egg

How is it Kat's fault that we had 9 injuries and some idiot deemed it a good idea to loan out our fringe players leaving us with a scratch team and some kids? Gao can't be blamed for that either. Our squad this season was decent but injury and poor decision making scuppered that.

Ha!! Love the irony. That said, there'll be some who get on an actual anti Gao bandwagon. For them. Gao didn't make us have 9 players injured. If we had them available we'd have had a chance of a result yesterday. Gao didn't make the decision to rule out good goals over recent games. Gao didn't assault McTominay after 90 secs and get sent off. Gao didn't award dodgy pens and send off Bednarek. I also doubt that Gao ordered the loan of all our fringe players leaving us exposed. Whoever did that deserves to be pelted. My gut feeling is that Ralph is behind that. We were top a while ago and all was good. Now all the above has happened people suddenly think that stamping their feet will make someone buy the club in the midst of a pandemic.

The decision to bin off Valery and Vokins was mental. Sure, they're not quite up to it, but they're all we had. Assuming the Bednarek card isn't overturned, and nobody is back from injury, I think this is the best we can do. McCarthy; Tchapchet, Stephens Ramsay, Bertrand; Minamino, JWP, Armstrong, Djenepo ; Ings, Adams. You could put Tchapchet and Ramsay the other way around, both are CB's who cover RB. The alternative to a kid at CB is Bertrand with Ferry in at LB. It's what's the lesser of two evils I guess. Crazier things than Redmond at LB have happened too. No idea on the bench.

I hope you lose. No fan should bet on his team to be relegated.

No he shouldn't. Its not his fault, but I fear he will walk.

You'd hope so. Joke of a decision.

Oh fuck off var. That's ridiculous.

What a stupid comment. The kid wanted a chance and got it. He fucked up, simple as that.

Young CB. Never seen him play so no idea whether he has any promise. Just hope we don't have to find out tonight.

Ha!! We have 3 experienced defenders, JWP, Armstrong, Djenepo, our first choice strikers. Its hardly a team of kids. Sure, the bench is threadbare, but the first 11 ain't too bad.

Cheers, a good read.That really was a good bit of business. Shame we didn't get Nico Williams though, he'd have added something.

Interesting and necessary thread. For me the biggest issue has been managerial changes. New managers have come in and had to establish themselves, and its harder to do that with unknown kids. That's led to a lack of opportunity and consequently poor development. Les Reed had high hopes for Sims and I have to say there was hope. That run and pass against Liverpool was the sign of a proper player. Since then he's never had a proper chance or run of games and he's drifted. People underestimate the importance of confidence, and being dropped / not given a chance must be demoralising for young players. I also wander of the managerial changes have impacted in loaning out players. On one hand a manager won't trust a kid, but on the other hand doesn't want to send the kid out as he wants to see him in training or reserve / u21 /u23/games. By the time the manager has decided the kids not in his plans the loan opportunity has gone and the lad has another season / half season without mens football and the development that flows. On the whole though I think we've mismanaged our kids and not helped them or us. After a point these lads have to take what they can get. I'm not convinced that all of the lads listed are playing at their level. On the players on that list, the one who really had something was Seager. He had awful injuries, then dropped down the leagues, then his dad became very ill. He tried his luck again at Havant & Waterlooville a couple of years ago and speaking to their management at the time, the lad still had something but it was never going to be for him. He's making a couple of quid at Hungerford (I think) and hopefully he can scratch a living from the game.

Read what you wrote mate. I appreciate that when you read it back that it makes you look a fool so you'd prefer to deny what you wrote, but you did.

MLG, for the last time, a theory does not have to be a scientific theory to be a theory. Some people believe in creation. It's not scientific. It's a theory. You don't agree with it, I don't, and I think the only point you're making is that as the theory ain't scientific and you don't agree with it that others can't hold that theory. You're one arrogant man. I've no interest in engaging any more with you. Have a good evening.

That was some goal. I don't think even he knew that he had that in his locker.

I understand the idea MLG. It's you that believes only a scientific theory is a theory. Broaden your horizons.

Tell me about my Aunt Mary. She's not religious, but she believes that God (not an all loving God, just what she calls God) created the heaven and earth. According to you, that belief impacts on her actions on a day to day basis. How on a daily basis is her belief "harmful" to others. Say she went shopping then had to phone the bank, how does her believing that God created heaven and earth harm the people she encountered that day. I'm genuinely intrigued now cos I thought Aunt Mary was alright but maybe I should be a bit scared of her.

Yeah, in your would there's the theory that you believe in. I know that. I repeat, nobody is saying that the creation theory is scientific, but it's still a theory. I get the distinct impression that as you don't subscribe to that theory that you can't accept that it is a wildly held theory that others can subscribe to. You're not God's only child Matthew.

Err, read what was being discussed mate. The point was on the creation theory as opposed to big bang. That topic is pointless enough, I ain't expanding the discussion.

So I got drivel. Predictable. Let's assume my Aunt Mary likes the idea that God created heaven and earth etc, how could that belief actually harm anyone and/or impact her daily actions? Just give one hypothetical. Just one.

My second sentence is a typo because I gave your nonsense the lack of attention it deserved. I meant to say, as well you know, A scientific theory is a scientific theory, but a theory can be non scientific.

Again, bollox. A scientific theory is a scientific theory, but a theory can be non scientific. Have a little look at the correct definition of theory. Google is your friend.

Bollox. If someone believes that God created the heaven and the earth etc, explain how that belief alone could possibly "impact actions" and that those "actions impact people". Give an actual proper answer, not your usual drivel and spin.

MLG, the last time you wanted to discuss the bible I wasn't interested, and I'm not now. I don't read the bible. Have the discussion with someone who's interested mate.

I'm not sure where this has come from. There are competing theories about the creation of earth. They're not theories I'm discussing - I believe in the scientific big bang for what it's worth, although the source of what went bang needs explaining. If other people subscribe to the alternative non scientific creation theory, good luck to them.