Wes Tender

It is still early in the season and maybe a little premature to be making judgement calls following an annihilation of last season's champions on their home turf. But I can't help thinking that following that performance, there can at least be some justification for revision of the opinions that we might be a better squad but not a better team than we had last season and also that we can't go on replacing players who go to glory teams with equal or better players for less money. There is a very distinct possibility that V V-D is at least as good as Alderweireld and judging by his performance yesterday, Cedric looks as if he could potentially be as good as Clyne. As for the others who replaced our so-called top players the season before, I don't miss Lallana, Lovren, Lambert, Shaw or Chambers with what we have brought in to replace them. The jury is still out with Romeu and Clasie, but one has to give the club the benefit of the doubt based on how the others are faring. Provided that we are lucky with injuries and suspensions, without the distraction of European football, our first choice team looks very strong and there is still some reasonable strength in depth behind them. I don't see why 6th at least should not be possible. Carry on with the trajectory that we have now started after a faltering start, and there are several players who will be coveted by the big clubs, including Mane, Pelle, Wanyama, Tadic, Bertrand and V V-D, with potential to include Rodrigues and Clasie if they fulfil their potential. In the meantime, we should be enjoying some very entertaining football this season.

Why didn't you post it on the "What's wrong with America" thread? I didn't see anything in that thread title that precluded discussing anything other than guns as viable subjects.

Interesting to see on the screen a burnt out wreck from a bygone era and in the background, Brighton's West Pier.

delete

Actually, there is a let out there, as they could go up via the play-offs as a minimum, or as champions as the maximum.

Age-related eyesight deterioration? Time to get them tested, mate.

As a former World class defender, he has certainly organised our defence well generally, but we are talking here about arguably the best attacking defender the game has ever seen, so it sounds strange to conclude that he prefers defence over attack. I'm more inclined to believe that his philosophy might be that the best form of defence is attack.

I very much doubt that he is one of those. He is just your average fan who bears a grudge against certain players and is too bigoted against them to recognise when they might have a decent game and too small-minded to give even grudging admiration for them when they play well, as it goes against his prejudices.

Agreed, the mods ought to have more control over the sort of aggressive attitude that you have just shown to a perfectly reasonable point of view. How this comes across, is that you believe Koeman to be an idiot for selecting them both. How can it be that such an experienced manager cannot see what is plain to an ordinary fan like you? How has it come to pass that Northern Ireland have chosen such a useless player as Davis to be their captain? Roy Hodgson has expressed the opinion that Ward-Prowse is a big prospect for the future, so again, what does he know about anything? We get the message though; you don't like either of them. But as you say, this is a forum of opinions and it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss the opinions of others as being rubbish providing that one doesn't resort to calling the poster a complete and utter ****, or an argumentative twit.

Hypo cannot see that the best way to achieve a retraction from our relationship with the EU to solely a trading arrangement is to vote to leave. In Hypoworld, the best way to negotiate is from a position of weakness. I don't believe for a moment that very many will think in terms of us leaving as "biting off the hand that feeds them", especially not the man in the street, who will be told the annual cost of membership for him and his family. I suppose though that the counter position that will be pushed by the "leave" lobby is that we will be "breaking free of the shackles that bind us." Also in Hypoworld, anybody who wants to leave the EU must be a UKIP supporter, regardless of whether their support for that position predates the UKIP party. But mentioning that one's opinions have some basis of experience of the origins of the European Union, the Common Market, means that one has lost the argument apparently, as that is one of the Hypo rules of debate.

It seemed pretty clear that he had brought back play after waiting to see whether an advantage had accrued and anybody who thought that he was awarding non-existing fouls was either a bit dim, or had their judgement distorted by the number of fouls he awarded that he shouldn't have. It seemed to me that once it became clear that the referee was prepared to award free kicks for the slightest contact, players actually went looking for that advantage by falling easily. Your stats that he had awarded the highest number of fouls of the day speaks volumes. It is one thing to have a large section of the crowd chanting that the referee didn't know what he was doing when you are losing as a result of poor decisions by him and quite another to hear chants like that when your team is winning. I'm pretty sure that we had much the same opinion of him when we last had him.

A lot of that was down to the referee IMO. He was a niggly b'stard and half of the fouls he blew he shouldn't have.

I could have sworn that was JRod who came on for Tadic at 74 minutes.

