Dangermouth

Wasn't it the case that Forster didn't play football at all until he was 14? Then he turned up and got put in goal because Newcastle were short and made a career of it. He can make reaction saves that are chest-high and above well; he doesn't look/act like a keeper i.e. he's not a flexible, fit, gymnastic type like Butland (who is our best keeper); etc. I had thought McCarthy would replace him because he was (at least early on in his career at Reading) a natural goalie and one who was very good. I agree with the assessment that he'll do enough to keep his job and make a few headlines, but he's not a goalkeeper at the top of his game (I think even Foster at WBA is better) and it is and has been our defensive organisation (thanks Ronald) which has helped with the clean sheets more than any brilliance on his part.

My recollection of the Augsberg and St Etienne games was that he was quite easily controlled/corralled. I have started to question quite how effective he can be but will wait and see until he's had a run of games. If he doesn't get that then there probably is something about him that means he is not necessarily suited to the league, like Clasie isn't.

Better than playing it safe. We've had enough of that already.

Bit in bold. I do, because that is very important. 1/ He and Stephens' jobs first and foremost are to prevent goals (or opportunities to score, along with everyone else); 2/ There are lots of good attackers around so it will happen a lot; 3/ Teams will exploit our perceived weaknesses: think WBA/Burnley and the like on set pieces (and L'pool's frailties in that regard); 4/ If we play against better defences than the slow and out of positon WHam defence we won't score/get the opportunities for penalties and thus lose the game; 5/ The cross wasn't that good, came from deep and quite central and was slow - should have been closed down in midfield; 6/ The attacker still had to win the header and it was the type of cross that favours the defender slightly more although the run of the attacker to come onto the ball was good (that was more use than the cross actually); On the question of 'potential' why is it that people assume that because someone is 'young' they will automatically 'get good' until say in 6 years' time they're past it? Too much crap computer football sim? Because if that's the case, you buy players who can mark well, concentrate well, and tackle and head well in that game. The problem with Stephens is highlighted by Yoshi: if he hasn't got it ingrained in him to be always on his toes, etc, it is not something that repetition can directly 'train': it's a habit that has to be worked out of him. Look at Hernandez' second goal. Between the ball hitting the bar and him scoring was about half a second: he has a goal instinct that none, bar Austin I think, in our team do. But in that time he has to gamble, be in the right area, watch the ball, be ready for anything, adjust his body and get a clean strike on it. That's in less time than most of us have to actually read what's happening. While I do like the fact that Yoshida is less petrified when in the opposition's half and with the ball at his feet this year, a lot of his (and many players', actually) defending (to get back to that) isn't necessarily good but last-gasp throw yourself in front of the ball as well as the poor decision of the attacker. Look at Abraham last week. The one chance he had to slow things down in his mind and not do the obvious and he did us in the middle of the area and got a shot away. A better forward e.g. Aguero scores that goal and we lose. That's where this league falls down: it's too quick to actually support good decision-making/game understanding, etc. So I'd prefer defensive stability because if a team thinks they have to do something special to score from their one opportunity mentally they've half-lost but if they think they can (or will score) then as a team you have a much bigger problem and a harder game of it.

I don't think the likes of Clough would have necessarily 'shouted'. He might have done, but only if the circumstances merited it. I think Koeman would/could have been equally blunt. I think MP probably can be but prefers another stance; he strikes me as someone who's not too interested in playing politics. Look at Klopp's press conference the other day when he got quizzed about Coutinho: he played nice for a while then he got bored answering the same question because 'journalists' can't actually do anything other than ask 3 questions it seems, then looked to hit the speculation on the head and concentrate on the important matter. If this 'speculation', which affects those who have nothing else in their lives rather than the (I hope) still sensible majority, comes to anything or not who cares? If a professional footballer can't concentrate on the game and ignore a load of tittle tattle about 'who said what' then that might explain why they're so mentally-weak as to have reached a very good level in a discipline that is intensively competitive and in a sport that millions love and would love to play at the level that these men do. This really is a rather pointless thread and having seen what they do on RAWK and close one down temporarily when it degenerates into waffle think that would be best done to this one.

Thank you. I assumed it's predictive text and whoever wrote the dictionary just throwing words in. Anyway, back on topic: why do people just want to get rid of Gallagher? Ok, so he hasn't started and only had a few minutes here and there as a right-mid but it's a long season and he definitely has something to offer even if he is (obviously) short of the finished product. The only reason I can see to loan him is because he will certainly not feature enough and that playing is better than not. With that in mind, and ignoring his age as he's moved around the country sucessfully, why not a move abroad?

Or 'queue'.

I agree. And who better to teach him those lovely curving runs other than Gabbiadini?

Another good press conference. He corrects his own English, thinks about the questions and answers them, doesn't pander to the stupid people in the press (sounded like all of them), pretty much controls proceedings. Like.

Isn't your secretary extra busy with all the work you have? Or have you now hired another? ... . I won't put in an emoticon as with you it won't be necessary.

