Minty

That miss was actually quite surprising IMO... Lallana is usually quite clinical in such situations... it was almost as though he had too much time to think about where to place it (a lot like Guly's header).

One of the reasons Guly has attracted criticism is because he got on the ball so much... he was available for passes from defence and midfield 90% of the time and so there will naturally be many times when he will, and did, lose possession. But Hopkins and Scudamore and others are right - His all-round contribution was very valuable and to those who feel otherwise I simply invite you to tell us why... I've not seen any worthy critique yet that comes to a negative conclusion, only knee-jerk remarks like 'He was sh!te' with no justification.

Agree with this summary almost word for word. A few things I would add though. I was genuinely concerned after the first 20 minutes. It wasn't that we were being outplayed or outfought, but we just looked very shaky and fragile at the back. I had expected quite an open game, and it started exdactly that way, but the only difference was some woeful defending and wayward finished from us. We equalized however, with a goal that I thought the keeper should've saved but look forward to seeing again because it was so unexpected (virtually the whole Kingsland thought it had hit the side-netting at first), we started to get a good grip on things. That said however, it wasn't until the second half when I felt we were on top of their strikers. Lallana's showed so much skill and close control today, he deserved a goal, but fully played his part. Chamberlain delivered the goods too and scored a very mature, composed goal that belied his tender age. He picked his spot and passed it in. A lot of other strikers could learn from it. He took a heavy challenge which clearly affected him but he was excellent to that point. I thought the whole back 5 were dubious for a good half an hour but they gradually tightened up and Jaidi improved markedly after the half hour and nothing got past him or Fonte after that. But lessons do need to be learnt from the ease with which they scored their goal, and the open goal miss shortly afterwards. We switched off and must learn from it. Davis too had a couple of moments where I felt he should've come out to claim the ball or been more decisive. One high ball inparticular was crying out for him to come and collect, but it was allowed to drop and bounce 18 yards out... we won a free kick for an infringement but it concerned me a little. Schneiderlin and Hammond did well, the latter, like the defence, especially after 30 minutes had passed. Chaplow came on and did exactly what was needed to help see the game out and also scored a quality finish from Guly's intelligent pay off. Guly has got some criticism on here and it's easy to see why... his scoring chances were all wasted and those stick in the mind, but his link up play and running of the channel's was good and whilst he can certainly improve, he contributed a lot to the win today, make no mistake. Lambert is still improving, his goal will be a massive fillip for him, and I suspect was rather lucky, but that doesn't matter right now. His workrate was visibly better and he got zero from the ref, despite similarly physical challenges being punished the other way around. 18 efforts on target, 7 off target, their keeper made some good saves and we missed others. A lot of good things to take from the game and forward into 2011. Absolutely no reason why we cannot move on and get automatic promotion as long as we learn about the things we still need to improve and stop giving other teams chances that we seem prone to doing. We can and should be positive (go on alpine, give it a go), whilst recognising that we are nowhere near the finished article. As someone else said, no one in this league is consistent. We will lose games and will play poorly. We just need to be the least inconsistent.

Well, that killed that thread then! lol

I don't care if you're left wing or right wing, and what opinion you have about this country, Europe, the economy, students and everything else that gets discussed on the Lounge. What I find most annoying is when political stereotypes abound and individuals from either side refuse to simply debate the points at hand, on their own merit. A thread rarely gets beyond 10 replies before the first insult is thrown and the original point is lost in a swarm of point-scoring and name-calling. It usually gets quite pathetic IMO. And that applies to lots of threads on here, not just political ones.

That's a fair point, and I too often try to remind people that we are part of nature. There is often an air of superiority about many discussions to do with our presence and influence upon our surroundings, as though we are somehow seperate from nature. It's why I also try to stress the importance of sustainability and biodiversity across a wide range of subjects, not just the climate. However, this does then lead to a discussion about the fact that we are probably (we can never know for certain) the only species that is *aware* of it's possible effect on the environment and what it needs to survive (in terms of the climate, as well as resources) therefore we should potentially have the ability to modify our behaviour for the benefit of the species. Again, I'm not saying we will 'solve' any particular issue, nor make it possible for us to exist indefinitely, however I personally always come back to the fact that I feel I should do whatever I can to ensure that my children and their children etc, etc, do not have to cope with being the last generation of human on this planet, before we're extinct.

I completely agree and it was more an observation than a criticism. However from what I observed and some feedback from a member of the family who was up there for both protests, there were incidents that were handled poorly. That is not a reflection on the Police as a whole, but on individual officers who find themselves having to make split second decisions on a situation unfolding infront of them. Some of them get it wrong IMO, and their reactions then incited others. We also don't know how well prepared individual officers are to be put into such a scenario. I can only imagine how scary it must be to be a Police officer in that situation. Lots of ifs, buts and maybes. And of course, I fully accept that it was some within the protest started it all and therefore are wholly to blame for the trouble in the first place. I just feel it is a valid observation that *some* Police actions did not help.

