trousers

...

Your dismissal is usual...

Just let us know if thINGS can only get better....

<MLG Mode> That often used phrase doesn't really stack up, logically. Statistically, a player on the bench is highly unlikely to play more than 45 minutes. More likely 30 mins or less. Ergo, it's not unreasonable to have a player who is 'not ready' to play a full game named on the bench. (I suspect Ings will fit into this category today)

Don't think they usually do one for games between Xmas and New Year?

Gruiform

Good to see those around us dropping points too

Amazon Prime exclusive

Unless I'm misinterpreting what Ralph is saying here, surely we should have pulled Vestergaard from the squad sooner than we did if continuing to play him was making an underlying injury "worse and worse"? Or maybe something lost in translation? https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/18972990.we-stop-now---hasenhuttl-reveals-vestergaard-knee-injury-getting-worse-worse/

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Don't really want to dwell on it (especially as doing so attracts the wrath of the Saintsweb intelligentsia... )

Yes, but If there were, say, 5 letters, 1 of which supported the SNP stance and 4 which didn't, The National would report the 1 letter and ignore the other 4. Much like any other bias rag would do dependant on which way they lean.

15 games in and the top of the table side have only won two more games than us. Happy days.

They weren't 'like-for-like' scenarios though. Bednarek was trying to move his arm out of the way of the ball whereas the Fulham defender was trying to move his arm towards the path of the ball. However, both player's arms were in a 'natural' position so I've no idea if that trumps intent or not? (I gave up trying to keep up with the nuances of the handball rule a long time ago...)

I'm not sure the SNP's mouthpiece is the best go-to publication for balanced reporting. Meanwhile... https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-fires-diplomat-in-scotland-over-eu-membership-letter/

Wouldn't Spain veto such an eventuality?

Ralph seemed fairly hopeful in today's post match interviews that Ings could be back in contention for this. I'm firmly in the not rushing him back camp though. Especially as temperature will be hovering around the freezing mark, one wouldn't have thought that was good conditions for someone with a borderline muscle/hamstring issue (?) West Ham only have c.48 hours between games so here's hoping the extra day we get works to our advantage. With Liverpool on the horizon we really need a win here to preserve our top half status. I'd go with: McCarthy KWP - Bednarek - Stephens - Bertrand Romeu - JWP Djenepo - Armstrong Adams - Walcott With Ings on the bench

Only saw a brief replay so fair enough (Ralph obviously hadn't seen it either, before his post match interviews, as he was aghast that Adams didn't bury the chance)

Happy Roman god of agriculture day @Matthew Le God

Thinking out loud... On the assumption that the EU would quite like a country on their doorstep, with the 5th/6th largest economy in the world, to be part of their union, who's to say that they wouldn't offer us some concessions/incentives to (re)join? Whilst said concessions might not be as generous as the concessions we've left behind, it may not necessarily be a given that rejoining would have to be on 'vanilla' terms? The fact that the EU were very keen for us not to leave in the first place would tend to suggest there would be some room for manoeuvre regarding rejoining terms. Maybe? Maybe not...

Having not seen the game, and based on the feedback above, I'm wondering if Diallo could fit into a slightly more advanced roll? Say, as an alternative option to Armstrong? Given he's not the same type of player as Romeu (i.e. a midfield 'enforcer'), and JWP never seems to get injured and/or need a rest (famous last words!), Diallo's opportunities are going to be very few and far between unless we can utilise him in Armstrong's position. It sounds like he's got a bit of quality about him, so would be a shame to see him on the bench for most of the season, which is likely if he's only ever going to replace Romeu or JWP. (P.s. I know Ralph is unlikely to tweak the system or shoehorn a player into another position just to give 'player x' more game time)

I've just watched the highlights for the first time. How on Earth was that penalty not given? The Fulham player clearly intended to deflect the ball with his arm. It surely doesn't matter that his arm was in a 'natural' position if there was intent? It's not that he was trying to move his arm away from the ball, quite the opposite. P.s. and why on Earth didn't Adams launch his head at the rebound from JWP's excellent free-kick?!