toonotl

I guess I'd be best to make sure that my sarcastic comments designed to be ridiculous and over the top which are clearly meant to be a joke for the exact reason that they're beyond the pale work first and foremost as advanced analysis without undue abstraction or exaggeration in the future.

I'm a tad confused. What's appalling about a sarcastic analogy between a goalkeeping error (or two) leading to a goal and a shocking miss (or three) by an attacker?

This debate reminds me of Karius' MotM performance in the CL final. Apart from stopping goals, he was brilliant. Played some wonderful passes and looked hot as fuck while doing it.

This. If your performance costs the team points then that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the performance. Gordon, for all the positive aspects of his performance, cost us points by spurning several absolutely golden opportunities to score. He didn't hide. He kept trying. The effort was exemplary. But when it came to the crunch, he bottled it -- three times. In many many instances that had limited influence on the outcome of the game, Gordon did well. In three instances when he had a clear chance to win the game, he did horribly. For me, the former does not even come close to negating the latter.

That's Gordon's worst performance for us. He should've scored a hattrick. A penalty, a free header 5-yards out, and a one-on-one 10-yards out. What an absolute dog's breakfast of a performance from him. It isn't often you can attribute a result to a single player, but given his lack of quality in front of goal today I think it's fair to say that he has cost us two points. You'd imagine he accumulated more xG than Everton's entire team. Going back to Everton clearly plays on his mind. In fact, we have to recognise that going away from St. James' in general has a markedly detrimental effect on his performance. Today was only the worst example owing to the added circumstances of it being his former club. And the rest of our attacking players weren't far behind him. We created heaps of chances and almost had free reign in the midfield. But too many wayward passes, too many poor touches in in the final third, and our finishing was truly abysmal. I was also slightly perplexed by the decision to substitute Barnes. He hadn't had the worst game of the front three up to that point. In fact, I'd argue he was our best of the front three by default in having a quiet if completely unremarkable match considering how bad Murphy & Gordon were performing. But most importantly, for me, Barnes was the only natural finisher on the park today. In a game that clearly was waiting for a moment of quality from someone to finish one of our many chances, he was the clear candidate to get the job done. I have only just finished watching the replay so perhaps he was injured or had a niggle. If not then it's a strange decision for me. I can only assume that Howe valued the added defensive output of Murphy and so kept him on instead. Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, we also lacked a bit of luck here and there. If Bruno's effort goes in from the corner it's a different game. And it was a solid performance defensively. And further praise where it is due, at least we avoided throwing it away altogether at the end like we would've last season. But really a point against a side that offered us that many opportunities to score and countered with very little going forward themselves is two points dropped. A truly uninspiring run of results from Gloomy. We've moving from Charles III, to Charles I, to Charles II of Spain.

Hard work against a team that seemed happy to lose 1-0. Good to see a few of the bench players getting minutes. Considering we had 80% of possession that would've taken minimal energy from our usual starters. So all-in-all a positive evening for us.

If only the two teams agreed to not swap ends at half-time this game could've easily been played at Plough Lane.

It never ceases to amaze how little football the average co-commentator watches. They're forever getting basic stuff completely wrong. In the modern age where they'd have access to replays of every game and access to scouting/statistical information for every player there really is no excuse. It's pure laziness from ex-footballers living off the assumption that producers seem to accept that the average football supporter gives a shit about the half-baked opinion of some second-rate ex-professional.

The Dons player trying to slag off, Miggy. Unless he speaks Spanish he's got no hope.

There we go. Nice work. Wimbledon have defended very well at 0-0. Game changes completely now that they need to score.

That's a pen for sure. Why did he take ten years to give it? Big-headed hobbit mong. But thanks for the pen ... little fucker.

Nice run from Miggy. I'll leave it at that.

He's clearly showboating against the minnows.

A right-footed cross from Miggy.

Missed watching the game live for a family birthday party. Watching it this morning I was very impressed with our performance. Hopefully now that sets the standard that we take into subsequent performances. I think Howe got the selection and tactics spot on today. It was brave without being reckless. And solid without being passive. There certainly seemed to be an attitude adjustment compared to the Fulham match. Almost everyone had a good performance (despite the odd error here and there). Just need to bottle that apply it against everyone else and we'll be flying again. All-in-all, proof positive (if it was needed) that this is still a very very good side. Credit to Howe and co. for getting a resounding response. Onward and upward.

