egg

I'm not sure there's any evidence of meddling from upstairs. I don't buy that. I'm more concerned about a lack of authority and leadership than autonomy, a lack of experience meaning a lack of real world tactical nous and competence.

Yep. We have a weak defence and keeper that the oppo target with balls in, and have absolutely no plan going forwards. Basically, the oppo only has to score the first goal and they've won. I knew nothing about this bloke before he got here. Pre season was a worry as we looked disjointed and weren't doing the basics, and that's continued into the season. We don't pass, move, make runs into channels/space, break the lanes, our defence can't hold its line, we don't press or play around/through the press, we don't switch up formations, etc, etc. His only tactical tweak has been to take a CB out making us weaker at the back, but without that extra player further up the pitch doing anything effective. The players look scared. I'm with Duck - I don't think they're buying into it, and I'm certainly not. I'd give him until the Derby game then take a view.

I'd rather see is struggling there than struggling in this league.

Yep. Frustrating to watch, and odd that people don't see it. Play needs to go through Azaz. The new ones that haven't impressed me are the RB and Fellows. And Still.

Yep. The team has no vision, style, hunger, drive, energy, creativity, etc. The players look a bit scared, and are just moving in small sections, at most, with no options. It's dross.

That's harsh on Onuachu.

It happened Sunday as well mate.

I'm not sure that's his game. Seems to be more of what the cool kids call an 8. Or more Cockerill than Case in old money.

I'm getting RM flashbacks here.

A false 11, it's the future.

Cheers. Interesting that all 3 goalscorers got minutes for the under 21's against Burnley yesterday evening.

Ha!! You'd hope. On the face of it I don't get the selection thou. Amongst the various issues against Pompey was banging the ball long to a little lad. Playing Downs suggests we'll play the same way but with a bigger lad. On the other hand, Jander is in, presumably to feed Azaz more, and in turn play low balls into and behind the striker - that's Archer's game. Will be interesting to see which way we go - football through the middle, or 1988 edition Wimbledon.

Sounds like she got it away with it until she didn't. As much as I detest Trump and his policies, people want us to enforce our immigration rules/laws, and that's all that's happening here.

I'm really surprised Aribo isn't on the bench. 3 limited striker options, but only a poor/poorly Downes as a midfield option feels more than a bit strange.

Yep. It feels like he's playing an inferior player because he can't sort the tactics to stop us banging it long to the striker.

As harsh as it seems, her removal was ordered 20 years ago, and she lost her final appeal 13 years ago. This feels like enforcement of something previously decided rather than her being targeted.

Receipt

I'll leave it there mate. You're just a bit of a rude/ignorant prick. If you can't back up your own point with names, don't try to make a point.

Jeez. Great contribution Nic. You make a statement. Get asked, politely, to clarify who you are referring to, refuse, get asked again, then respond with that drivel. I'm not googling stuff to answer your point. It doesn't work that way. I'll ask once more. Who? Please. With sugar and candy on. Thank you very much.

@east-stand-nic An emoji isn't an answer. Who?

You said How many TV people were cancelled under the left loons of Biden and Co. Me and others have asked you to say who. Who? I'll ignore your second question as you're being offensive and I've got no idea what facts you mean. The 1st doesn't make sense.

Anyways, I'm not sure what this nonsense has to do with America. It feels more like what's wrong with Hypo.

You plainly don't understand how the law works. The police erred on the facts of that particular case. The High Court sorted it. They gave some clarity to the law, albeit got it wrong in 2 respects. The COA sorted it. Courts aren't naughty steps.

Therein lies your contradiction. The police believed, based on the complaints and the vagueness of the law, that there was something to be investigated. That the law was subsequently tested and found to have been wrongly applied is the process of the law being played out. That's given more clarity. You are interpreting a newspaper article re Miller as you wish to. The High Court clarified the law but, if you've read it all, you'll know that they got the law wrong in some respects. The COA addressed that. In doing so, they, as per the Hight Court to the police, did not rebuke the High Court, rather they further clarified a new and vague law.

The high court did not rebuke the police in the case you and I exchanged on. They clarified how the law should be interpreted. That's how it works. I think the point here is that you don't see that anything wrong has been done in the cases you've mentioned.