Holmes_and_Watson

What is it we're all to do? Bang some saucepans? And if it is that, could someone be clearer about the steps, as the police wanred me last time. 🙂 Looks it up... Oh dear. I politely decline his majesty's kind offer of having "an active role in the ceremony"

Sorry, I was expecting you to say a bad thing he could do, in order to do more damage? 🙂

It is brave football. Considering the nightmares and therapy sessions we're all going to need to get over the memories, we're incredibly brave for watching it. 🙂

Posted to wrong thread.

Light show?

That was an utter shambles of a second half. 1-0 up and Selles manages to distill all of the things he's got hopelessly wrong in previous weeks and got the players to execute that. Never stretch the play when you can invite wave after wave of pressure at the back. Never get a proactive shape when you can react by getting dragged out of postion. Never give yourself a chance to retain the ball when you can hoof it in a panic. Never complete passes or show drive or passion when you can sit back and capitulate. Never give yourself a chance of holding the ball up, when you can replace players with lightweights, with none of those skills. Never give yourself a defensive chance by playing an unbalanced back line, and then weakening it by bring on a loan signing who have been incredibly poor. Just horrendous. The only thing the players have earned is the % cut in ther wages following relegation. They've more than earned that. The only thing our coaching staff, and above, have earned are P45s. They shouldn't be around to taint whoever comes next to try and get us back up.

With the win safely in the bag, Newcastle bring on pointless subs. We make pointless subs do reduce any chance of us winning at key points in the game. Oddly, we seem to regularly lose when doing this.

Other, less smart clubs have false number 9s. That stat shows we have an entire false attacking line. That's how cleaver we are.

Really hope he's questioned by the authorities after the game, for chucking this away again. 🙂

Points at his head - be smart Points to his chest - show heart perhaps he could have shown a clue, and we'd not be watchig this.

Selles got every possible decision wrong for this half. The players he's introduced have matched their usual performacnes, and our manager has learned not one thing. Utterly useless.

We had a couple of chances to not just hoof it clear, but retain it. But we did just hoof it, because we were dropping so deep, and that's what happens when you keep inviting the pressure.

So far so good. At least strongly due to picking players capable of doing something furhter up the park, it wasn;t all one way traffic. Sure, Newcastle had opportuniites, with Lyanco being tested by Gordon, and leaving gaps, before getting some dominance. But when were weathering a bit of pressure, SellesBall of a central counterattck paid off. Today we had the players, and as a group, to make that attack pay off. They worked as a unit, rather than our counter being form a random clearance where someone has to hope for the best. Newcastle will undoubtedly get opportunities. So it's a test of Selles whether he tires to shut up shop with a lead as per normal unsuccessful SellesBall, or still adopt a more attacking outlook, so that Newcastl e will know to be wary of overcommitting.

Whew! Bednarek managed to keep it out of his own net.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaas!!!!!!!!

And the commentator said he ran away after his foul 30seconds later, while a team mate distracted the ref. But the ref is have a good game in the same breath.

I didn;t see a flurry of notes coming on, so not sure. 🙂

whew...

I've not seen the comments after the team was announced, but that stood out as being a weak link. Well, one of the weak links, but you know what I mean. 🙂

Justice

Hopefully, there will be an effective overhaul in the summer, and the chap near you can come back ahead of a brighter, more entertaining season in the Championship. Should we get promoted, then he can consider quitting. At least he can quit when we're on the up. 🙂

"We've got 'em just where we want 'em!" "I fancy Italian after the match. You?" "30% - Your relegation wage drop." "Do I look smart on the touchline?" "Be front footed and aggressive."

