Happy Face

Ridiculous statement to make. Why not have a go at Colo? Wasn't even having a go at Taylor there (see the bold) Is it me? Is I writings too bad that anyone can't follow what I is meaning? Seem to be getting called a twat quite a bit these days when it seems (I think) I'm just not being clear. Apologies mate. It was probably me. I just assumed you were having a dig at Taylor - as you have done in the past. TBF, I WAS having a dig at Taylor in the general sense cos he tends to forget his defensive duties much more than Colo does. In this instance it was great that both of them just hung about in the box and made a nuisance of themselves though. Wouldn't say a word against Taylor after the start we've had because it's working. I just don't see that his game has changed all that much so I have the same reservations I've always had about him.

Ridiculous statement to make. Why not have a go at Colo? Wasn't even having a go at Taylor there (see the bold) Is it me? Is I writings too bad that anyone can't follow what I is meaning? Seem to be getting called a twat quite a bit these days when it seems (I think) I'm just not being clear.

Agreed, thought it was very good. Almost a tear in my eye. Good to have "baddies" with a believable motive outside of being evil.

That's purely subjective though which is why I made the point about results being the only way to make an objective judgement. That said, if the improved league position is only marginal then it's nothing to get too excited about. Similar to last season when we were seconds away from a top half finish, etc. Big deal tbh. The league was so tight a top half finish would've been a negligible achievement (relative to where we actually ended up). I like Pud's idea of comparing promoted sides for those they replaced, but I don't it necessarily stacks up. I know it's a rough approximation, but I'd be curious to see a team by team comparison to last year. sunderland (for example) aren't half the side they were and Man City are twice the team they were. A formula where a home win against a team in bracket A is worth so much and an away draw something else... I doubt I making much sense to anyone, but I know what I mean and I'm sure the more mathematically creative on here could gleam from my ramblings what I mean and mock something up? Brackets like this? A Man U Man City B Chelsea C Liverpool Arsenal Spurs D Everton Villa Stoke Fulham E West Brom Bolton Wolves Wigan QPR sunderland F Norwich Swansea Blackburn I dunno, pretty bored makes sense. Similar to what I was saying in the revenue comparison thread. Rather than comparing specific teams (man you, spurs etc) best to compared against whichever team is currently in a specific position. So our win against wolves on Saturday was 2 points better than last season. But they're 14th now, and 14th last season was Bolton. So our away result against 14th place is 3 points better cos they trounced us. None of it's an exact science, but however you cut it I think we're a lot better off.

Any evidence for this happening? Said like its unquestionably true whereas its now an assumption thats unquestionably false. Also, seeing as the evidence that we will sell Tiote & Cabaye is that we sold Nolan and Barton, isnt that evidence that if they are sold they will be replaced by better players? Lazy. Surely that remains to be seen. Obertan's filling Barton's boots rather poorly. Raylor is the new Enrique (can't judge Santon yet). Cabaye's better than Nolan clearly, despite not supplying as many goals. Ba better than Carroll? On current form he might be, aye. But that's based on the last 2 games, 4 games prior he was awful. As was Carroll for completeness. Abso-bloody-exactly

Any evidence for this happening? Said like its unquestionably true whereas its now an assumption thats unquestionably false. Also, seeing as the evidence that we will sell Tiote & Cabaye is that we sold Nolan and Barton, isnt that evidence that if they are sold they will be replaced by better players? Lazy. Surely that remains to be seen. Obertan's filling Barton's boots rather poorly. Raylor is the new Enrique (can't judge Santon yet). Cabaye's better than Nolan clearly, despite not supplying as many goals. Ba better than Carroll? On current form he might be, aye. But that's based on the last 2 games, 4 games prior he was awful.

Taylor's doing what he always has done, it's just paying off at the moment. We've always worried about him being too attack minded, going on daft runs that leave us exposed. Love it when he get's into the opposition box for a corner and scores, or like the second goal against Blackburn when (ridiculously) he and Coloccini were our only players left in their box before the ball came back in and it was mayhem for the Blackburn defenders leading to our goal, but his primary objective should always be to make sure hecan ge back and that he's solid at the back because better counter attackers will punish us.

Personally I wish every game was 530 on a Saturday evening. The OB seemed to have stopped pulling people up for this about 18 month ago, I wonder if The Star will get the £4000 fine they received back. Thinking it through now I'm awake, I think their point was that more people would be watching 3pm kick offs in the pub. Not that there'd be any more of them necessarily. The complaint was no-one will go to non-league football on a Sadda afternoon anymore.

