Holmes_and_Watson

Old Testament version probably isn't fussed with any of those. 🙂

Also from Sky, Trump already calling foul. A couple of podcasts saying there's behind the scenes blame games already starting up. Donald Trump admits he could lose the election Donald Trump has conceded there is a possibility he might lose the presidential election. ABC's Jonathan Karl asked Mr Trump if there was a chance he could lose. The former president replied: "Yeah, I guess, you know, I guess you could lose, can lose. I mean, that happens, right?" "But I think I have a pretty substantial lead, but, you could say, yeah, yeah, you could lose. Bad things could happen. "You know, things happen, but it's going to be interesting," he added. The Republican nominee also said he believes the outcome of his race against Kamala Harris will be declared tomorrow night. Yesterday, he told a campaign rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the only way he could lose would be if he was cheated, as he once again called into question the integrity of the electoral system.

We don't look as though we're ever going to play to his strengths. There is only Plan A. The whole system isn't set up for his strengths. He doesn't look likely to be able to play into many of the system's strengths (not going to do some of the jobs Adams did). It doesn't look as though the team have had a single session on the scenarios where we need a goal and he comes on to get it. I'm not going to be able not to think of Warwick Davis in a sleeping bag, when TP comes on. 🙂

I've seen that on a few forums (mostly many years back, when they start up). Folk who can't bear to feel there's an argument and that they're losing it. Usually part of all the ID's ganging up on other posters, or validating a position. Failing that, a cry for help. 🙂 Love and light...I mean light and love...darn...

Couldn't find a link, but from Sky. Professor who correctly predicted nine of last 10 elections says he's 'sure' of who will win tomorrow A historian who has successfully predicted nine out of the last 10 elections in the US believes Kamala Harris will win the keys to the White House. Polls have been suggesting it will be a neck-and-neck race between Republican nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent. But Professor Allan Lichtman's system, called "The Keys to the White House", involves disregarding the polls entirely. Instead, 13 metrics on a checklist are used to try and figure out who the successful candidate will be. "Why am I sure that Harris is going to win? Because it's only close on the polls, and my system ignores the polls," Professor Lichtman told CNN. The professor, who correctly predicted Mr Trump's win against Hillary Clinton in 2016, described polls as "snapshots" and said: "People don't respond to pollsters, they lie, they change their minds, and they have to guess who the likely voters are." His system, which he developed in the early 1980s with the Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok, analyses the political landscape through the lens of 13 true-false statements focused on the incumbent president's party. If six or more of the statements are false, then the challenger — in this case, Mr Trump — is predicted to win. As detailed below, his system currently concludes that eight of the 13 keys are in Ms Harris's favour - while three favour her Republican rival. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. FALSE Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. TRUE Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. FALSE Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. TRUE Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. TRUE Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. TRUE Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. TRUE Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. TRUE Incumbent charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE Challenger charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. LEANS FALSE Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. LEANS TRUE The election he got wrong was in 2000, when there were five false keys against the incumbent Democrats and Prof Lichtman predicted Democratic candidate and vice president Al Gore would win. Mr Gore won the popular vote, but Republican nominee George W Bush was declared the winner of the Electoral College by the Supreme Court 36 days after election day, following a lengthy legal battle.

When is a 6 pointer not a 6 pointer? When it has no impact on the PL survival of either. 🙂 Hopefully, we'll have a bit of a bounce from the Stoke and Everton games. It means we're probably going to have to make the best from few chances. But fancy Archer to get us a narrow win.

I think they are trying to follow the Brighton/ Brentford decision making by data process, along with the results, dressing room etc. That evens out some of the Everton win against say an individual error against Ipswich (not that I think RM is doing the right thing there). If they were going to move on, then I can only imagine that the new coach is already on his way. If not, then RM for the season, unless he loses the dressing room or we get tanked every week and the data shows it falling apart.

Account

I thought it was a very nice thing for the Mail to say about Starmer.

Loan

Should we win against Wolves, will the club pull the plug? If they do, it must be because they've already found a replacement. Looking at some pluses Martin would then look to 2 wins, a draw he put down to someone not following instructions, a smattering of other individual errors, giving Pep a little unease towards the end of the City game, an injury and doubling up failing vs Leicester, being 1 up vs Arsenal and various tweaks within his system as we've gone on. Presumably, the club's data analysis would be backing him up (as long as the club supported the approach).

