egg

He's not a great footballer. His distribution is poor and he's sliw to release the ball. Further, he' not proven to be a better ball winner than Morgan and Cork. Having seen him last season I questioned his signing and said that he'd do nothing to assist our footballing style. Long term i hope I'm proved wrong but so far its another 12m badly spent.

Agree with that, he was the main problem yesterday and his giving the ball away led to their first chance. I said in the signing thread that his distribution was poor and sadly it hasn't improved. Also I don't see any sign of a partnership between him and Morgan.

That's the key thing. Yesterday we were pedestrian with the ball. Too many times we just dallied on the ball or were sloppy with it. The 2 in the middle don't look a happy pairing.

I saw it as 4231. Osvaldo was usually ahead of the other 3 so not a strict 4. Anyways, whether its a line of 4 or a 3+1 its hard to disagree with the op.

Why? It's not going to alter what I've been told about our vision coach called Fran is it.

Good plan. NC truly is a genius.

That's Aaron Martin territory and less than the likes of Barnard. I doubt that we kept him from Chelsea and Man Utd for £9k pw.

No idea, I haven't read her LinkedIn. Last season we recruited a girl called Fran to work as a vision coach. She worked and continues to work with other clubs and in other sports. She is very highly rated. Personally I was impressed by the story that ronaldo was assisted to be able to follow the flight of a ball in total darkness and score a header. That suggested that his awareness had been improved somewhat. Whether that or anything else is on her LinkedIn in I don't know or don't care. I answered the question about who she is. Unless we've appointed 2 different girls called Fran to do the same job I'm confident I'm talking about the right person.

Indeed. In all seriousness though its a weird type of coaching but if you can improve the awareness of players its gonna help.

He didn't. Your point?

I don't think anyone has. What they're saying is that Glasgow's statement that his pre-season goals make him our most prolific scorer ever is a bit stupid.

Fran Hunter, our vision and awareness coach. She's well thought of in the game and has worked with top clubs and players. Basically looks to improve the awareness of players in terms of who's around them and where the ball is etc. Sounds odd but the story I've heard about her working with ronaldo involved getting him to the point where with a corner coming over, the lights were turned off but he still headed the ball into the net.

Cheers Del, I'll hang my head in shame.

Can't get into specifics Tokes. My criminal practice spanned a very broad range. Anyways, the popint is that people shouldn't be thinking that people found "not guilty" are always innocent and that the accuser is a liar.

Many tell you after they've been acquited! If they tell you before the trial you can't put forward a positive case for the defence (ie call evidence) but you can challenge the prosecution case. In that situation it's sensible to withdraw and let them find new lawyers and start again. Client's rarely walk walk into your office saying "I'm innocent". Instead they want your help to "get them off". That involves attacking the prosecution case or leaving them to mess it up which in my time they were very good at.

Correct. A Not Guilty verdict often doesn't prove innocence and/or that the accuser was lying. When I ran a criminal defence practice the vast majority of the Defendants who were acquited had committed the crime. The fact that I played a part in keeping abusers, thugs, thieves and other toerags on the streets is the reason I gave up that work years ago.

I too would like to know the answers. Has nobody answered yet?

Good luck getting answers to relevant questions.

I'm not missing your point. I don't buy that we would veto a prem move, Puncheon is a case in point. He's a championship player who will attract a championship club. They won't pay his wages. Billy can stay and take his wage or take a cut if he wants a move. That's his choice, not the club.

And why do you think we bought someone else? Perhaps we thought Billy wasn't good enough and/or new boy was better.

He was clearly bench warming for a replacement in the first couple of games. Mayuka was a young central striker shoved out wide in a league well above what he was used too. He was a bit of a car crash but his ability has been proven at international level. Simple question, based on the pedigree of Sharp and Mayuka was it not reasonable to pick Mayuka over Sharp? Forget hindsight, look at the situation as it was when Mayuka arrived.

What? You misunderstand me. You should only be on the bench or in the 25 if you're good enough to start. Billy isn't.

I agree benjii, I'm only mentioning other players cos apparently Billy deserves a chance just in case he is actually good enough. I'm trying to understand why that rule applies to billy but not the others. Sadly Alpine etc can't answer that point.

Should Forte, Barnard, Martin, Lee get the same opportunity just in case the coaches got it wrong? We're Hammond and Chaplow denied an opportunity too?

I don't buy that story. We allowed Puncheon to move to a prem club so why not Billy? It's about money I would guess. The club won't want to subsidise a move. If I'm right the club are doing nothing wrong in taking that stance.