Yes, you're right. It is too early on to assess whether the team we have now is better than the one we had last year or the year before that, and anyway are we talking the first team or the squad? Many would even argue over which players should be in that best first team over the three seasons. In my opinion, the squad at least is better than the one we had the past couple of years. Many would say that the team from last year was better than the one from the year before, but Rodriguez wasn't available. Would Lambert still have the legs to be playing as well as he did for us two years ago? Was Lallana better than Tadic, V.V-D versus Toby, versus Lovren? Bertrand is arguably at least as good as Shaw when he was here, and whereas Bertrand has just returned from an injury, had Shaw stayed and suffered that injury with us, we would be without him for the rest of the season and maybe Lovren would also be out for some time too had he stayed. Schneiderlin, Toby and Clyne are difficult to replace, but whereas it seems that Cedric might not be up to Clyne's standard, the jury is still out on V V-D and Romeu against Schneiderlin and Toby, although Lovren's performances for Liverpool suggest that he relied on his team mates here to make him look good.

post 929 by Hypo on the "Drinks" thread Please take your own advice, Hypo and seek help.

It's all relative and ultimately a player's value is what anybody is prepared to pay for him. But comparing him with what we paid for Long (£12m I understand) is one way of assessing it. However, you might as well ask whether he is worth twice the price they paid for Sturridge, or three times what they paid for Countinho.

These are cup matches, where anything can happen, as proven by lowly Carlisle taking Liverpool right to the line. Any of those other teams could beat the ones you have chosen, depending on how they play on the night and which teams are put out by the supposedly stronger ones, who have other commitments in Europe. It's also debateable whether our teams of the last two years were stronger than the one we have now.

Bye sonny

There you go again, pigeon-holing people to make it easier for you to respond to their views if you can have them belonging to a narrower band of beliefs and opinions than your limited imagination allows. I suspect that I have been on this earth long enough to understand the political climate (having voted in my first General Election in 1970 when the voting age was 21) and to know how the media works, thank you. I am savvy enough to realise that for all the propaganda there will be to stay in from some sections of the media, there is also counter-propaganda over major issues that will effect the result, like the nightly coverage of the thousands of migrants entering Europe or disrupting the Eurotunnel service trying to get into the UK. No doubt there will other coverage of events that will aid the Euro-sceptic position, like the possibility that the Greeks might exit the EU for example. Regarding what you describe as my jumping up and down over whether we will vote to leave or not, I merely refute your position that the result is a foregone conclusion with absolutely no chance of an upset.If that is how you would like to categorise my response, fill your boots. It doesn't bother me, but it makes you look a little hysterical. I really do not understand your reasoning regarding the people who want to stay in but only on a trade basis. Which is this hand that feeds them? There is only ever likely to be the alternative of staying in or leaving, no position that they would prefer of staying in with a renegotiation back to solely a trade basis. So it is obviously the case that given only the two alternatives, they would vote to leave, and if they narrowly failed, they would have a strong negotioning position in renegotiating our terms of membership. If the vote succeeded, then we would be out and free to negotiate our trading terms on the basis that Europe does more trade with us than we do with them. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that anybody who wished to gain concessions from the EU would strengthen their position by voting to stay in. I'm quite comfortable where I am in my political stance, thank you, and certainly wouldn't take any advice from you on what I should believe. As I said already, my Euro-scpetic stance goes back a long way before Farage, to the days of the CAP, Common Market subsidies to French Apple growers which decimated our orchards, produced wine lakes, butter mountains so vast that we sold the surplus to the Soviet Union at prices lower than we could buy it here, our fishing industry was decimated. You're probably too young to remember all that, so your your views are naturally a bit narrower from lack of personal experience.

Stop wriggling. You patently bracket together anybody who wants to leave the EU as deluded buffoons or simpletons, because you claim that there is zero chance for the campaign to leave succeeding, so why would they even bother voting if the result is such a foregone clonclusion? Oh yes, if a significant percentage voted and the result was a close run thing, then we might gain some concessions from the EU, such as the Scottish Nationalists did in their independence referendum. Really? So what are they going to do? Vote to stay in, or abstain? That'll show them! And for your information, my Eurosceptic stance predates UKIP and indeed the Referendum Party by some considerable time and goes back to the Maastricht Treaty. I am a Conservative, not UKIP and only voted UKIP during the last European Elections, along with sufficient numbers of others who made them the biggest British grouping in the European Parliament. I can understand though how some will attempt to band everybody who disagrees with them into their own cosy little pigeon-holes, as they lack the imagination to accept that on some issues there can be support from across the entire political spectrum.

I just love the debating position that states that if someone adopts an alternative position, they must be deluded, a bit simple, a buffoon, disconnected from reality, etc. It really is an arrogant position to adopt and left-wingers in particular are especially good at it, (not that I insinuate that you are left-wing). I have given several valid reasons why people might vote to leave the EU, but you seem not have the comprehension to recognise them, or more accurately, you seem to think that they are fictional, like MLG's dreams about the Champions League. You don't appear to realise the irony that I question your judgement by reference to your knee-jerk reaction on the Bertrand signing and you demand to know what that has to do with our membership of the EU and in the next breath you make a connection yourself between a footballing analogy and Europe. Do I have an admission from you that many people would rather be in Europe on a trading basis only? Would you say that they might conceivably even represent a majority, or at the least a very sizeable proportion compared to those who are happy to stay in, or those who want to leave? If so, there is a strong case that could be made that they should have the opportunity to vote for that in the referendum. Failing that, despite your assurances that the vote is such a foregone conclusion, the best way for them to secure concessions from the EU towards things like border controls on immigration, the regaining of lost sovereignty, the cost of our membership etc, is obviously to vote to leave. In view of your last paragraph wherein you show some sensible balance by recognising that the Scotland Independence cause derived some benefit from running the vote so closely, it is indeed to be hoped that there are enough buffoons, deluded and simple-minded people amongst the electorate who will vote to leave, in order that we can also force through some concessions from the EU.

