Donatello

Ian Dennis (of the BBC) also stated on deadline day that JRod needed to get away from the club, and I was totally perplexed by the comment at the time, given that he's been our preferred striker for a month or so now, so perhaps a few BBC journalists have heard something. Who knows.

We've only played 2.5 Prem games with this clusterf**k of a CB issue, so you can't chalk our season up until *now* to that. Our defense has been the only reason why people haven't been able to use the words 'relegation scrap' until recently. And I'm not convinced that a striker can make up for excessive tactical/defensive caution.

Since you're so convinced that Puel isn't the issue, would you care to say what is?

You win

How do you see their responsibilities differing? I'll confess to being a tad ignorant of Wilson's role (beyond the title), hence asking. I largely see Les as the spearhead, hence I've been critical of him, but if Wilson is equally responsible, I have plenty to go around

.....then they shouldn't have sold Fonte. They f**ked up, there's no other way to describe it. I've always been *very* pro-Les Reed. Within the past 12-18 months I've begun to take what he says with a pinch of salt, since he's made himself look foolish on one too many occasions. In this instance, his actions (and those of his team, etc) are that of a f**cking clown/amateur.

F**king ridiculous (window).

Thanks.

Where's the Amat noise coming from?

Up for the corner?

Like for like change, because what we tried in the first 55mins worked so well Edit: I stand by what I said, that was 57 minutes

Abject half.

What would you have changed pre-match, out of curiousity?

According to Ian Dennis..... "West Brom wanted a striker and a defender. They were interested in Jay Rodriguez and I think the player would be keen. He needs to get away but Southampton are insistent he would stay put." Huh? Why? :S

With the greatest of respect, this rationale makes precisely zero sense to moi. What if he gets injured on Tuesday? Or next Saturday? Should we bench the entire team until the final? :S I'm not even bothered that Forster isn't playing, but it does highlight Puel's occasional knack for over-indulging his rotation policy.

Nothing, but the claim was that players who played on Wednesday needed a rest. Resting Forster epitomises resting a player for the sake of it.

Explain Forster's absence.

Soooooo what was the thinking with Forster? Not that we win because of Forster....I'm just not sure I see *any* sense in it.

Standing by what I said earlier, there isn't too much to be disgruntled about (with regards to this transfer in isolation), but boy does it feel weird seeing him in a West Ham shirt. As for the remainder of the season, I'm just not sold on the idea of Stephens and Gardos as our alternatives. Stephens is glaringly untested at this level, and Gardos, with whatever quality he may have, hasn't played consistently in two years. Factor in that one of these players would be playing regularly under our rotation system (assuming we're not dumped out of both cups), and it feels a little precarious.

This x 1000.

Interesting. *but that's football players for you

I'm aligned with this line of thinking. He clearly had ambitions of 'moving up' or being paid a ridiculous wage (à la Pelle), and it's all fallen flat after he burnt his bridges. All seems very unnecessary with hindsight, but that's football agents for you. West Ham or West Brom...jesus, you couldn't get a more sideways/pointless move - I doubt the pay increase will even be *that* much (but Mendes will get his fee, of course). At any rate, £10m-£12m and a Sakho-level replacement will be good business, so there isn't much cause to be too disgruntled.

Recently?

Having just seen the goals, it would appear Rom was at the fault for their second. Maya instructs him to mark Naismith, and instead he decides to mark nothing. Perhaps Maya should have marked Naismith. Perhaps VVD shouldn't have been out of position. C'est la vie.