egg

Yep. He's not remotely cultured - hectic is a great description. He's got pace, movement, energy, but players need that plus touch, turn and technique to become a good top flight player.

That was ridiculous. The only surprise was that it took so long for them to go down to 6. There's a pic somewhere with Benfica lining up with 7 across the front. Farce.

Yep. There's not much to analyse about his admission other than he accepts he messed it up; and his tactics involved a line of defenders with no wide protection, two in midfield against 3, a forward dropping off and looking a bit lost, and two other forwards feeding off whatever scraps the others could feed them when we had the ball. Only on planet Ralph was that ever a good idea.

That formation never had any prospect of competing, mainly because it conceded midfield by being a man short. That's not hindsight, I and others said it in the build up thread as it was obvious what would happen. The hilarious part of you defending yesterdays tactics is that Ralph isn't even defending them. I expected to lose yesterday, but I didn't expect Ralph to hand them the midfield, thus the game, and that's exactly what he did.

Yep. I'm not sure how anyone can't see that today was a shocker tactically. 2 in midfield against their 3 was never going to end well.

He got it wrong, pure and simple. He gave away the midfield, Adams as a kind of false 9 went as badly as you'd expect, 3 at the back went badly. Staggering that you defend that tactical clusterfuck.

Give it a fucking rest mate. People don't have to explain every opinion they have.

Agreed. We'll be more direct I think, balls into the channels for the 3 up top, also expect to see them coming deep to almost play as 10's and play on the turn. Really interesting line up.

The Dutch managed it.

Yep, "in you come, and do a little test when you get a chance". Crazy.

Brave is the kindest word I can think of. If ever there was a game for 3 in the middle it was today.

Possibly...but not sure why you assume that's an ego caused by an agent. Could well be poor man management.

Want to jump to any more conclusions?!

Sutton to beat Barrow in league 2 looks pretty nailed on to me.

Not at all. You're supporting a vile killer. I'm not.

Having a gun means there's a prospect of using it, but that's different to "looking for action". It's a fine ish line though.

Bollox did he. He's a family man, and can't point to what was apparently said in evidence. I don't believe a word of it.

You have not answered it. You've said that a closing speech mentioned him taking a hiding. That's a) not evidence or b) fear of death. People who watch trials hear the evidence and can explain it. People who don't just go round in circles like you.

The legal test is a reasonable belief of death. Nothing more or less. I've said that his best point was Huber apparently approaching his gun. What made him fear death at the hands of the unarmed (on his admission) Rosenbaum? Don't bounce this back with another "watch it" response - you apparently did so what's the answer?

But you apparently spent 4 days watching it and still can't / won't say what convinced you that he feared death!

It's not worth my time as who the fuck wants to spend 4 days of their lives watching a TV trial?! I have a life, wife, job, and family. Give some thought to that question of yours mate, it'll open your eyes to the real world.

We've covered this. Reasonable fear of death is the legal test, not a hiding. I've asked you several times now what you heard in your apparent 4 days of watching that made you conclude that he feared that. I haven't had an answer yet, and to be honest, I'm not interested. We'll end up with you maintaining that he's innocent cos the jury said so and they're always right.

I think most are having a sensible conversation...and the sensible conclusion is that this fool is vile and would not be defended by right minded people. And no, that's not because that's what twitter says.

I've answered mate. You think this bloke is innocent, I don't. I have no interest in the answer, but ask yourself whether (using your own question) you "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" in the hypothetical scenario I laid out above. Back to Rittenhouse, you still haven't explained what you heard in 4 days of trial watching to satisfy yourself that he feared death. Rosenbaum threw a bag at him, and he knew he had no gun. I don't believe that he had any reasonable belief to fear death. You think otherwise. We'll agree to differ.

You asked me "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" It seems that you need to mull that one over yourself mate and relate it my rhetorical questions. It's either your position that what a jury decides / the judge directs must be the correct outcome, or it isn't.