Leveller

I see the listing has a new note from yesterday "SPARE SHIRT BOUGHT TO WEMBLY FOR THE FINAL,MATCH WORN IN OTHER LEAGUE MATCHES"

I've just renewed witha credit card on a desktop PC and there was no problem at all.

Whatever suspicions about Cole Not Gas, he didn't actually say he trusted Manning's judgement over Pearson's - just that he trusted Manning's. W-S-M Seagull (not surprisingly) twisted his words.

As was pointed out in the match day thread, Rudoni looked stronger, more dynamic and generally more effective than Twine on the day. It’s quite possible he’ll be available as an alternative and probably cheaper.

I’m intrigued by all those who can see a clear difference between the style and standard of football played under Pearson and Manning. I confess I can’t - neither positive nor negative. Had I not read all the stuff on OTIB, I’d have been hard placed to know there had been a change. The sacking of Pearson was a shock, but I can’t say it seems to have changed much. We remain consistently inconsistent with occasional ups but more downs.

I’d be interested to see how you define it as “not a trip”. Sticking your leg between another players leg and the ball so that they kick your leg seems pretty much the definition of a trip.

The laws may be clear but they can be changed - and should be, in this instance.

Precisely. Phillips didn’t “miss” the ball. Gordon planted his foot where he did to ensure he got kicked.

There is clear merit in your logic. Yet … it doesn’t feel fair or just!

Suppose Phillips was running down the touch line with the ball at his feet and Gordon put his leg between Phillips and the ball? If Phillips then made contact and fell, it would be seen as a deliberate trip and a foul by Gordon. Its a very similar action seen from a different perspective IMHO.

Where we disagree is that you say Gordon is attempting to play the ball but misses. I think he simply inserts his leg where he hopes to be kicked.

Thanks. But do you think there should be a change, or do you think that what Gordon did (and many others are doing) is a deliberate ploy we should accept?

Anybody else uncomfortable with these? In each case (in my opinion) Gordon saw an opponent trying to kick the ball, and deliberately put his foot in between the opponent and the ball, so that he (Gordon) got kicked. So he’s “bought” a foul and the well intentioned opponent is penalised. Now you can argue that kicking an opponent is a foul and no intent is needed; fair enough - probably 70% of fouls are unintentional in that they’re honestly mistimed challenges. Still, to me this feels like cheating and it seems to be happening more and more. I don’t actually know whether Gordon instigating the contact means it shouldn’t be a foul - I’m not that familiar with the laws. However, my gut feeling is that these situations should not be rewarded with a free kick or penalty. I’d be interested to know if anyone agrees.

Their forum is astonishing. A majority seem to think the club is rotten to the core and that the owners, manager and squad all need to go!

The Wales game actually matters and lots of people with Welsh roots/connections live in England.

Yes, BBC now showing the result, but for most of the match showed it as Abandoned, as did some others.

Odd. A couple of websites showing Taunton’s match as “abandoned” but the club’s Twitter is providing comments on the action!

That was my thought. They looked too young and innocent to be doing anything deliberately bad.

His post match comments seemed to indicate that, in view of the recent results, he wanted to get to half time “still in the game” so started with a cautious lineup.

Did any of them rate their manager? Their forums seem to feel they were as bad as us today and think he’s a mistake.

Meanwhile I’ve just been reading comments on a Swansea forum, praising Manning for doing a job on them and wishing they’d appointed him!

I didn’t want Pearson to go, but the season was pretty poor under him too. I’m not sure we’re any worse under Manning - leaving aside “recency bias”. Purely because change for change’s sake is rarely a good idea, I’d stick ftb.

I’m not sure why you consider O’Dowda dislikeable. Certainly ineffectual, but seemed a lovely lad. To me, at first sight he seemed to have it all - ability on the ball, strong, floated over the ground. But then the courage to use his skill seemed to disappear. I always wanted him to run at players, surge through the middle with the ball - but he didn’t. I don’t know if he lacked courage, or simply had risk taking coached out of him. I suspect the latter. Modern coaches want to retain possession rather than lose it, even if it is the risk takers that create chances. Callum just seemed endlessly to receive the ball wide, then turn and lay it backwards. But surely we see a lot of that in many players today as well?

Isn’t Szmodics top scorer in the Championship, or thereabouts? Nothing wrong with buying him - if only we’d used him properly!

To be fair, if you’re from Millwall (the area, on the Isle of Dogs, where the football club originated) then you are a cockney. But not if you’re from Bermondsey where the club moved about 1910.