggling to a draw against ten men is a wank start to the season? I'm not hoying myself off a bridge, but howay man.

Jesus Christ. This is proving to be an awful Saturday.

Did the job as asked, it's just not the job he's suited for. Looked so much happier out wide.

God bless those who do, I don't see many positives there. Aston Villa were worse than us with 11 men, but we simply weren't any kind of substantial threat.

Will never feel the same about him after today.

He gave up arguing it pretty quick. I think he knew. No one close by, grab on the shoulder.

Quite curious to see what they view him as. He's played a few different positions.

Is it weird I'm raging watching the game knowing he could be on the pitch?

Yeah, that's a fair shout. I just think the pressure of it will define a few, and if they don't start well it'll be interesting to see how the fans react. They could also fly out the traps and do well. To your point, after the initial adrenaline dump what happens?

Football Manager has him at 80k a week FWIW.

Hmmm, interesting first game in the Premier League. I can totally see why we fancied him after watching his early outings. His link up play is good and he seems to thrive on the counter attack (some nice flicks and tricks to go with his assist). At the same time, his goal was VERY fortunate and outside of that he didn't test the goalkeeper. I reckon he gets 12-15 in the league.

Apologies if you've said already, but how's the mood in the camp? It feels like our two teams end up feeling a lot of the same things.

Huge litmus test for them tomorrow. They need the team to gel ASAP, and even then, with so many signings from abroad they want to hope they adjust quickly. We saw tonight with Wirtz, you can be the bell of the ball in another league, but adjusting to a new culture can take some time, and that's before you include the manager in that, who's never been at this level.

Maybe I've got my black and white glasses on, but the more I see of Liverpool the more I struggle to justify them signing Isak right now. Ekitike has had a bright start and looks ready to lead the line. If you sign Isak you're instantly taking minutes away from Ekitike in his natural position, whether that means putting him on the bench or shunting him out wide. Even if they're suggesting a total football in-game rotation where they alternate positions, it seems like trying to put a hat on a hat. It made more sense for us to sign both because it was a succession plan with Isak leaving 12 months later. Are Liverpool fans trying to say with a straight face that Ekitike signed up to play for them knowing they'd sign an even more expensive striker in the same summer? Sure, it's two games, but I've seen very few issues with Liverpool's attack. I've seen multiple issues with their defense. That's their priority. I would imagine Isak himself is starting to see that.

Watching Liverpool on Sky feels like being force fed marzipan.

Something about Goncalo Ramos. He seems to like putting himself about and is more of a pure finisher/forward.

I think you're right. Ekitike + Isak made more sense for us because it was clear we'd be selling Isak soon. Liverpool fans keep pitching Ekitike out wide, but I'm not convinced he'd want to do the running and tracking associated with that. The same is true of Florian Wirtz. He's a brilliant player on the ball, but last season the player in the ten role was more industrious (Jones, Szoboszlai). Gravenberch's absence was an issue against Palace, but you can't hang your midfield on one lad like that. I think they'll score goals no bother, but I can see their defence struggling.

While not a poetic way to say it, he just seems fucked. I know he had an issue with his Achillies, and speaking from personal experience, that can be a real nightmare, particularly if it's caused by something like tight hamstrings. If we could get Fulham or someone to bite I'd be tempted to let him go.

Sean Dyche's Burnley.

@Rich's favourite reporter is also claiming it to be true.

I mean, it was a necessary 35m and I don't think it was clear we'd be buying the Greek Mark Gillespie for 20m in return. Personally, I was sad to see him go because I love watching a Geordie thrive at the club, but I accepted that loan deals wouldn't cut it for Anderson. As long as he knew a return to Newcastle was on the cards he was unlikely to fully commit to where he was at like he has at Forest. I think in the next few years you'll see buyback clauses replace loan deals. Top clubs will be happy to pay the difference (be it 10-15m) knowing they can't create the space to develop the player in house. Loan deals for young players have far too many downsides to work in the way needed. When I was a boy, loan deals were often times best used for young players that you wanted to experience senior football, usually across 1-3 months. Now they're season long and a byproduct of talent hoarding. It creates a loveless marriage whereby the loan player isn't too bothered about the outcome as they know they'll be back in the warm embrace of their parent club come summer, and the loan club doesn't have a huge incentive to develop them for the most part (unless they agreed to one of those crazy % deals where they pay more/less depending on gametime. Usually loan players are the first to suffer when a team struggles too. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part I find them a bit pointless, bar bedding in a player from abroad to the new culture.

Fair play, we were all agnoizing about midfield when Willock went down and seven days later we're welcoming Ramsey in. Club is doing a good job.

How can you not absolutely love him. I feel bad for thinking he might be done last season. The bloke has character in spades. He's the antidote to the chancers of the Ashley era that thought they could bluff it.

You will never reach your destination if you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks. He can go on strike now, and for the next few games, once September hits it's a long time to get splinters and kick cones. Forget match fitness, it's his sharpness he'll lose at a critical time in his career. This is a World Cup year and Champions League is on the horizon. I don't know which Athletic journalist said it, but this feels all too similar to Harry Kane's Spurs saga. He did all the things Isak is doing now. I don't see Isak staying for two years like Kane did, but I think we'll get one more season out of him and ample time to try and strategize for life after him. We also have to remember who his agent is—a dodgy bloke that clearly only has a few clubs in the bag. The top dogs like Mino Raiola (RIP) never used these strike tactics because you run into a situation like ours where he's on a 3-year contract and we have no need to sell. Then you're going back with your tail between your legs trying to negotiate a new deal and an exit clause. Hard to do that smoothly when you've been a pain in the fucking arse all summer. Isak always struck me as a switched on lad, but the fact he's agreed to this makes me reconsider that position. For all the talk of Liverpool being respectful and geniuses, I think we've actually played a blinder in the circumstances. Eddie has left the door open while maintaining self respect for the group and our ethos. He hasn't thrown Isak under the bus, which has allowed the higher ups to tell Liverpool they either pay up or piss off.