Phileas Fogg

Agreed - I don't think it's particularly clear-cut either and completely depends on how we lineup and the opposition.

Where did you hear this? I haven't seen this on the OS........

Officially...........

Wasn't on the OS - so not sure why you're even interested?

A slightly left field part I particularly enjoyed was about Taylor-Clarke and Francois. You could view his comments of (yes well done to them for making an appearance, but don't get complacent) as slightly harsh.. but I really liked it. It shows he has high standards and holds the young players to the same standards as the rest of the first team. It's not just a case of "giving a couple of kids a run out and then back to the reserves you go" - something we've done many times over the years. He was clearly very pleased that the team were disappointed with the defeat too. I think we're slowly seeing the mentality and attitude in the team that he's been trying to cultivate since he took over.

He has done that sort of thing a few times, and it just looks unprofessional. I know he's criticised quite heavily on there, but he needs to rise above this sort of thing. I remember some silly interaction he got sucked into a while back about meeting up in the club coffee shop.. and some inappropriate sexualised objectifying comment about the rugby team (which would've rightly caused uproar if said about the women's team).

What was the context of this exactly? Was it during the game?

You have to be more committed if you want to impersonate the sage I'm afraid. The 2003 emoticons require you to scroll right to the bottom. ? , is incorrect; the one you want to use is this >>..............

??

I'm confused why he's not on set pieces, not least because he's fairly diminutive so is less likely to be a goal threat in the air.

It is very good to see that people are disappointed with just a point. In the last few years, this is exactly the type of game we've really struggled with. A team who's hard to break down who'd usually find a way to beat us. This shows we've made a lot of progress. Shame not to win of course, but a very solid set of recent results.

It's mad isn't it. You'd think people would learn by now that it takes players time to get up to speed - whether that's a new club (Cornick) or match fit after an injury (Weimann).

Quite a generalisation when it sounds like you have absolutely no idea as to the context of that current situation

The goal gifs pre-date the current media team and are actually an idea that initially came from Bristol Flyers' Joel Osbourne. The point people are making is that we should expect a media team that can do both. It doesn't have to be either/or. They're clearly very good at the video side, but there are too many basic errors in written copy.. I also still think they frequently miss the mark on Twitter. An observation many people have held since Adam Baker left a few seasons ago.

Really interesting question. Tricky because they're different positions and very different styles of player. One metric could be how far did we expect Abraham to go by age 25, and where do we expect Scott to be at the same age? Abraham played at various Premier League clubs - with good scoring records at each, and is now doing pretty well for Roma. He's had a few England caps, and is a bit unlucky to be in the same era as a time when England tend to play 1 out and out centre forward, and have Harry Kane. I think one thing that will perhaps enable Scott to go further is his versatility. He's clearly more comfortable as an attacking minded midfielder, but can play a variety of positions. Abraham doesn't have that luxury, and is only really effective as a centre forward. In the modern game where systems are so fluid, and lots of teams play with a single centre forward, this will obviously favour Scott. Both have lots of natural ability, but in different ways. Scott is skilful, has great vision and dribbling whereas Abraham has that unteachable instinct for goalscoring. You could argue Abraham has benefitted from being at Chelsea, but this is entirely dependent on how you view it. If Scott was at Chelsea or a similar club, he'd have likely spent a couple of years out on loan as Abraham did - perhaps to better sides than us. Impossible to say whether this would have been better for his development than being a regular fixture in a middling championship club. By 25 - would we expect Scott to have played more games in the Prem and/or for higher ranked clubs than Abraham with more than 11 England caps? If I had to make a call one way of the other, I'd probably say yes. Some of that though will be by virtue of his comparative versatility. Really good question - lots to consider.

Agreed. I don't agree with many of Ian's opinions or the way they're delivered (whether on a podcast or twitter).. but it's interesting to have a bit of a pantomime villain. If everyone was agreeable and on the same page, it likely wouldn't be very good listening. My issue with this particular podcast is the productions value. I appreciate it's just a few City fans talking about the team and sharing their passion, but I do find it quite a hard listen due to the low production values. I would probably find this podcast a bit more interesting than OSIB or the Peas in a Podcast one (personal preference no slight on either) but I can't bring myself to listen when it's people talking over eachother on Skype or whatever it is. That said, I appreciate it's just people giving up their time to talk about the club - so unless people commit to spending on a more professional setup, it's always going to be a bit like this.

I completely agree.......................

We're fine. The key ingredient in sides of ours that have really struggled was total squad imbalance, no visible system or style of play and a ragtag team of players not playing for eachother. The side in 12/13 under McInnes and later SO'D epitomised that. The Holden side looked a bit like that towards the end too and I think we'd have ended up being sucked into real danger had he stayed. This side doesn't have any of those traits. We don't have top level championship squad depth, but we have a balanced squad more than good enough for mid table and upper mid table. We have a visible style of play now, it's taken a little while but we're getting there. The players seem a good squad, no passengers and all working hard for eachother.

I'm surprised at that - I thought Wilkins would love someone like Pearson.

Would it be that good for the league though? They'd obviously win the league at a canter, even if their squad is asset stripped. All the discourse in the media would be about them, especially if Guardiola and a few of their big names stayed. We've played at their stadium relatively recently, (unlike Everton for example) and I think it would get very boring very quickly. Was bad enough when Leeds and Newcastle (pre money) were down here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really admire your determination to keep 2003 style internet discourse alive in the year of our lord 2023. Once again though, I want it on record that my favourite idiosyncrasy of yours is utilising the really old school emojis as often as possible....................................

I don't think it is as black and white as that. It's fine to be a fairly relaxed character, but if you keep yourself in shape, work hard for the team and give it your all - Pearson is likely going to approve (Wells). Palmer is a laid back character, but clearly had times where he wasn't in shape and wasn't in optimum condition.

Prem: Everton (Would be a fun trip) Bournemouth & Southampton (Fairly local and we'd travel well there) League 1: - (really not enthused by Sheffield Wednesday coming up so allowed myself a bit of creative license here..) Plymouth (Likely winners anyway, fairly local, bit of a rivalry) Wycombe (Reasonably local, not a boring Northern side that we'd take about 300 fans to in December) Shrewsbury (Be great to see Cotterill get a team up and have him back at AG)

No it's just a case of priorities needing a bit of review. The focus seems to be more digital media content, which I can understand given the increased opportunities this provides commercially. It seems more traditional content is handled a bit lazily. Lots of it looks like templates that they chop and change.. but often they're incorrect.

Their main KPIs seem to be whether "fever pitch" can win the "football content awards". That's all fine, but it seems to be at the expense of getting the basics right rather than in addition to.