Who can forget the "over the top, lads!" shouted by Nathan as the team kicked off? Or that lone gun, Alcaraz, blazing forward into enemy territory, with no support, but a hope in his heart and a song on his lips, under Ruben? Heady days.

Caring

I've only listened to the Blackmore interview. He did say that "it wasn't enough" as to where we are. I'd like to think he's giving praise for everyone pulling together despite results. But behind the scenes, and without being a different person which I'm sure he's not, making sure everyone knows that Ipswich, Leicester and Everton at home were the minimum of games we'd be wanting to get points from. Then helping to set those standards including in his own tactical approach. He's been around the PL as a player to hopefully not get dazzled by getting a win in it.

You'll note I used "their effort" rather than "offside goal" after last night's posts. 🙂

Nothing to be shot down about. All perfectly valid points. I've also been thinking that it's not going to be quite as close as suggested. I was just wondering if I was thinking that, because the majority of news sources I'm listening to, are pro Harris. Trump needed to get over the line on a wave of populism, partly lifting up unregistered, disaffected voters. But that wave hasn't quite been large enough to get him there. Harris has been stronger on areas that drew early criticism and that focus is coming across. Her biggest issue this week was Biden. Meanwhile Trump spends his time criticising a mic stand. It's probably too much to hope that if she does win, that the Democrats look at areas where they lost support, and consider making some changes there.

I thought any number of things were going to go the other way yesterday. Tarkowski's challenge which absolutely took out our player. I thought Bedders was going to get his marching orders. I thought Young was going to get booked. AA ended up picking Fernandes up out of pity. I thought they'd managed to bundle the ball in, when it had just gone wide. I thought Beto's header was going in. 2 games in a row he's been in tears, it means that much to him. I didn't think their effort was onside, but expected VAR to adjust the lines accordingly. Lots of drama, and lots of relief to get the points on the board.

A tall, physical focal point for clearances and to occupy their defenders. Keeps the game stretched vertically for Everton. In practice we didn't really get anything up to him, a d got no breaks that could have been passed into him. But there was an idea behind it.

Tsk. Wolves have got 2 to take the lead against Palace.

Great to hear we're going to be a big European club. #martinforever #tenyearplan

A win! A very nice goal to get it too. We're at our best when we get to use that crisp passing to stretch the game. But we so often pass it back before it gets near those positions, we see little of it. Aribo on for Lallana a decent move. Adam was the first to start giving the ball away and struggle defensively. The second half showed a lot more of that. We made a lot of unforced errors. Not for the first time we don't look fit enough at this level. Dibling on for Manning was a good attacking substitution. We suddenly had directness and spark. Les and TP coming on late were meh changes. Fernandes and Archer had done well. We did nothing to use TP's height and Les had looked off the pace v Stoke. We lacked any penetration for a lot of that half, with Everton just waiting for our errors. Our goal came right after Beto hit the bar. A minute after our goal he had the ball on the net again. KWP unknowingly just making him offside. Ramsdale had to make a couple of very good saves elsewhere in the game. Great to get some points. But it's a game you'd be looking to win, and we struggled to get it.

We've done nothing this half. Everton happy to let us pass it about. Sure enough, one of our passes is poor and they get the best chance of the day.

Martin will be pleased by that. Lots of possession. A fair bit of space for AA and Archer to move into. We had a little spell of quick, central passes that then went wide with Downes and Manning adding advanced support. Manning was inches away from getting on the end of one, thanks to a Pickford deflection. We are, as always, an error away from conceding. Everton had more efforts, despite the low possession, a couple being scuffed from decent positions. We're trying to be very clinical against Everton's more direct approach. We really need the 3 points, so will Martin take any risks second half?

We've got our 2 shouty players in today, but not much physicality. Might miss Aribo in there.

Lallana a head coach elsewhere after learning his trade under Martin during the 10 year plan. A sad parting of the ways, but no shortage of hungry coaches eager to learn under master Martin.