This thread is a great example of how many people seem unable to separate the key points when discussing issues such as this. The way I see it, the following are all being discussed, but one issue is often clouding another, and an opinion on one area does not and should not automatically lead to a specific opinion on another, but that is the assumption that so many make. 1 - The violence initiated from within the demonstration. 2 - The reaction by the Police. 3 - The right to a degree education. 4 - How to fund a degree education. 5 - The current government proposal on the above. Personally speaking: 1 - I completely and entirely condemn the violence. 2 - I do not believe the Police response helped, and incited further trouble. 3 - I believe everyone should be entitled to apply for a degree education, with places going to those who meet specified academic standards. Those who don't meet those criteria however, should still have the opportunity to learn in other ways, through vocational training or NVQ's etc... Degrees are the top of the pile, but other forms of education are just as important to help improve all levels of society. And I say that as an employer as well as an individual. 4 - I see the education of future generations as being something in the nations interest, not just the students'. I recognise the need for fiscal prudence, but I believe there are other ways in which education could be state-funded without these measures, and that if possible, that is how it should be. 5 - Given my fundamental difference of opinion above, clearly I do not support the Government's current proposals. HOWEVER, if it is to happen, I firmly believe that with a bit of commons sense and some basic understanding of how to budget, the new system should not prevent anyone going to University if they really want to. I support those who are (peacefully) protesting about it, and until such time as it is decided, believe it is important to exercise that democratic right, but IF it passes into law, then that is when I feel people should be realistic and honest about their own situation and I am confident that if people really want to, then most will be able to pay their way.

I disagree. There have been a number of issues over the years that David Luker dealt with, often taking a lot of personal flak at the time, because he was shielding the club or the person who came up with the policy. He has helped explain often unpopular decisions and been the man in the middle who has to deal with unhappiness. I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that there have been times when things could've been handled better, or that he maybe has done or said the wrong thing. But he's only human and he was always under the spotlight of 30,000+ fans all of whom have an opinion about how things should be done, many with unrealistic expectations and no idea of the logistics of organising tickets and related products. I for one think he did a very good job overall and thank him for his time at the club.

But did every student do that? No. Which was the point. I condemn the behaviour that you describe above, but it wasn't everyone. If there is some violence at a football game that you attended, is it fair to blame all fans who attended for the violence?

The following is quite interesting, and very important IMO for understanding the proposals. Sadly, this is one thing that has been missing from most of the media coverage: the facts of what it will cost and how it will work. Warning: Put aside your political views whilst you read this, and read this purely to understand the facts of the matter. I know some might struggle with that. http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2010/12/03/the-argument-over-student-loans-could-kill-the-next-generations-education/

A situation that the 'fittest' have helped to engineer... capitalism has actively led to the depletion of those resources, be it oil or metals or wood or other natural resources. And as those resources continue to deplete and the cycle continues, it brings us back to my original question: How is that sustainable?

Dune, do you think Capitalism is sustainable, and if so, how? (I'm not disagreeing on the first part BTW)

Yes indeed, add that to my list. The combination of all those issues will dictate our future far more than economic growth ever will.

As I said 18 months ago: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" We simply don't know for certain if, and to what extent, GW is or is not man-made, and so to close your mind to *any* possibility is dangerous IMO. I believe it is, but I fully accept I might be wrong and applaud any efforts to learn more about the issue. Personally, I would rather focus on the wider issue of human sustainability, which means taking into consideration peak oil, food security, biodiversity and other issues as well as the climate...

A few? This thread is 18 months old!

Fair enough, I couldn't see them clearly, they just looked a bit soft. They were the only minor things I noticed. Just the fact that our fans aren't berating him is usually a good sign that he did pretty well.

I completely agree. This so-called 'hoofing' was quite clearly, IMO, something we have worked on to vary our attacking approach and, as Adkins himself said after the Hudds game, meant we were able to play our football in the right areas. Against Hudds we got caught at the back. By driving longer (not necessarily high) passes up to the front men and playing off them (Chaplow/Lallana and others picked up the knock downs and lay offs from Lambert and especially Barnard well), we're giving ourselves an option of how to play against teams that play high up or put that pressure on our defence. Some of Harding and Seaborne's passes forward were excellent... pacey and accurate, but the execution wasn't always perfect and we did overhit/mi**** some passes, it showed good intentions to me, and means we can start to vary our play according to how the opposition try and counter us. Those who sit back, we draw out with passing from the back. Those who try and close us down and harry us, we bypass the midfield with a longer pass, and play further up the pitch. Now we just need to learn when to use each, and refine it further, but if we're winning 3-1 away from home and 4-0 at home in games where we aren't firing on all cylinders, then god help teams if we continue to improve. I actually thought we played that way last night because Adkins (and I) was expecting D+R to be more like Hudds and be in our faces. But they actually stepped off us and so we were able to pass it out more on occasion than perhaps we did. But all in all it was a worthwhile exercise for me, because it all enhances our ability to cope with different opponents and tactics. Adkins has just about everything spot on for me. I can see the progress, I can see the tactics at work, I can the players responding, and thankfully now, I can see the fans responding too.

Generally thought he was fine, my only gripes were some slightly soft decisions in the Northam penalty box (both halves, but especially some 'fouls' on their keeper first half) and some of the physical treatment and niggly fouls against AOC towards the end, down in the Chapel/Kingsland corner. It seemed to take an age before he was finally awarded a free kick despite several fouls on him already. Other than that, I agree, we should recognise when refs do ok, because we're usually quick to criticise.

In the pub last night after our game, I asked how much people thought he was worth, bearing in mind the over-inflated prices of players these days and what it would take for Spurs to sell him. Consensus was about £50m.

OK maybe it's not. Irony is a bit of a minefield. My lunch is more important right now, excuse me...

No, it's not. Don't get me started on Alanis 'I wouldn't have a clue what irony was even if a Professor of Irony tried explaining it to me' Morrissette. It is ironic though. If you don't care about a thread and then reply on it...

Like you then, and your tedious one-purpose agenda to correct everyone's grammar, spelling and use of the English language. ;-)

McNeil Richards - Cranie - Rudd - Wallis-Taylor Walcott - James - Sparv - Dyer DMG Best ... I seem to recall. We used to play a fluid 4-5-1/4-3-3 formation under Georges Prost, and played some sublime football.

I blame Cortese.