aintforever

I prefer 4-2-3-1 but think Gabbi, Long and Austin are all better suited to two up front, maybe even Carrillo. None of them have the presence of Lambert or Pelle. We should have played 3-5-2 during the first half of the season when we had one of the worlds best centre backs. Cedric and Bertrand are two of our best players, wing back roles would have utilised them better. We have plenty of options for the three in the middle and two up front would have suited our strikers.

Happy with that, Chelsea can be hit and miss.

Shocking first half but it looked to me like they were just struggling with the change in formation and just resorted to lumping it up front. Second half much better which is a good sign - shows that the manager can read the game and make changes. Subs all made sense and actually improved the team which is refreshing. As was watching us go for a second goal instead of sitting there and trying to cling on. I thought Gabbi looked a real threat with his movement, he’s much better with two up front.

Like the line up, let’s hope it performs!

They don’t have much choice to be fair, with the media circus twisting “wait for all the evidence” to “siding with Russia” - the sort of stuff lapped up by gullible mongs on here. It says “made in Russia” on the murder weapon so case closed, no point digging any further. It really is that simple. Just like Iraq obviously had WMDs.

To be fair, I work a lot in photoshop - both those pics look like they have had the same hard light layer effect applied which in Corbyn’s case has lost the detail in the hat making it look different. Corbyn may have had the red tweaked further but It’s hard to say, If the original had slightly more red the same effect can make it more pronounced. Having said that, the end results do look very different - Corbyn looks like a Russian dictator and the Tory looks like he’s been cut out and dumped on a Russian background so the designer should have used a different picture of Corbyn. The BBC is supposed to be impartial and those images obviously have different connotations.

Yes it will be but as Spurs will effectively be playing at home I think they should have less fans there than whoever they are playing. Would make it a bit fairer. Never happen though.

They should be given a smaller allocation to even things up a bit.

Meanwhile, Alastair Hay, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Leeds who investigated the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in 1988 thinks the novichok agent can be created by any country. “The chemical structures of the main weaponised novichok agents were made public in 2008 by Vil Mirzayanov, a former Russian scientist living in the US, but the structures have never been publicly confirmed. It is thought that they can be made in different forms, including a dust aerosol that would be easy to disperse. The novichoks are known as binary agents because they become lethal only after two relatively harmless components are mixed together. This means that labs do not have to build stockpiles of ready-made nerve agents but can mix them up from unrestricted chemicals as and when needed. According to Mirzayanov, the most potent of the agents are 10 to 100 times more toxic than the conventional nerve agents. The fact that so little is known about the novichoks may explain why Porton Down scientists took several days to identify the compound used in the attack against the Skripals. And while the agents were invented in the Soviet Union, other labs with access to the chemical structures would be able to manufacture them too.” I guess there must be more evidence yet to come to light if it is already proven beyond doubt that it is Russia though.

Show his face where?

Corbyn always manages to judge the mood wrong and score massive own goals. What he has said is spot on but sometimes he needs to just do what all the other politicians do and pander to the mass hysteria whipped up by the press. He surely must know by now that everything he says will be misrepresented in the press and quoted out of context. It obviously probably was Putin so, whilst the correct thing to do would be to wait until there is sufficient evidence, if you want to win votes best just shut up and try and appear tough like all the others.

To be fair Novichok has been around for decades so I doubt it would be impossible for another government to replicate it. Also it is certainly possible that some of it, or the knowledge to create it got into the wrong hands after the break up of the Soviet Union. Russia is the obvious culprit but you wouldn't make a very good detective with such a simplistic approach, the facts that are out at the moment make Russia the prime suspect, not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously new evidence will come to light but given the fact that our security services thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the barely had a working tank I think it is wise to be sceptical.

To be fair, none of those 'facts' rule out another government, secret service or criminal gang carrying it out to make it look like the Russians. Agree that the most likely scenario is Putin sending out a message though.

I'm not suggesting people from Porton Down did it, just that it's a bit odd that Europes first chemical weapons attack since WW2 happened on the doorstep of the UK's chemical defence experimental establishment. On the face of it the most likely perpetrator is obviously the Russian government but just because it's the same agent as developed by Russia 20 years ago is not proof in itself the the state was behind it. Corbyn is 100% right in saying that we shouldn't rush ahead of the evidence.

It would be interesting to see what evidence there actually is. All we have been told is that it is Novichok which is the same type as developed by Russia. How easily can it be created? Could it easily be copied? It is all a bit suspicious, an obvious Kremlin target, attacked with an obvious Russian chemical weapon - a stones through from the UK centre of chemical weapons. Corbyn is absolutely correct in that any actions should be based on facts.

Decent record that, especially considering QPR are a bit of a basket case.

It’s almost as if we’re in a position where we can’t pick and choose the finest manager around.

I knew compo was paid, just assumed that was worked out after the manager resigned, didn’t realised we could have just told Spurs no. I guess Saints will just cash in on anything.

They couldn’t have wanted him very badly if they were not prepared to pay a bit of compo.

How come our managers leave at will then? There would be nothing stopping Everton adding the money to his salary there anyway.

Surely if he wanted to go to Everton he could have just resigned?

I’d be happy if the team pulled out, we’re **** anyway.

If Hughes keeps us up he will have done a very good job so I expect he will be kept on. Don't really see the logic is sacking someone who's doing a very good job.

If we hired Silva you would get the same ****-heads on here moaning that we hired someone who took Hull down.

Potter - do You really think that is less risky and realistic considering we need someone now and he already has a job? If he did fancy throwing his career away for an 8 game relegation battle, is getting a manager with zero Premier League experience a good idea considering we need results straight away? He has done great in Sweden but throwing him into this season’s cluster-**** hoping he will instantly make an impact would be way way more risky than Hughes.