The Fish

But because it benefits Republicans they're not going to change it and will successfully paint any proposed replacement as elitism?

I still don't fully understand the logic behind Electoral College?

The fuck did I do now?

Rangers fans were apparently up in arms about the cost and quality of the replica strips.

No surprise that the best defensive performance of the season (though still not good) came from a back 5 where each of the CBs limitations are covered by the others. With the players Bruce has available, we could comfortably play a back 5, 2 CMs and 3 from 6 ahead of them. The defensive weakness on our left flank can be mitigated by a CM and CB providing a bit of cover. Longstaff might not have the passing range of Shelvey, but he's not bad. His energy, ability/will to carry the ball is much better than the miserable bellend's. The movement of Wilson, ASM, Almiron/Fraser up front and a CM who isn't sedentary would mean the game wouldn't be played on the edge of our 18yd box and our 'keeper wouldn't top the league for saves made.

Been banging this drum myself. What we'd lose by dropping Shelvey and playing Longstaff in terms of long passes is more than made up for the improvement on the defensive effort the midfield put in. Schar, Longstaff and Lewis have all shown they've got a long pass in their skillset. Play them and we wouldn't miss Shelvey all that much. Without Shelvey dropping deep to give himself time and space to launch these balls, we'd be further up the pitch which would mean ASM, Almiron, Wilson wouldn't have to beat 3-4 players. Our defence wouldn't be permanently under the cosh. That said, on current form, Sean Longstaff hasn't played himself into the first team. Plus Shelvey's a miserable cunt.

Did he get the 'rona?

Aarons, Atsu, Lazaar, Saivet left out the squad. Ritchie and Gayle included. Now, I know he's been a bad signing, but given the trouble we're having in the midfield, wouldn't it have been worth naming Saivet at Ritchie's expense until January? Saivet might be average-to-poor, but it's better than forcing Schar into centre mid, right? Also, it would prevent Bruce from bringing Ritchie back too early.

Probably, Souness was bad, but Bruce is arguably the worst permanent manager we've had in my lifetime.

well, I'd suggest that .5 difference isn't enough to say he's the worst player to have pulled on a Newcastle shirt, given the Bruce factor, but whatevs.

Do journalists have to pay to watch it if they're not in the stadium?

Luque scored 3 in 34 in all competitions. (11.333) Joelinton has 6 in 52. (8.666)

Plenty of chances out of position in a team which seems allergic to the ball. His 'best' performance has been in his actual position in a game where we actually had the ball a bit.

At least with McClaren there was spells of success that you could pin your hopes on. What's Bruce ever done in his managerial career to get a shot at the modern Premier League? His is a career of diminishing returns, relegations and discord with the fans. The same criticisms of his time at Birmingham City still exist now, 20 years later. No apparent style, over-reliant on individuals and poor defence.

Well that's hyperbole. He's not worse than Guivarch, Luque, Slimani and so on. Honestly, a better manager wouldn't have persisted with him isolated up front, they'd play a team that doesn't meekly surrender possession. They'd have improved his game (as Benitez did for Perez). I don't think he's £40m worth of Premier League striker on this form, but the criticism of him is way over the top, just like the criticism of Perez was way over the top at the time as well.

An oddity of Ashley's reign is that he'll bin off a competent manager that the fans support, but who he won't, for an incompetent manager that the fans don't support but he will. McClaren was shit, but was backed with signings like Wijnaldum, Mbemba, Mitrovic. Bruce gets ASM, Wilson, Joelinton. Give Benitez control and he'll have got us comfortably midtable every season, maybe once the squad was deeper he'd have been a bit more interested in the cups as well. He wouldn't have signed Joelinton, and while he would likely not have signed Saint Maximin the team, as a whole, would be better off. We must have the worst manager in the league, I doubt any would have Bruce as first choice, not even Fulham and West Brom and i'm not convinced we'd be much worse off (performance-wise) with Parker or Bilic...

Anyone watched the trial of the Chicago 7 yet? Hearing good reviews, and I'm a fan of Sorkin anyway.

It's the passivity that gets me. Under Benitez we let the opposition play as much as they wanted in their half but as soon as they got within about 35yds of the box we were on them as a unit. Now, if there is pressure it's half-hearted headless chicken shit. For Rashford's goal, Shelvey just watched the play pass him by, didn't even jog after it. Said elsewhere but fundamentally there's 3 ways to play; defend so they don't score, keep the ball so they can't score, or score more than them. We can't defend, we sure as shit can't control a game and we're not set up toa ttack, so what the fuck are we supposed to be doing?

I want to, I really do, but they play some good stuff.

Reckon he'd be better under any other manager, but I'm not saying he's good.

Joelinton had his best game as a number 10. Either play him there, or bench him. Don't stick him on the wing where he's entirely ineffectual.

If the stadium wasn't empty the atmosphere would be fucking toxic, doubt even that would get him out the door though. Bruce's job is safe as long as we're not looking likely to go down. Would love a journalist to really pull him up on the bullshit excuses we're hearing after every poor performance. The're simply no reason to play as badly as we are. We've got the players, arguably the best squad we've had since relegation. He inherited a good defensive team, he's got good attacking players in Wilson, ASM, Almiron, Fraser and yes, even Joelinton. I might be missing something, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. 4 at the back with Hayden ahead of him, no Shelvey, 5 from the other options.

That was bad, but I had hoped we might hold on. Darlow was superb until the Rashford challenge. Honestly think Pardew would set the team up better than Bruce is. Maybe even McClaren.

Throwing his cock about at the rumours they're about to be bought by Alan Moore's weird cousin.

There is though, isn't there? That's why you get the replies you do. Because it's painfully obvious to everyone. So, with that in mind, what's the point?