chinapig

How are things back there in the 70s??

Seems a bit odd given that Wasps play there and this hasn't been a problem before. I think we should be awarded a win in the cup game as a consequence.?

So when the Sags told us that Sunderland fans love them they were lying? Surely not?

Thanks, we really needed to know that. A valuable contribution to the discussion.?

Why are there no restrictions on the numbers allowed to be locked outside??

Nigel said the other day that they would need to see if he can play with the discomfort he still has despite his operation. So I don't see him playing yet unless it's essential.

Yes, pubs are not included in the figures. Plus there were 5.9 viewing via BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website

Yes indeed. The WSL in its context is even worse than the Premier League in that respect. So if more money comes in it will likely go to pay ever higher wages to star, often foreign, players. Not what I would call a legacy.

Can be for a minority. From The Telegraph back in March: The investigation found that current salaries range from as little as £20,000 per annum to as much as £250,000, plus bonuses, across the 12 top clubs. That top end of the spectrum could well rise, as three sources within the WSL were aware of an England player being offered around £300,000-a-season to sign a new contract this summer. At the lower end of the scale, Telegraph Sport's investigation found that, according to the most recent accounts available, Birmingham City and Tottenham Hotspur spent the least on employee salaries (figures that included all administrative staff as well as players). Of the WSL clubs to have published details in their 2019-20 financial accounts, both clubs' average salary for employees fell well below the national average wage, with Birmingham's coming to less than £19,000. So it's a very uncompetitive league of a few rich clubs and the rest there to make up the fixtures.

Indeed. Almost every year you get that kind of guidance issued (e.g. to do with holding at set pieces, simulation and so on) and every year officials ignore it and carry on as before. Given that they know they have no intention of implementing the guidance why issue it in the first place? It just makes them look even more incompetent than they already are.

Let's just say I would prefer not to be tackled by Lena Oberdorf. Ouch!?

Indeed, as the latest guidance to referees says, there have to be consequences. The only consequence was that the player took two steps then threw himself down. I can only assume the referee was not only incompetent but illiterate so unable to read the guidance.

We're a counter attacking team so we're less likely to dominate possession. I'm not sure we have the players to do that anyway. Swansea on the other hand tend to keep the ball for ages but couldn't win at relegation favourites Rotherham. It's the outcome that matters not the process.

It looked like "**** off you ****ing p****" to me. One of the highlights of the game! Edit: I now see above that I was right. **** me, I can lip read!?

Yes, we are far too nice in that respect.

True but we tend to make little effort to prevent crosses, a problem we have had under successive managers.

They've just talked on Sky about there being a higher bar for foul play this season: there has to be contact and consequences. Yet Hull get a penalty when there is no contact and the only consequence is a dive. So either the referee didn't get the memo or it's yet another change referees have no intention of implementing.

They are not required to justify their performances unlike everybody else in the game. And there never seem to be any consequences for consistently poor performances. The fact though is that it's so hard to get people to take up refereeing that we are stuck with those we have, however incompetent.

I'd now go for Wilson at RWB (if fit) and Sykes behind the front two.

Scott looked lost because he is not a 10. The same happened when he played there for England U19s, he barely saw the ball. Nigel has a tough decision to make: change the shape so he can play as an 8, bench him (or coach him on how to be a 10). Vyner played very well. Now he needs to keep it up.

Yes, well, there are a lot of people these days who want to believe nonsense so him wanting to believe it was a penalty doesn't mean it was.

I think, like Boris Johnson, he tells so many lies he forgets them so ends up contradicting himself.

Hang on, didn't he say they would have the same budget as Sheff Wed? Now he's saying their budget is limited?

He's got a hell of a job on his hands then!

Perhaps he could act as a consultant? He might be able to advise what we have to do to get a penalty from his mates.