The9

He also looked very composed in the Capital One Cup at Stevenage.

No, a red herring is just something which is misleading, whether by design or not.

City were better than Arsenal last season so that's to be expected. The point was that we held the ball in the opposition's half more, reducing their time to attack - and also Rodriguez did a pretty decent job defensively (for a striker). Besides, it wasn't until Rodriguez went off and Lambert came on that we actually conceded more than one goal.

David Prutton.

There's nothing sudden about it, we were saying it last season as well. Especially about Fox and Richardson.

How many times has he stood on the ball in the 6 yard box for Swansea ?

Capital G for God - and it's "pendant" on SW.

There's an element of the gamble in all exams though, for my A-levels (1991) for two of my three subjects (Eng Lit and Politics) I only revised one topic more than the number of questions we were going to get asked on the exam knowing perfectly well that I could then answer any question on that subject and didn't have to worry about more than half of the rest of the curriculum at all. I didn't even turn up to an English lesson after January because I'd already decided which books and poets I was going to answer questions on, plus my teacher was menopause mental, but that's another story. Also, for A Level English I learned, verbatim, 50 quotes from Anthony & Cleopatra and wrote them all on the question paper the second the exam started, in order that I could plug all of them into my exam answer on the play no matter what it was about. Got a B, but that was fine, it got me into my chosen University (of Southampton) anyway. FWIW, I came a complete cropper on my British Politics paper, as they changed the format of for the first time in 10 years and none of the expected questions came up. Every single person on my course got at best a D, and then later it transpired (from those who did the resit) that they had changed the curriculum and the school had taught us completely the wrong syllabus for 2 years, so it wasn't even my revision method at fault, I could only just have answered the three questions even if I'd learned absolutely everything. The year after, following a significant change to the lessons, someone actually got the A I was projected. I nevertheless got a 2:1 degree in it, which implied that I did actually know enough about the subject to have got better than a D at A Level. But the whole thing does show there are techniques of playing exams and they predated the implementation of GCSEs, coursework and even league tables (which weren't around then) by some distance.

I completely agree, I knew pretty much everything I was ever taught about grammar by the age of 8 - and my grammatical education was by no means complete compared to my uncle who was 9 years older than me in the same schools. I had spelling tests every week until at least 10 years old. High school (or Comprehensive school in my case) was still regular comprehension tests, and we still had the Use of English pseudo-exam alongside my GCSE exams.

I agree with a lot of that, but the "expectation" of a University place started with the unification of the Uni and Polys from UCCA and PCAS to UCAS in 1990/1991, which was a Tory government after more than 10 years in charge. I took my GCSEs in year 2 of the exams, so I have a longer view. So, of the problems with GCSEs you stated : Presumably having different papers for different abilities reduces the likelihood of disruption during exams themselves, fewer kids mentaling out cos they can't do the difficult stuff and interrupting the other kids. Doesn't always work, for example I'm still narked that I didn't get to take the higher paper for Physics due to my school's bonkers policy on streaming the classes for ability, but only for some subjects. I sat at the back in that one, got a C, which was my second lowest grade. The remarking and resubmission of coursework is of course a big problem - in 1989 there was already a trend towards giving you the stuff back with corrections to redo it all, but the coursework was still quite a low share of the overall mark back then. As I already noted, the "underachiever" thing was a "streaming" policy in my school - nothing to do with GCSEs though, and would have been even worse with the GCE/CSE split before it too, you'd get lumped in with the thickies much sooner and were unlikely to get the chance to do anything better. At least with GCSEs there was the chance to do higher exams until the exam entry was completed. That said, we were streamed for the 5 subjects I got As in and not streamed in classes for my lowest 4 grades. I think we both agree streaming for ability is the way to go, but they need to pay more attention to the actual abilities of the kids, as opposed to how they're impacted by the rest of the group, and allow them to move up or down. I'm awesome in exam conditions, FWIW, but I readily agree that there needs to be a way of assessing kids who aren't. It's the same with job interviews, at which I generally suck. As for the education secretary, I just don't understand how it took 20 years for people to work out that you can have more people pass each year nationally just by setting the number of people you want to pass slightly higher. If you set the overall parameters of pass percentages comparatively year on year, then the marking itself is irrelevant, the overall figures will always add up to what they want them to because the comparison WITHIN the year just determines who is in the "20% A*s" rather than how many A*s there are. But the illiteracy levels in English that are evident on a massive scale in under 25s compared to when I was in school (even the thick kids only got a few words wrong and they all knew their/they're/there etc.) prove that the academic standard in English at least is much lower than it was.