Can anyone explain to me the logic they were giving on 693 this morning that this will result in more Saturday 3pm kick-offs? I can't see why, but hope it does.

now I'm at a PC rather than on my phone I'll explain a bit more.. What a cock. Didn't realise that was cockism, was genuinely perplexed as to why my position (and that of PL and Parky and Sammy and the rest) was so idiotic...and still am. Unless other people mentioning Santon etc had clouded the discussion. I'll respond to your initial post on the subject... [1] Agreed [2] Agreed [3] Not me. I'm connecting Wolves performance with the Wolves changes. McCarthy identified the poor performers in his team, replaced them and saw a huge improvement. I'm connecting our performance with our LACK of substitutes. Pardew left the problem which we could all see on the flank well alone. [4] Agreed. Not helped by Obertan still being on the pitch. Fair do's if you're saying there's no-one at the club who can do Obertan's job better when he starts to lose the plot, That's worrying though, right? [5] Agreed. The subs we made weren't the issue, it was a couple of the players Pardoo left on for 90 minutes who had looked dodgy. Looking back on my initial post on the subject I can see where I maybe lacked clarity.... Shouldn't have said "after going 2 up", should have said "after the Wolves change", though I wanted to make the point that we had a 2 goal cushion, which should have freed us up to play Ben Arfa football, rather than causing us to revert to defense and long balls. Maybe it's also the way I said "invited pressure". My fault if that suggests to the reader that they hadn't already had us under pressure before the Ba change. Should have said it did nothing to stop the pressure that was already growing Would also add that if Pardew's hands were tied by the players at his disposal since selling Barton, that he felt the shape was right but he didn't have the player to slot in, then that's equally worrying if it means Admiral Ackbar getting 90 minutes on a performance like that. As the .com report says...

what a cock.

Greggs should base their advertising campaign on that kiss. Nothing says romance, like sharing a chicken tikka lattice.

Not a date movie.

Audition Antichrist Irreversible

Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch?

All there's any evidence been presented of is that he put some videos on YouTube. The bloke's a twat no doubt. But the KKK won the right to 'inspire' violence without risking arrest......let alone assassination. Smash up the KKK too then. Remove the person, remove the problem. It is all these twatholes understand and deserve to be honest. You can use due process, liberal freedom of speech and suchlike to defeat these people, but sometimes you have to be an utterly underhand cunt to get a result. No you don't. This is what principles are about. Sticking to them when it's tough As well as when its easy. And terrorism is about testing those pinciples. When the cornerstone "freedom of speech" is abandoned and 40 year old constitutional rights are lost without legal challenge then those great principles most of us love about America are being eroded.

1. No. He's an American citizen. 2. No. The US and Germany were at war. The US aren't at war with any nation. 3. There is no evidence of any terrorism from alwaki. 4. This must refer to summat earlier on. 1. He's a twat! 2. He was a twat! (I think most US citizens(sic) think they are at war currently) 3. He's been a twat in a former life! 4. ??????????????????????????? #confused! :# In retrospec, I dont think you'll find many supporters on here HF. Course not. The emotional response to a twat like this is to be glad he's dead. The role of government and law is to avoid the emotional knee jerk and treat everyone fair, however distasteful. Most would want that soham murderer killed too. But the law keeps us from savagery and keeps a check on those in power. What this says is, Obama tells us who the baddies are.....we kill the bafdies he identifies....no evidence needed. This killing is not on any battlefield or in the heat of war.

All there's any evidence been presented of is that he put some videos on YouTube. The bloke's a twat no doubt. But the KKK won the right to 'inspire' violence without risking arrest......let alone assassination.

End off

Thought you said to papa your point was only about Santon...who I don't see any reason to have brought on either. Seems to have morphef into defending an ineffective substitution on the grounds that bringing on a better player might have been ineffective too. odd.

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession? The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this. Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack? No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have. i'Might have' but i doubt it, Ben Arfa doesnt strike me as a player you can knock it long too, he 'might have' dazzled with some silky skills and beat a few players to carry the ball down field or he might have been clattered from the side and not be able to find a man to release to. Given the context of the game, the latter is more likely. Apart from him, i have no idea who else would have offered more with any certainty. As i said, i would have preferred someone else but unless you can say when Lovenkrands fucked up its a bit ridiculous to attribute the Wolves pressure to this substitution. Did you see us hold posession against blackburn when barfa came on? No-ones blaming lovenkrandsfor owt. But we clearly needed to put .our foot on the ball pass to feet and hold onto it. If you were sat watching and thought "champion, this will setlle it down" when lovenkrands came on you were infuse minority id guess.

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession? The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this. Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack? No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have.

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

I thought we were better by far until their double chsnge,. The one change we made outside the dying minutes did nothing to counter ithe changing tide though...the Guthrie one even less so.