Donatello

Fair enough (I assumed you had because, A) I couldn't remember which posters specifically had decried the tactics/selection, and B) you replied to a question aimed at said posters P.S Yoshi playing probably falls under Koeman's tactics/selections

Completely uncalled for, Juanmi has seemingly made his position his own

He was solid enough for 55 mins. That mistake aside he was fine. But at that point it was 1-1 and we had been absent for 20 minutes. I don't mind apportioning blame, hence why I have no qualms about saying I hold Fonte responsible for killing our momentum/style at the 35 minute mark. Still, I'm not sure why that makes Koeman's tactics inintrinsically wrong. We lost because of Yoshida, just the same as we lost because of Fonte, just as...the linesman, Pelle (missing - wasn't a sitter), the ref (penalty(?)), etc.

So nothing to do with Yoshida at RB? Furthermore, tthe defence dropping off wouldn't be a result of Koeman's tactics. In fact, he was trying to shove them up the pitch. Mane drifted around, sure. Edit: I'm still awaiting an explanation on how Pochettino was able to impart his philosophy on players who arrived months after he left.

Clarkey, are you suggesting that Yoshida was at fault for the first? :S

As asked previously, can someone explain to me why Koeman's selection/tactics worked so well for the first 35 mins, and yet were supposedly dreadful? Genuine Q (because I can't understand the rationale)

Yes, it's an edit. It happened Within a 15-30 second time period. Nice refreshing :thumb up: Edit (gasps) : You didn't elaborate, for some reason.

If I've misinterpreted, please explain, by all means.

Hahaha, that'd make sense if not for the fact that the front 3 players under Koeman are entirely different humans Jesus, haha (no offense). Edit: Misread, I think.

Thank Christ, I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this.

Koeman did this wrong, Koeman did that wrong, etc, haha. Fact is, we dominated the first 30-35 *because* of his tactics/selection. Would some of the incessantly critical care to explain that to moi? Yoshida's awful error aside, he was actually okay. I mean, in spite of that error, I still thought he had a better game than Fonte, who was beyond appalling. He bred nervousness and indecision, and his actions for their first (offside) goal were suicidal....at least Yoshida can claim to have had the sun in his eyes Seriously, even during the Yoshida implosion, he confused things. Yoshida is 100% culpable, of course, but Fonte, should've commanded that situation. It was just as easily his ball as it was Yoshida's - in fact, there's a moment when they're toing and froing about whose it is. At any rate, the two defensive mistakes (excluding the offside) were preposterous.

The BBC going with a slightly less sensationalist angle....http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34281054 I must confess, I wasn't aware of the following... "Five years later, another precedent was established when Hearts and Scotland defender Andy Webster became the first player to take advantage of a new clause in Fifa's regulations. That said any player under 28 and three years into a contract could break that deal providing they gave written notice within 15 days of the league season finishing. For players over 28, they could do it after two years. However the payment of a "market value" element to the compensation held back an avalanche of Websters - Brazilian playmaker Matuzalem's move from Shakhtar Donetsk to Zaragoza, and Italian goalkeeper Morgan de Sanctis's transfer from Udinese to Sevilla saw both players costing a lot more than their new clubs were expecting."

True enough, as we do currently, but at least everyone is remunerated in some form (not just the players). Plenty of lower division clubs probably survive/operate for years to come on big (relatively speaking) transfer fees. In fact, I'd rather see more done to ensure lower division clubs receive more substantial fees upfront (at tribunals), etc.

Cheers for clarifying (proving me right ), I genuinely wasn't aware of that. Edit: Just viewed, ha, yep, very first question. "Is that something that's been talked about?" "No"

Can you explain why you think that is, please? I just can't see it is all. At present, I can only see the benefit to players and their bank accounts (which I'm not condemning or condoning). But as previously mentioned, I may not be giving it enough thought.

I don't think clubs would feel incentivised to produce young players if there was a 100% possibility of no financial return. Effectively, players would end up leaving around 20-21 years of age for nothing (if the mooted 3-4 year maximum contracts are in place) - using the past few years as an example, we'd have kept Luke/Callum for a couple more years before losing them for free.....we could've done that and *still* made a return (tribunal) under the current system (in theory)).

And a crown/crown of thorns

I'm not convinced that 'numpties on here' are the reason that the club leak offers. I think you're overstating our importance At any rate, leaks for player contracts are less significant than leaks for manager contracts (imo). No one's (openly) calling for Koeman to extend, and I can't imagine anyone at the club would want to disrupt him publicly during the season, let alone at the start. No, to me, it makes much more sense to chalk this up to journalism with the sole purpose of providing journalists something to talk about at press-conferences. But, as always, who knows. We'll see a question asked at the press conference though.

That's how I've initially interpreted it.

Why do you keep posting this? :S

So, hurt feelings? (I canny be bothered to address the hyperbole ) At any rate, it seems to me that Taider was brought into the fold as a make-weight in the Osvaldo deal. As for whether it was intended for him to supersede Cork by default, meh, that's pure speculation. You're suggesting that Cork couldn't stomach having the competition though (...which I don't believe).

Had we 'signed' Cork, I'd know to expect a lesser quality DM than Wanyama (albeit a fantastic player all the same). That we signed Romeu, means I'm anticipating an equally impressive DM (as Cork), with the addition of long shot and more attacking passing. And some rashness too Long term, Romeu looks to be a developed central midfielder, on the box-to-box spectrum, which is far more complimentary to Wanyama's style of play. It's a positive Change (imo). All that being said, who wouldn't like having Jack on the bench still? He's a great player.

To clarify, why wasn't he prepared to sign a contract in Jan if he had been so willing in the summer? Hurt feelings?

The same last game that was only one game in a 38 game season? Romeu will start more than either of JWP/Davis in central midfield this season (injuries/suspensions pending). I'm don't tend to state with certainty (because it's all conjecure), but I'm almost positive of that.

You mean the same JWP and Davis who will almost certainly be behind both Clasie and Romeu for the second DM position? So, on the bench then.