Both is the way to go.

*I* am disgusted at the complete lack of literacy in the majority of people under the age of about 25, never mind the bloody prospective employers. I had the misfortune of helping a friend's kid with her A-level coursework a couple of years ago and she couldn't compose a coherent sentence on paper based on the arguments I was proposing to her, never mind understand the argument. This was A-level. I'm also still p155ed off at the introduction of A*s at GCSE level which by definition reduce the impact of my 5 As, which may or may not have been A*s at the time. Not to mention the whole "more people passing everything for 20 successive years" despite the obvious and tangible drop in the use of accurate written English over that time period. Anyway, teach the kids the basics of academics, and teach them some life skills too, until the age of 13. Then teach the ones who aren't good academically the kind of practical skills they might find useful in a trade, or business, etc. And teach the same stuff to the academic kids to make them realise academia in itself isn't necessary a means to an end. And for Christ's sake start teaching grammar, spelling and comprehension again.

I think I'd rather we changed the lot in one hit and got on with it, rather than dragging out a gradual change which isn't quite what we need. We're already learning as we go.

That's because half of the Prem plays "gash hoofball" disguised as rapidly turning defence into attack via one pass. They also have a team bought to play to their strengths. Newcastle finished top 6 doing that long ball thing last season, supported by some good quality midfielders who could mix in shots from distance.

To be fair to Clyne, Neville did say "at that level", presumably meaning Champions League level was how he was critiquing that Clyne made mistakes, and Neville himself said the criticism was "harsh". He also pointed out that his body shape was right in later attacks (though he had a pop for wafting his leg at the OG). I don't think Neville thought our shape was "right" for the 3rd goal, Fonte's positioning was what he was critical of and that wouldn't be symptomatic of good shape - on that occasion. But he was scathing about Reading's midfield (and Ian Harte and Gorkss as well) in comparison. Thanks for flagging up who provided the pass for the 3rd goal, I hadn't been looking at that bit but Lallana was certainly partially culpable, just as one of the two players tackling Podolski were partially to blame for the 1st for not staying goalside.

Ramirez didn't get much ball but looked decent when he did have it but IMHO needs someone who can get on the end of through balls. Yoshida was put in a very difficult position and was clearly partially at fault for one of the goals, but it's much more important to communicate and know the defensive system than anywhere else on the pitch, and it wasn't the ideal place for him to have an unexpected debut at short notice. Could go either way, but couldn't draw many conclusions from that particular game, let's see what happens when they've had some coaching and know what's expected of them, rather than just being expensive foreign signings.

OP has had 7 of his last 15 threads locked, not a massive surprise...

Do you think you could take your one thought agenda elsewhere ?

This depends whether that "3 over-21 goalkeepers" rule exists or not though... we could sign Gordon, certainly. Upson is not free, and even if he was, see the last sentence.

I don't think anyone can. The "back 9" shape is basically ok. Neville was much more critical of Reading's players right afterwards, he kept referring to decision-making at the very top level, and the margins being so fine (the "windscreen wipers" and "one second rule" being particularly enlightening for anyone who's never been coached). It's not like Clyne doesn't know what his body shape is meant to be, or that Fonte doesn't know he should be 5 yards closer to Yoshida, it's just thinking it and doing it before it's too late. It is purely about getting used to anticipating and reacting at a higher speed than ever before. I think having Ramirez around might help our defence quite a lot actually, as he may well have the kind of speed of thought they need to learn to react to. Of course from an attacking perspective, as I keep mentioning, I'm not sure Lambert offers Ramirez the movement or passing options Mayuka or Rodriguez would.

All from the speed of thinking required at a higher level than any of them are used to. Even Kelv could only watch as his Sunderland side plummeted out of the Prem with a then-record points low, so he's not going to have much positive experience to draw on. That rapid 4 man passing move down the Arsenal left which ended with Clyne conceding a corner was probably the greatest piece of multi-player football passing I have ever seen, and I've been to a LOT of football. It was right in front of us and I nearly pooed. It only got them a corner, but it was SO quick and so technically perfect we knew we were going to have some big problems.

Keeping possession (which we did at the Etihad with Lallana and Rodriguez dribbling down the left) is a handy way of stopping the opposition attacking.

Ah, I see. To be honest Bale had done nothing in 2 years at that point other than get injured and gone to the gym to give him the appearance of a chimp sat on a fridge, so I can see why he wouldn't have been in anyone's plans.

Just wondering, I have no idea.