I see that Hypo has added some extra substance to the post which I had quoted entirely verbatim. Maybe he will also now admit that any concerns that people might have over what they consider to be the shortcomings and problems caused by the EU are not fictional figments of their imagination.

Your response proves that you have totally lost it. Buffoonery at its best. Why not try and engage in sensible debate instead of going off on a mad rant? I have given several reasons which voters might feel justify their desire to leave, but somehow you choose to dismiss them as fictional. Any sane person would accept them as being valid reasons, so I will draw my own conclusions as to whether you are able to debate the issues with any sanity. I don't see you refuting my claim that the majority position is quite possibly that if permitted to, they would vote to remain in Europe solely on a trading basis. I don't need to know which way you would vote. As you insist that there is absolutely no chance of us voting to leave, then it is clear that you consider that anybody who votes to leave for whatever reason, might as well not bother, as there can never be enough of them to win. All those UKIP voters, the traditional core of Tory Euro-sceptics, the anti-Europe Trade Union members, the Corbyn left-wingers, they have no clout at all to change the game, despite there being another couple of years in which political circumstances could drastically alter the whole scenario. A week is a long time in politics - Harold Wilson In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight - Joseph Chamberlain Events, dear boy, events - What Macmillan feared most, apparently.

You said that Bertrand was a crap signing. Verbal said that I need not worry my Ukippy head that Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party, it was never going to happen. Not that I was worried; it was what I hoped for. The buffoon here is you, dismissing the chances of us leaving the EU as non-existent. Somebody with a more measured approach would speak of it as being unlikely, or improbable and I have no problem with that viewpoint. It is the idiots who state categorically that there is no chance at all of it happening. Having dismissed the possibility as zero chance, you have been drawn into some debate into your position, which is to dismiss us leaving the EU out of hand, whilst simultaneously talking in terms that suggest that it is not impossible that we might leave. You admit that many dislike the EU. You rely on the likelihood that the pro-EU lobby will have to resort to scare tactics to secure their position. You compare it to the Scottish referendum when there are huge disparities between that and the EU referendum, and where it was even thought that the Scots would vote to leave up to a couple of weeks before the actual vote. You seem to have swallowed all the arguments yourself that will be employed by the stay in lobby, that business will be put at risk, that is better to maintain the status quo than to take a leap into the unknown. The counter position in the campaign to leave will naturally also invlove scare tactics; the pro-EU lot don't have a monopoly on that. Immigration will play a major part in that debate, but also the loss of sovereignty, prevalence of the European Court of Law over our own legal system, the huge cost of membership, are all factors to be considered. They will not only refute vigorously the lie that we will stand to lose business, but they will argue that by trading with the rest of the World, we can actually increase our business activity. They will point to other nations thriving on World trade, whilst pointing to those EU nations who despite their trade within Europa and massive subsidies, nevertheless have basket case economies and massive unemployment. Whereas you claim that "most people" believe that it is obvious that we will not leave, I will counter that by claiming that "most people" (including me), consider that the position that they would find most acceptable is the one whereby we return to our membership of what we originally joined, solely a Common Market for trade. All of the federalist claptrap that was added in successive treaties that we subsequently signed up to which resulted in a European Union should have been put to the British electorate in a referendum at the time that they were signed. Therefore, in my opinion, there should be a third option in the referendum, which should allow the opportunity to stay in the EU purely on a trade basis and nothing more. As that is not going to happen, then those who would prefer that position should recognise that their best chance of achieving it would be to vote to leave.

OK then. You've no doubt gazed deep into your crystal ball which is infallible. Whilst you're at it, could you pm me the next winning lottery numbers? When Dave first promised that the EU referendum would be held in 2017, there was much anger that it was to be so far away, as one was promised in the General Election before, so there was little excuse for not stating that one would be held say six months after this election. Now it seems as if the tardiness in holding the referendum will massively benefit the "leave" lobby, because immigration is fast becoming the major issue. Every month that passes will strengthen the desire for us to be able to set our own border controls, so that we don't have to allow unfettered migration from any other EU member state and we would have the ability to lay down firm guidelines on which immigrants from other parts of the World we were prepared to take.