Let's look at the games since the 3-0 against Leicester. Liverpool away (cup). They couldn't score and didn't know how to get past a packed defence mainly. Didn't have Mane, did have Sturrige in one of his rare appearances and he wasn't up to speed. One of the clean sheets. Dicked by Arsenal's reserves; lost 5-0. Lost away to a poor and still struggling Swansea. 2-1. Lost at home to WHam. Their first ever win against us at SMS. 3-1. Beat an atrocious Sunderland team 4-0. Lost to Man U in a cup final 3-2. Ripped into a poor Watford team and almost let them back in. Won 4-3. Lost to Spurs 2-1. Managed a draw at home against the mighty Bournemouth. Another clean sheet: 0-0. Beat a West Brom team that had reached safety and then tanked for the rest of the season. 1-0. Watched in awe as Man City came and played some footy against us. Lost 3-0. Decided we wanted Chelsea to have the title. Lost 4-2. Drew 0-0 against Hull at home where they were set up to not lose and weren't great opposition. Obviously had Liverpool's number, another 0-0. Away at their place though so will always count as a good result. Felt sorry for Arsenal. They beat us 2-0. Managed to let a Middlesbrough team with nothing to play for and no forwards score against us but still win 2-1. Drew with a Man Utd team which had its mind elsewhere. 0-0. Contrived to lose to a poor Stoke team 1-0. Haven't included friendlies. Managed a 1-0 against a Swansea team (at home) that don't look any better than last year. Their striker was a loanee from another club who has (I think) not really played at this level before. I doubt you were directly looking to say the defence is great or even good, but when you look at each game it is undoubtedly fragile. The opposition weren't that good. I'll again make the point about Stephens. A very, very good player but defensively he switches off and against the exceptional forwards faced to do so presents them with an opportunity which many will take. As goals are hard to come by, we don't want to give any away. There are other defenders of course but I tend to think Bertrand is, even when uninterested, too good, Yoshida has shown much better form and does himself occasionally make better passes than he has in the past and Cedric is like Bertrand but perhaps less consistent. None of them are bad, but it's like the question with the keeper: are they better than just 'very good' because the opposition are at least as good and without Romeu how well would they do? Someone recently said something about Man Utd's defence in that they had to know how to deal with a 2v2 frequently and with the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, etc they could. We can't necessarily defend with a 4/5 v 2 although with someone like VVD we probably could defend with a 2 v 2 or a 1 v 1 most of the time. I think VVD will end up playing for us again so we should be ok this season, but he'll leave at the beginning of the next transfer season as the deal will already have been done.

Erm. How is stuff posted on here copywrit/ed? One, this is essentially a gossip/opinion site so it would be hard to class any of it as intellectual property; secondly it's been attributed to someone: 'a fan' even though it is possibly and probably a valid recollection of what did occur; thirdly it's what now passes for 'the media' aka 'the press' (as was) so it's all 'Sky sources' and nothing of any real substance (for which you'd probably need only 3 journalists for the whole country). It does show, however, that this site has now become a place where 'journalists' or their gophers will frequent, which we probably all knew anyway, and that Glasgow probably works for The Sun.

Very sensible post. Do you ever see FIFA doing this? No, because it would mean they can't find ways to feed at the trough (i.e. a change of 'leadership' has changed nothing).

He gives the best interviews since Strachan. Not quite on the latter's level but it's nice to see and hear someone who thinks about things and actually answers the questions as best he can and has something you want to listen to. Getting to like him, let's hope the team can play well.

Nah. He doesn't 'get' football i.e. mentally he's not a footballer* and this means he could get in the way of Josh Sims who, when fit, most certainly does 'get' football and should become bloody damn good. *How many times do you see him show for the ball and then once he has it just pass it straight back to the person who gave it to him (who often has 2 or 3 players on him) or just picks the open, safe pass rather than look up and try to make something happen? By that he passes back to the defence or even the goalie. He can't see space like e.g. Boufal, he doesn't have the instinct for running behind players like Gabbiadini, defensively ...(enough said), can't work the ball purposefully like Davis, doesn't have Stephens' vision and appreciation of space, etc, etc. And he's had five years and still struggles (and panics) with the speed of the game. I don't consider that getting 2 minutes at the end of a meaningless friendly from his mate Gareth makes him an international player either. He's exactly like England in that he'll look ok against poor opposition but when he gets to play against the good teams he gets underwhelmed. He also hides a bit at times; watch some of his runs where rather than coming short and to the side for the ball he runs into where the oppostion player is so he knows he won't be passed to (not too sure about that last bit: I've seen it a couple of times but not enough to make a full judgement). Someone else said he had a poor touch but he usually only receives decent balls to feet from a short distance so I can't comment on that but I can think of any other member of the squad pretty much and find something about them, even the super lightweight Hesketh but I've only seen JWP look any good for England U21s a couple of times.

Makes Andy Townsend look good ( the commentary, not the kit ).

No point selling him. He will be good enough for the top level from what I've seen. That growth spurt did him a lot of good in the end.

