LondonBristolian

That was indeed an inept spelling of inept!

It's clearly a terrible decision but I'm not at all convinced that South Africa will succeed in their bid to get the game replayed. It's an appalling decision and there is precedent (in a game that also involved South Africa, Ghana and Senegal, albeit with a Ghanain referee and Senegal as the opponents - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41182108) but proving that the referee made a corrupt decision rather than an in-ept one will be incredibly tough based on the video evidence alone.

Thing is though, much as we romanticise about football, it is like any job in some respects. Managers and coaches are doubtless well made but they will have bills and outgoings and no guarantee they will be working forever. It must be tough to move on after being sacked but ultimately anyone who doesn’t dust themselves down and start again when an opportunity arises risks being forgotten or football moving on without them.

For me the issue is also how we use Martin and Wells. I think it is fine picking Martin as long as you’ve got players in the team who will run beyond him and he can use his intelligence to create space for them. And I think it is fine to pick Wells if you have creative players around him who can get the ball to his feet in the box. But neither of them have had the players around them and system to give them the opportunity to do what they do best and both end up isolated and ineffective as a result. Both players are ultimately Championship players rather than top flight players due to limitations to their game. But both can be very effective Championship players if teams set up to utilise their strengths and negate their weaknesses. We seem to do the opposite.

This is exactly it. I don't think he's one of our "best" eleven players but I do think that, with a team that have really lacked pace and unpredictability, there is a strong argument for having someone with pace and unpredictability on the bench.

After eighteen months of lockdown, both the Euros in Germany and Olympics in France in 2024 are really appealing to me. That could be a great year. Defo wouldn't go to Qatar though. Tempted to boycott even watching it on tv.

I really like what I've seen of Janneh. He's possibly not our most technical player but he seems fast, direct, a bit unpredictable and appears to have the knack of coming away from a less than brilliant performance with a goal or two. Not sure how close he is to the team and there may be valid reasons for not picking him but I really think he could offer something - even if just as an option off the bench - that we've been missing in recent weeks.

I just find it weird you only focus on that. The premier league also allow poppies on kits, which is surely the more relevant example - especially today. To be clear, they should allow poppies, kneeling and away kits at home.

I think the context is important too. Spending £8 million on a defender to make a statement of intent towards promotion makes no sense at all when a) we flogged his defensive partner at almost the last minute and could not get a replacement in b) we flogged a key midfielder at the even more last minute and signed two very different midfielders and then had no balance in the team c) we spent the summer arseing around failing to sign a striker and then scrambled at the absolute last second for someone with an unlucky injury record who got an unlucky injury. d) we flogged our key midfielder in the January transfer window and failed to replace him with a loan from Hull I get some of the above could not be foreseen. There was guarantee Nketiah was coming and there was always a risk we might get offers for Webster and Brownhill but nonetheless it is really hard to justify signing a defender for £8 million as part of a sustained bid for promotion if every other action the club took contradicted the idea it was a sustained bid for promotion

I don't think Kalas is any sense the problem. But I do think, if you compare Kalas & Atkinson as a pairing to Baker & Atkinson as a pairing, the difference in quality between the two partnerships isn't anywhere near as great as what I suspect the difference in combined wages for the pairing is. For me, it's not that I want to lose Kalas or think the signing was a terrible mistake but - given we are now feeling the after-effects of a pandemic and that finances will likely be hit for some time - it is really hard to justify a case to extend his contract on the same or higher wages, even if the alternative was losing our record signing for nothing.

I’m wondering about Kalas. Very good defender but - partnership with Webster aside - he has rarely been part of a solid defensive unit. I think he is a good player but imagine he is on a hefty wage and am open minded as to whether he is value for money on that.

Congratulations on your successful attempt to clumsily insert a complaint about an utterly unrelated subject into this thread. Please accept your Golden Shoehorn.

I for one am relieved that, for once, the rules have triumphed over common sense...

I think Gerrard could do well but it is a gamble to replace Smith with him and see it as an upgrade. Rodgers was already an ex-Liverpool manager when he went to Celtic so Leicester were taking less of a gamble. Ultimately this will be the making or breaking of Gerrard. If he does well, he might well be destined to get the Liverpool job and his crack at the top. If results don't work out, he might well end up in a similar place to Lampard, getting linked to but not getting middling Premier League jobs...

I think it must be that. Eastleigh are in the same division as Grimsby so presumably so the same rules of recall would apply to Towler and I struggle to see why we would recall Low ahead of Towler in terms of first team cover.

No idea who will be fit but, if everyone was, I think my first choice XI would be GK Bentley RB Tanner RCB Kalas LCB Atkinson LB Pring RCM Williams CM James LCM Massengo RF Weimann CF Martin LF Semenyo I’d play Weimann and Semenyo quite narrow so it would allow Martin to drop deep to get the ball with players running on ahead of him. I’d also rotate the formation enough that Weimann and Martin were rested enough to not be constantly knackered.

I had high hopes for Geifer and Lucic. They were not fulfilled. Thanks @Fordy62 for a trip down memory lane. I'll hold those memories closer to me that any of the three keepers could hold a football...

In a way, I really hope she is guilty of doing this. If she's been wrongly arrested and completely innocent - which, for all we know, she could well be - this feels like something that she will never quite shake off.

Warnock is a very good manager but him coming here any time soon would feel like a panic reaction rather than a plan. One hopes that - in the conversations around appointing Pearson over the summer - the board, Richard Gould and Pearson agreed on a direction for the club, a style of football we should move towards and players we should bring in. I’d imagine Tanner and Atkinson were bought with that plan in mind, players were moved on with that plan in mind and that the targets Gould talked about for January are with that plan in mind, not to mention the staffing changes. Obviously this season is not going as we hoped and we don’t know what will happen with Pearson but - whatever happens - it would be an utter failure of strategy and leadership from the board if a plan for an overhaul we made in the summer was torn up in November due to a few poor results with a squad we knew was in transition. If Pearson goes this season - be it for health or results - the aim should be to get someone will continue to work with and adapt the plan, not someone who will tear it up and do something different. You cannot argue with Warnock’s results but he’d be a short term appointment that would clash with what should be a long term plan, irrespective of the manager.

Take the time you need, Nigel. We all understand that your health matters. Hope to see you back in action when you're ready. COYR!

My guess - although I don't know - is that Pearson wants to go come back but doesn't want to mess anyone around or be unrealistic about what he is up to being able to do and it may be that he has been honest that he's given it a week or two to see if how well he feels before deciding whether he is well enough to continue - hence the fact the club cannot make a definite commitment.

My guess is that they just can't predict the nature of the illness and that they hope that a week or two off will make a difference but are realistic that Pearson cannot say for sure if or when he will feel well enough to return.

There is more time pressure, for sure, and I'd expect the club to act within a week or two if action is needed. But, right now, all the club know is that Pearson is taking a week off and seeing if he feels better after that. My guess is the plan is for Fleming and Ball to take training up until the end of the international break and - if Pearson isn't ready to set a return date at that point - that will be when a decision is made to either add to the coaching staff, appoint an interim or do whatever is necessary then.

I don’t agree with the title of your post. If a company had a senior manager off for an as yet undetermined period of time, someone would most likely cover from within until there was a bit more of a sense of if it was days, weeks or months. If it was days someone would cover informally, if weeks interim cover would be appointed from within. If months someone external might be brought in. If Pearson is signed off long term by a doctor or decides he won’t be back for a number of months, I imagine an interim would be appointed. Right now I imagine the club are giving it a week or so to work out if this is long term. Pretty much any business would do the same.

What an odd reaction that completely misses the point.