CanadaSaint

I think you're right, but there's another angle. We naturally tend to focus on active contributions on the ball, but some of the off the ball stuff is just as important. On Saturday, JWP's game reading and smarts were on show. Several times he read Manning's forays up the left and dropped in to cover for him. That took away one of our key vulnerabilities - Manning's damaging tendency to over-commit and not get back in time. In those moments JWP made us a better team without even touching the ball.

I share the reservations about JWP's crab tendencies but he's smart and versatile, and he can play a role that leaves the more creative elements to others. I'm sure his engine is still pretty good. One thing that would be great to see is JWP and Manning stood over danger area free kicks. One's a lefty and one's a righty, and they're both capable of hitting top corners. It's a nightmare scenario for keepers - where to align the wall, which side to protect. At this level they know each keeper's weaker sides, and that could influence who takes the shot.

Tonda doesn’t have anywhere near enough brownie points to sneak-in his own version of Russball, playing to the squad’s weaknesses and frustrating the shit out of players and fans alike. If that’s what he’s doing, and it sure looks like it, he might as well go now.

I think he's reactive because he has long had a strong tendency to ball-watch. If he's watching he's not reacting, and I'm not even sure that he's "thinking". It blows my mind that a player at this level can be allowed to continually exhibit this killer weakness in a CD - and that he doesn't seem to be sufficiently aware of it to actually do something about it. THB and others have bailed him out on numerous occasions, which is another reason to fear losing THB.

The big takeaway for me is Bragg - composed, aware, did the defensive part well, and (unlike most of the others) didn’t waste time getting the ball forward.

When it comes to some of the players we’ve loaned out, like BBD and even Sugawara, it’s important to bear in mind the “X-Factor” – Tonda. They were both loaned out at the end of August, and Bree at the start of September. Tonda became interim manager on November 2, and things immediately started to change for the better because he was getting much more out of the same players – like Downes, THB, Manning and – when we brought him back - Bree. Fellows was released from the constraints of playing wingback, and he started to show more. Larin arrived and brought far more than he’d produced elsewhere in the previous two seasons. Same players but much better utilization, man management, and smart substitutions started getting a lot more out of them. I was seriously underwhelmed when we signed BBD for the PL because he’s too limited to succeed at that level. He’s a physical presence up front, which is an important element of our style – he’s not a winger. If they think Tonda can get a Championship tune out of him, in a role he can play, I’m okay with keeping him.

CB, you often make good points on here but, just as often, you go full-on "straw man" to support your own personal and stridently expressed theory. Just as I didn't say "it's not against the rules", I didn't suggest "there is going to (be) a raft of spying charges against Premier League teams because of some 'precedent' being set." My point was that the FA - who are notoriously reluctant to hold the big clubs to account for even blatant transgressions - might want to tread very carefully before wielding a meat cleaver on this one, for fear of having to take similar action against really big clubs with really smart lawyers. Or even smaller clubs with really smart lawyers. I'm fine with seeing things differently to you - without misrepresenting what you said in an attempt make my viewpoint seem more credible. They're just opinions.

I didn't say it's not against the rules. I was talking about where the FA's focus might be, given that the actual spying has already been punished by an entity that specifically references it in its rulebook. My personal opinion is that they might be more focused on the bullying related to the spying, rather than the spying itself. Especially as they know that their intervention in this matter will be precedent-setting across football, including the "big boys". I think this might be why we appointed Salt after his central part in the shitshow.

I don't think the FA's focus is the spying, which IS NOT specifically referenced in their rules. The EFL already addressed that issue because it IS specifically referenced in theirs', and the punishment they handed out has become quite widely regarded as excessive. I think the FA could well be focused on the alleged bullying. Rule E3.1 covers behaviour that's improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent, or insulting words or behaviour. Either way, the FA has to tread very carefully because they would be setting a dangerous precedent for themselves, whether it relates to spying (not referenced in their rules) or bullying. That precedent could force them to - horror of horrors 😂 - treat a Man United, Man City, Arse, Liverpool or Spurs in the same way as they treated Saints. I'd bet my last pound that all of those big boys have, at some point, spied on opponents and bullied players and staff. Their decision could open a huge can of worms - and the FA know it. I just hope that FIFA stays the hell out of it, but they've got enough shit of their own making to deal with.

Tuechel got done like a kipper by Scaloni tonight, and then gave him a helping hand. Our best chance was keeping full width, moving the ball quickly, getting an early ball into the area, and driving at the six yard box. It was working, and that's where the goal came from. But it seems that Tuechel's plan was to get ahead and hang on - for 60 minutes, if necessary, against that lot FFS. Scaloni had a two-half plan - keep England contained and then strengthen, which he did by pushing two men onto our back four and bringing on de Paul; I couldn't believe de Paul didn't start and knew we were in trouble when he came on. Taking Gordon off was "game over" madness - especially after the part he played when, one man short, we held off the Mexicans. Tuechel took off a wide man with pace and a willingness to track back, leaving us with no effective out ball. Gutless madness.

He's had the doubters most of his career, which accounts for his goal celebration. But we haven't really known much about him as a person. I posted this on the WC thread yesterday but it got lost in the game updates. Hope it works over there. https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/fifa-world-cup/video/2026/06/18/how-larin-finds-peace-at-the-racetrack/

Hope this works over there: https://www.tsn.ca/soccer/fifa-world-cup/video/2026/06/18/how-larin-finds-peace-at-the-racetrack/

Most of us are happy to concede that we screwed up badly and deserved a significant punishment. We also handled the matter very poorly, so - in some ways - we got what we deserved. We should take it on the chin and move on, chastened but looking forward. What I find much harder to accept is a mealy-mouthed, chicken shit, “tail between our legs” statement that glosses over the fact that the judge, jury and executioner had clear connections to the party that benefitted massively from the ruling. That’s a disgrace which warrants further follow-up. It would change nothing resulting from the ruling, but it would whistle bullshit on an organisation that’s okay with enforcing integrity and fairness principles but piss poor at following them.

I hear you, but any ruling they hand down from on high will almost certainly use those words. Quite what they had for evidence we don't know, but it clearly infuriated them, as part of Section 31 shows: It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine operations at the direction of senior personnel. It's almost as though we were hammered because we failed their "sniff test" (with their nostrils inflamed by Gibson's antics and a counsel who articulated those views), rather than because they had a sound legal basis for hammering us. It doesn't really matter any more, but it would be interesting to know how an appeal to a proper court would turn out. They might find that the decision was based more in umbrage than legality.

The EFL's reasons for the ruling suggested that the alleged bullying didn't factor into their determination of the punishment, but I suspect that the FA's focus on the integrity of the game might cause them to focus much more on it.