shurlock

Boruc has gone on record saying that the whole time under NA was very strange (check his prematch interview against Swansea (a)). Nothing to do with being unavailable. It was down to NA's erratic managerment which prevented Boruc getting match fit. After discovering the harsh way that KD was not up to it, NA's faith in Gazzanigga is still one of the great unresolved mysteries - remember him throwing points away against Norwich and people calling for to be dropped, only for him to remain in goal and do exactly the same against Swansea. And when NA did make the change, he initially went back to KD (who missed a soft cross at Fulham for their goal) before finally opting for Boruc. Too little, too late.

Cherrypicking, you alright? I'm looking at MP's entire history of results which is a perfect sample, the very opposite of cherrypicking. By contrast, one half of football against a team that had never lost at home under their manager.... And Adkins dropped Boruc and stubbornly stuck with Gazzanigga. Nothing to do with him being unavailable.

Just know I shouldn't have given BS the benefit of the doubt.

Assuming those numbers are correct -its Xmas and I'm feeling charitable- who are those players, how integral are they to their respective teams?

Never said Chelsea's tactics weren't effective. If you also look at our performances under MP at the end of last season -when MP's basically had the same squad as NA to choose from, its ridiculous to conclude that we haven't become tighter and harder to beat. One one level, MP has the worst of both worlds -not only a poor squad to choose from (the same for NA) but also players with little match practice/cohesion playing together because (thankfully and until recently), they no longer get near the first team.

We've made mistakes but they're a far cry from the way we would collapse and capitulate under Adkins - the way we held firm against City/Newcastle showed the resilience MP has brought to the team, even when he was basically selecting from the same pool of players as Adkins. Only yesterday was truly soft and shambolic.

If they were against bottom of the table sides with a full strength team and we'd been completely outplayed, perhaps? But with the exception of the Villa game (which at any rate we dominated) and yesterday which had similarities with NA's time, that's not been the case. Cortese fired Adkins when he was on a winning run - clear proof that he looks beyond short-term results. The quote should be taken with a pinch of salt.

That's not the point He's only failthfully repeating Cortese's own words Forget the fact that Cortese qualified them by saying that he ultimately wants a manager who can take us to the next level (which isn't the same thing as short-term results).

You're referring to a quote that Cortese wouldn't sit around till we lost five games in a row. We've only lost two games in a row during this mini-slump. Four losses out of six is poor but we don't need to get into specifics of our injuries/the fixture list (though that cuts both ways) -and am sure Cortese knows the difference between a manager who has hit his ceiling and one who is struggling with the s***ty hand he's been dealt. The only game that probably angered Cortese was the Villa one.

We've had plenty of time since then to rectify things, so not sure of its relevance to the here and now. Most people were delighted with our business this summer and the shape of our squad going into the season.

Perhaps we can pretend that the spurs result followed the villa result which in turn followed chelsea/arsenal ones. Only in a mongboard universe of course...

All too easy to pin his performances on injuries - his form has been a concern since the end of last season.

Time will tell. Either way would rather we have other attacking options on the bench when chasing a game.

Doubt it - a ridiculous post. MP laughed off suggestions in the past that Gazza could go and play for Argentina (initially made by NA); he's under no illusions about his quality and where he is in his development. Gazza is simply next in line - its not like Cropper has covered himself in glory in youth/development games, being prone to errors. Next.

??? What games have you been watching. Jrod has been excellent since returning from England duties like he's had something to prove.

More or less - concerned our gameplan doesn't translate as well away from home and we still lack pace which is a mongboard faux pas

How about the cherrypick to put us in the worst possible light one. Another mongboard house fav. Oh right that's been done.

West London is soulless and superficial. A horrible place.

So what? London has benefitted from past investments and prioritisation -favouritism if you will- that have allowed it to become an economic magnet, attracting activity that in turn has attracted more activity in a virtuous circle. It's not a coincidence that Harper Collins is near the BBC -to use your examples; but there is no reason why the BBC had to be located in London in the first place. The rich get richer; the strong get stronger - though tell them that circumstance and fortune are responsible and they play dumb.

Probably - was up in the North East with Newcastle for a while, so would explain the Durham link.

Winning things is a means to an end - for me, doing well is being respected and seen as a force by others. Winning a devalued cup may contribute to that; but it has far less impact than sustaining form across an entire season. Like it or not, the league is the truest benchmark of quality and all the benefits that come with it.

In same way, the brightest bulbs on the mongboard claimed that Adkins was forced to play 4-2-3-1 by the meddling clotese (lol) - when 4-4-2 would have been far superior?

Glad to see the idea that Daniel Levy is some kind of transfer genius getting questioned.

Hoofball= one crude indicator is when you have relatively low possession combined with a high number of long balls. We tend to dominate possession in games -we even edged it at the Emirates IIRC- suggesting we either mix it up (assuming the silly mare's numbers are correct) or we don't lose possession with our long balls which in turn suggests they are controlled not speculative which is the essence of a hoof. Frankly, I don't see much change from Adkins in our willingness to go long - that's not the first place I'd go looking to find difference between the two.

Its a saying you moron. Not a literal rule. Concentrate on not f**king up your own posts with errors rather than finding illusory holes in others.