egg

Given our position we can't be giving players/units time to gel. We need results. That's the trio most would love to see working, but given the need to grind out results we need to select on form rather than expectation.

Bought the missus a 32gb N7 for £189 at Carphone warehouse in west quay last Thursday. Think that's the best deal around still.

Stuff don't hate Apple - they're almost as excitable as you. That link is to a preview, not a review They rank nexus 7 as the number 2 tab and ipad mini at 3. See http://www.stuff.tv/top-10s/tablets Anyway, the op asked a simple question about 2 specific items. If he was interested in the overpriced alternative he'd probably have asked.

If you'd rather not buy overpriced gear then avoid the iPad mini and buy the equally good N7. As stuff magazine say: "the Nexus 7 is simply brilliant value. That’s why it retains second place in our Top 10, with the iPad Mini a new entry in third."

Does that make it a company car for tax purposes?

As above, N7. Brilliant bit of kit.

Indeed

No, we should be more effective when we have the ball. Possession without penetration, and an end product, will never win a football match.

The team that lost were comfortable until they had a man sent off. The point is that possession alone does not win football matches, it's what you do in possession is the issue.

Possession counts for nothing. Look at Man Utd against Real. They were battered on possession over both ties but looked comfortable until the sending off. We're like a darts player who hits the trebles but misses the doubles. Trebles are for show, doubles are for dough is apt.

Addictions are terrible things. I've just read the tribute page on the Muppet show. Very emotional.

I debated over the or tbh but knowing how easily excited you and the bear are I went for the safe option. What's happened to the bear?

B or J for me, decision based on opposition and conditions. Decent thread this, good work.

I disagree. Imo Rdm was a success.

It's irrelevant. I couldn't care less whether grant was a success or not. This is a discussion about rdm who imo was a success at Chelsea. Are you suggesting that rdm tenure can be deemed a success if grants was, but that it must be deemed a failure if grants was? Odd - I'd rather judge rdm performance on his performance.

Ha! So his success was down to luck, and nothing to do with his picking a system and side that did a job? I'm not going to be persuaded that a complete outsider guiding someone elses team to champions league success is anything other than a complete success. We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's my point. He inherited a bunch of egocentrics. He took that bunch, got them motivated, got their respect, got them playing and winning. I'm not sure what more you could ask of a manager and how you can see a negative in what he did at Chelsea.

Whilst this Charlie fella is clearly a bit odd, the idea isn't completely bonkers. Partially yes, but completely no. I remember many years we played Ruddock as a kind of playmaker on the left of midfield for the reserves. He looked alright there. Slightly different but I'm trying to give Charlie a precedent to help him out a bit.

There's no bitterness on my part. We need to make progress and bring better players in/on. Davis has been a cracking servant but most accept that he's best days are behind him. Gazza has a bright future but is likely to be held back by Davis staying around for another 3 years. Players are well rewarded and I just don't get the need to reward success or loyalty by giving a contract to a player who won't add to the team and could block the path of the next number 1. A year "bonus" for services rendered makes no business or footballing sense. If Davis can offer something as a motivator or coach (as others have suggested) then hire him in that role, not under a players contract.

There is no comparison between di Matteo and Phelan/Barca. di Matteo came into the club without having worked with the players or systems, which is much different to the barca situation (and the Phelan example above). I can't think of a manager in recent times who has come in from the outside and improved the performances and results of the existing team more successfully than di Matteo.

so your view is the only right one? it's a sad state of affairs if you have to keep (and pay) a past it player as a motivator.

The fact that he did it with someone elses teams makes it more of an achievement, not less. I'd take him if we need a new man but I'm happy to stick with mp.

We're having a shocker. The batting was awful and the bowling and fielding are just as bad. Thank goodness we had a days rain. We may scrape a draw, if it rains again.

Am I the only one who doesn't get this? He's old, past his best and will only get worse. Why a 3 year extension? I get that he's been a stalwart but he's been paid for his services. He's no longer up to the standard and blocking the path of youth. Sentiment doesn't win football matches.

Cheers. At that price the missus will be talked into a juke rather than a mini. Absolute bargain.