To be fair to Mitchell, I've seen several journalists who were in the room with him comment that they perceived Mitchell's intention to be aimed at clearing the air and looking forward. His actual words -- on the other hand -- were combative in denigrating past work combined with an apparent attempt made to distance himself from the calamity of a transfer window. Deemed by sensible people to be a "fuck up". I think there is some truth in both perspectives, which I think is Gemmers point (even if I do think he's being overly sympathetic to Mitchell). Mitchell is correct that the overall transfer strategy is not sustainable. For example, talking in general terms, we cannot rely on selling 65m worth of players on deadline and agreeing to bring in (or "fork out" for) a 20m make-weight to balance books. It is clear that the strategy leading to this situation is not sustainable as it produced a very volatile situation that we could have easily found ourselves not getting out of. On the other side of the coin, I have a suspicion that Mitchell has engaged in a little bit of personal ass-covering that wasn't necessary or perhaps even intended by him until it came to the moment. It's a personal opinion, but the situation seems to indicate that he could've clarified his position (either during the interview or afterwards) to avoid being interpreted in the way he has been by most. And he hasnt done that. I think there's no denying that the situation has not been managed effectively by any of Howe, Mitchell or Eales. But it's a learning process. Off the field is the same as on it, so long as they're trying their best, then mistakes are forgiven.

This is the article I read. Honestly, I didn't find that much to be up in arms about. There's certainly some tension between Howe and Mitchell. And perhaps Eales too. It could be a toxic power struggle forming. But it could also be the ingredients for a healthy dynamic between them. I guess we'll see. I'm hopeful that it'll work out.

He also asks himself questions then answers them. Does toonotl think that's another sign of a massive cunt? He sure does.

No. But this thread raises an important question for the board admin. Could we implement the opposite of a follow thread option?

Stat request. I'd like an analysis of this thread's expected Gold Section potential.

Assist for Eliot Anderson against Wolves.

I think it is perfectly fair to hold the individuals in charge of the transfers responsible for failing to get transfers done. I think it is also possible to simultaneously accept that there were difficulties involved in getting the transfers done. I'm certain every transfer window poses challenges of its own kind. Perhaps the first one was worse when we were bottom of the league, nailed on for relegation, etc. etc. But we managed to sign some impressive players. Anyway that's just a hypothetical example. From my perspective, I accept that there were challenges to be overcome. But I think they could've been overcome like similar difficulties have been overcome in the past. Perhaps Mitchell was naive in his assessment that he had a good relationship with Parish. Perhaps he should've read the writing on the wall with every iota of the transfer story being leaked to the press at every turn that him and Eales were being setup to look like fools. Maybe. We can't say either way but it's possible. The point is that there are too many variables for us to accurately assess the differences between reasons for failure and excuses. That's why in this domain the results are typically taken to be king. With poor results there is a burden of responsibility for failure placed on the individuals most responsible. From my perspective, this is no different to a head coach getting criticised for a run of poor results. Rightly or wrongly it's the way it is. I'm repeating myself largely from an earlier post. But anyway I absolutely agree with the last part of your post. I also hope people don't start behaving like spoiled brats. We are in an amazing position as a club compared to where we were. I really do think we have the right people in charge and I don't want them sacked or anything even remotely close to having their positions put in jeopardy. I also fear that the mongs could turn on the club's hierarchy and make things toxic if we don't perform well on the pitch. That's the last thing we need. At the end of the day, I mostly agree that the situation we've been placed in by PSR is incredibly incredibly difficult. I just think that we can blame certain individuals responsible (on a message board where it is of absolutely zero consequence) and still support them at the same time to continue in the job because they're the best person for it. tl;dr: I have every confidence that we have people in key positions who are capable of learning fast and adapting. But they're personally responsible for this fuck up because it's part of their job to do everything possible to recruit players.

I'll get on to Flight Centre immediately. Can I stay at your place?

That's two novel ideas inside an hour. Edit: By the way, Gemmers, I agree with the sentiment that we haven't thought of anything they haven't thought of. I'm mainly just piss taking at this point. But it's not so much the ideas that are wrong, it's the lack of a proper plan and implementation. It's results based for football. And the results are not good. So they needed to do everything possible to mitigate against this outcome. I think we agree that that hasn't happened. ❤️

Nah. I think we should have moved on from the Guehi deal early enough to move on to other targets. We should have had our own "deadline day" after which we abandoned the Guehi deal in time to get somebody else in. Instead we followed Parish around like a puppy for weeks too long and it has cost us any chance of getting anybody in let alone a player that was never for sale.