CanadaSaint

He's showing his immaturity, and the more he shows it at this level the more it will be exploited. Besides the error for the goal (errors, plural, if he set the wall), he gave up on a couple of crosses to the far post in the first half, thinking they would go out. They very nearly didn't. I like him and I think he has a ton of promise, but he really needs to get some games under his belt at a better level than Gillingham but below the Premier League. What gets my goat is seeing the knee-jerk negative brigade calling him a "clown", which he clearly isn't. Errors and all, he may still be our best option right now. Kelvin won't be any less cross-shy or near-post-vulnerable if he comes back, and Boruc's dubious judgment and seeming lack of agility/fitness won't have improved either. Neither represents a clear improvement. We need to make a decision and stick with it until the cheque book can come out.

I didn't mean nasty-lazy so much as "believe your own positive publicity" lazy.

We've been much slower to set our triangles today. Fatigue, laziness or credit to Norwich?

I think we're getting sucked into playing their game rather than forcing them to match ours. Still, time to go and talent on the pitch.

No, just open your eyes and your mind. If that doesn't work you have a larger problem.

Ooops!

I'm going with a Ramirez bender.

Yes, there has been evidence - plenty of it. If you're looking. He's young and immature, and it's showing, but he's not a clown FFS.

Get a grip FFS. Now Adkins is proving you wrong, I guess all the heat goes on your next whipping boy.

He's not an "absolute clown" - he's a good young keeper with a lot to learn.

Yep, the wall was laughable but not at all funny. And lining it up was Gazzaniga's job. The less said about the save attempt, the better. His immaturity is really starting to show. He was a little lucky twice in that half after giving up on crosses hit to the far post before they were out of play. Still, we have enough about us to win this. Our second halves have recently been better than our first halves.

Those four teams playing tonight looked very much like us during our years of struggle (Le Tiss apart). We look nothing like we did in those days. Far more quality and cohesion.

If he's there it'll be interesting to see if he's permitted to be shown on the big screens.

Regardless of the results, the dire spectator 'experience' and the fact that we're back in a relegation place, I feel much better for having watched those teams.

Watching two teams packed with "established PL players", I'm quite happy with the way we're trying to do things.

Is it my imagination or has Lallana become more responsible with his defensive role since Shaw was brought into the starting line up? It's almost as though he feels a (captain's) responsibility for bringing the youngster along, and both players' games have benefitted from it.

Jesus, our individual skill and team chemistry are on a different planet compared to this lot. People kept banging on endlessly about the goals we were conceding, and justifiably so, but we'll never have a problem finding the opposition goal. And defensive woes tend to be easier to sort than a completely punchless offence. Based on that, I'd be amazed if we were bottom four at the end of the season. Touch wood.

I don't think it's any coincidence at all that Fonte is playing much better with Maya alongside him. Yes, Yoshida has weaknesses - all players do, and I think you've highlighted his. However, his reading and covering are both good, allowing Fonte to be clearer on his role in our defensive set-up, and thus more decisive and quicker to react. Those reading and covering qualities of Maya's will allow Shaw to push forward, as Clyne is so quick to do on the other side, when Shaw's comfort level in the PL starts to increase. Also, Ba and Cissé are very big boys, which Maya isn't, and we won't see two strikers that tall very often this year. I don't think we can look at players just in isolation - we also have to look at their contribution to (and fit with) the players around them. All of that being said, I think we'll be looking for someone better in the window but I very much doubt that Dawson will be available - or even, necessarily, a good fit for Fonte.

That bugs the hell out of me too. The top referees went full-time and one of the specific justifications was that it would make them fitter and better able to keep up with the modern game. Now I'm wondering whether it's even possible and it makes me think of a parallel - I'll probably get slaughtered for this! (Ice) hockey had the same problem and they eventually responded with two a two-referee system, essentially one for each half. It certainly improved things. When it comes to the linesmen in football, the same kind of challenge applies but (unlike in hockey) the offside line isn't static but moving all the time - and very quickly. With all the money in the game and the recurrent instances of bad, game-changing calls, they could always consider a four-linesmen approach. I know that's "tinkering with the game" but we either find a solution or quit whining about the resultant problems.

I'm honoured to have fallen within the field of view of such a highly self-esteemed poster. Having watched your contributions for some time I've finally found something I agree with - the first four words of your post.

You're both right

Rewriting history? Here's what you posted about Hooiveld before he'd even kicked a ball for us: I repeat, IMO we would not have been promoted without Jos. Whether he is PL standard is far from clear. Although the signs aren't too good, he was part of a collective train wreck and I'm at least willing to consider that he struggled because he and Fonte cannot play together at this level (and because Fox needed a lot of covering) rather than because he's not a good player. It could have been either Fonte or Hooiveld left out when we realized it wasn't working, because they were both playing poorly, and IIRC it was Jos because he copped an injury. If it helps to jog your memory and save you from reinventing history (as is your wont), you also posted this in August - less than three months ago: And this, just ten weeks ago: Since being paired with Maya, Fonte's play has improved big-time and he is now starting to look like the player we thought we had at the start of last season, before our bad run started - a real PL central defender who actually seems to be "hacking it" quite well now. Playing as he did today, and last week at QPR, he could soon be rated one of the Top 10 central defenders in the PL. So, wrong again, hypo. The rest of your response ... ... is straight out of the school playground in which you seem to spend so much time. As I said earlier, you really need to grow up. Anyway, hypo, I don't know why I bothered with you because I was happily buzzing about a great win today, so that's what I'll go back to doing.

No, I'm not "particularly bothered" about anything other than the fact that hypo is disrespecting someone who was crucial to last year's success just to get in one of his typical and often-misplaced "I knew better" lines. And yes, I agree that Jos may now be struggling somewhat at this level. Not "is" but "may be." None of us knows that Jos is "clearly not ... good enough for the Premier League" because the problem might have been with the partnership rather than the individual players.

He wasn't necessarily bought for the Premier League - he was bought to strengthen a Championship defence. The same "might not be good enough for the Premier League" comment could go for 90% of the squad. Do you agree that "we almost certainly wouldn't have been promoted without Jos"? Hypo didn't even want him here, so we'd still be in the Championship - or worse - using hypo's 'judgment'.

You were one of the negative naysayers who said it before you'd even seen him play. I hate this reinvention. The fact of the matter, as most acknowledged at the time, is that we almost certainly wouldn't have been promoted without Jos.