What do you mean, "fan apathy?" 🙂

@sadoldgit said “If you still feel that I am an Abbott apologist, there is no more I can say.” Well that saves me a bit of typing. Thanks. 😊 Sadly, only a bit… I think you’ve tied yourself up in knots over it, often within the same posts. You say “In no way was I defending Abbott or her hierarchy of racism, quite the opposite. Keir Starmer made the point that their is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with him.” Yet, we got “I expected better from you Whelk. If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong.” And “She was trying to claim the word “racism” for black people” and when the obvious flaws in that were pointed out, ploughed on regardless. Not only that, but you perpetuate a hierarchy every time you come out with comments such as “How many people did you hear going in to bat for the Irish, travellers and redheads against those who called out her letter for its comments about Jewish people” That was on the back of, “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice.” And “Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter.” So bearing the above in mind… “Why can’t I or anybody else use the Holocaust to make a point, especially when we are discussing this subject” I did not say that it could not be discussed. I said that you had been “mentioning the Holocaust as part of arguments for the *second* day in a row, while defending someone who minimises Jewish people in her structure of racism.” Which as you “don’t believe these remarks are anti/Semitic,” you were. From your own quotes, you think the comments can’t be, because “Can you show me where her response displays hate or hostility towards Jewish people? Can you show me where she denied the Holocaust?” So despite other posters quickly pointing out the massive flaws in that reasoning, you come out with what comes across as ‘It’s only anti-semitic if it mentions something specific about the holocaust.’ Oh and the old deflection tactic of “…perhaps people are trying to find a way to make her text wholly discriminatory against one specific group of white people” which comes across ‘we’re not discriminatory, despite blatantly being discriminatory, it’s *them*’ Even after a day of research that told you “can be subjected to racism” or even “nothing definitive either way”, you’ve actually decided to ignore either position and conclude “I (and others) didn’t find the contents of this particular letter to be anti-Semitic.” and that any perceived anti-semitism is “it is *just* a reflection to the fallout from the letter.” (my emphasis). My “Spending much of a day trying to find out something!” line was intended to be combined with the next point of “But despite typing that, in the same paragraph..”. I wondered if that wasn’t clear enough myself after posting. Hopefully, the above clarifies. It’s a good thing to reach out and learn from as many sources as you can. It’s unfortunate that this didn’t apply to finding out about Abbott’s history, views and track record all of which have a bearing here, as you said “I was only dealing with that one particular letter.” Id’ like to think you at least strayed into reading the article it was in reply to. And unfortunate that study time didn’t apply to other posters waving giant warning flags, because “I don’t bother to read their posts.” You said “Deflection? … Why would I want to deflect from that?” Well in the following couple of paragraphs you said “the right wing media would use this for deflection themselves (which some did).” and “Abbott is an unfortunate sideshow, when the Home Secretary talks about “illegal immigrants.” So you could hardly get another couple of sentences in without trying it. 😊 This is likely why your position comes across as such a mess here. You seem to have a massive trigger to defend a political party/ leader. I can’t say “at all costs” but certainly here, very quickly, regardless of the evidence. Despite not agreeing with certain allegations against Abbott, and disagreeing with Starmer, who did conclude the allegations were correct, you praise his quick action. “She is rightly being dealt” and will be “be one less liability.” That’s at odds with you championing her brave “trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be” and I can’t think of many who would consider her to be “unfortunate.” I am aware that on forums, such positions to defend parties can be knee jerk in response to others. I’m also aware that you have a posting limit. Having a lot to say, an a few posts, can result in crossed wires and mixed messages. Because, and you may not like the source, @Turkish said "Interesting to note here that in soggy and aintclever we have the two of the biggest wokeys on the forum, desperate to jump on any perceived racism every opportunity they get both in their own way defending Abbots comments, denying any anti-semitism whist even the leader of their party has condemned them. Soggy has spent all day trying to prove Jews aren’t a race and aintclever has gone as far as accusing Starmer of lying." And that's is exactly how it comes across. I quote him because you've said that you don't read posts from others (not getting into the ignore thing). Hopefully some of the points discussed, by everyone, will give you pause for thought the next time something like this comes up.

You were right enough. It was that bad, if not worse, considering what was on the line.