I had hoped that China would continue to buy mercenaries and the PL bubble would burst so hard Scudamore and Co would be ... . Then we could go back to something resembling a proper football competition although with certain bits somewhat improved. Noting Supersonic's comment, it is true he didn't come across as too bright in that video with Harrison Reed a couple of years ago, did he? Still, he's now signed, so he'd better make sure he displaces Bertie asap and becomes England's number 3.

Thank you for that. This is a shorter reply than previously envisaged: the 3 post rule obviated my immediate (and longer) reply. Your friend sounds like someone who others have a problem with because they're not on his intellectual level and he probably doesn't mix with too many who are. It's a shame about what happened with his career as he sounds like the kind of person who I think should be a footballer: he has the skill, but he can play the game ahead of time and sees it as more than just a physical contest. I'll be very happy if MT comes good: for one thing he's more likely to want success here than at other places and even were he to leave he'd still be a fan. As for the likes of Stephens, I only saw the highlights of yesterday's game but as he featured in them I though they showed his good and bad points. The good: confidence to push the ball into space and looking up to see a ball on; the bad at the beginning where he let a player get a bit away from him, saw others were there so dropped off and the forward got a shot away when someone more defensive minded would have looked to have blocked the shot or forced the attacker wide so reducing his angle or into the centre where it was too crowded. Obviously still like him as ball-playing centre backs are a rare and good breed and they shouldn't be. It would be interesting to see what your friend makes of our other youth and the likes of JWP if he ever gets the chance to see him in the flesh. And yes, I know how good those who didn't quite 'make it' are as I have had the pleasure (or otherwise!) of playing with and against a few of them as I'm sure many of us. Again, thank you for the comprehensive and interesting reply.

You've said this before and I queried either what your mate thought of him now or who your mate was (as in was he a scout or the like, not his name as I wouldn't know him); I can't remember which and recollect receiving no answer from you. I think he shows no fluidity on the ball, his first touch is cumbersome, he's very slow, some of the body shapes he makes when he tackles and throws out a leg at right angles are almost distressing, he can't (mostly) dribble - I did see him cleverly knock it past a player once but that wasn't really a dribble even though it was a nice touch, he's very one-footed, he plays too many safe balls, is poor defensively and doesn't have that great a cross as he still seems mostly to 'spoon' it somewhat; and even when he was with the under 21s he struck me as very pedestrian. Unlike (pre-injury) Sims from a few years back. My question is do we see him as England's next left back (as Shaw might be and Bertrand, along with Rose, is)? So far, no. And I think for a team that continues to espouse its 'ambition', that is the minimum calibre of player we must have playing for us as the league is full of internationals of varying standards.

I disagree. Historically, yes. They were giants of world football and we weren't even on the map. Even back when Lawrie Mac was here. But now. No, they're not one of the top 4. Their fans by and large know it and know they don't have the money that the likes of Man City and Chelski have, but they do pay high wages and, from what I can gather, aren't really a profitable organisation for their owners. The talk has moved from big 4, to 6, to 7 just to accommodate them and Everton who are also-rans compared to e.g. Man Utd. Even if they do have a bit of success it's not going to catapault them back up to where they were and I doubt they'll ever get that far. Their 'Koch', sorry, 'coach' flatters to deceive and succeeds in deceiving the one-eyed among them but they aren't anything other than a busted flush now. If they were any good, they'd have been contesting that final earlier this year that we did and they'd have won it as Man U weren't and aren't really that good either. Ignore their history, that's what keeps them popular in SE Asia: because those places can't quite move with the times (and are stuck in the past) and all become City supporters.

Ignoring what people have said (as they've not a clue) I haven't actually read anything from anyone who's analysed MP's teams' playing style over a period of time who has said he is like Pochettino in that regard. Certainly in all the friendlies I've seen there has been no evidence of it and there should be by now. As someone else said, Pochettino had it in place pretty quickly and he joined in mid season. I find myself agreeing with those who aren't too fussed if we lose to what will be a decent team as long as we look as though we're going to be one as well. I doubt we'll be as bad as Wednesday as MP, while he didn't say much, was quite damning in his view of what he'd seen. As an aside I consider that Targett being given a new deal (and he's hardly played and is unlikely to be poached by anyone - and he's a Saints fan and still has to convince anyone he's good enough as a defender in this league - ) is an indicator that while we're not skint we won't spend any or much cash and that is likely to continue until KL is bought out. I am aware that someone has said we're after Ings and Barkley, but does anyone see us paying even close to the amount he's quoted to be valued at given we got a comparable player (possibly) in Boufal for half of that?

I pretty much agree with all of this, unfortunately.

Is that why he never moves?

Exactly what I thought (except he might actually be worse). What did you make of the tactics and formation/structure, especially second half? My description at times would be 'headless under 8s meet grown up team'. You can see why VvD wants better players signed. It's interesting how decent, but not great defenders find it quite easy to nullify Tadic and Boufal, that showed against ASSE too, even though we won. It was nice to see Yoshida play some decent through balls and not so nice to see we actually have created very little for the centre forward, whoever that might be. Saturday will be interesting. The kit looks good; anyone think Keegan would fancy a run out in it?