David Kelly

It was an absolute shocker like. Fuck knows what he was thinking when he ran up.

I'm not sure I'd say this was the best of games today. I loved it personally but it was very one sided.

Defensively Lascelles was fine last night, but he's totally at odds with how we want to play out from the back these days and I think he definitely had an impact on the side. But I totally agree that we had to rotate some players last night. Lascelles being captain had to get a game and Targett, Shelvey and Maxi all had to be in for game time. Wood had to play with Wilson being unwell and I think most people were wanting to see Anderson get some game time. We clearly didn't play well but I don't think there's much I would argue with in the side that was put out.

We were poor last night. Very sloppy in posession and the defence seemed a vew yards further back in there starting position which was no doubt due to Lascelles. But you have to expect this when you make so many changes, particularly when players who have barely played all season. It did show that if we do have a few injuries all at once (particularly if Tripper and Bruno are included in them) that will be where we'll not be able to keep up the form that has us in 3rd.

Absolutely pissed it. Was a bit concerned when Hardick smashed that 50 but Butler and Hales were superb. Felt a bit sorry for Salt getting in for the semi and not getting the chance to face a single ball.

He was absolutely fuming when they scored. Which is a great thing to see given we were still 3-1 up at that point in the last minute.

Confirming what the whole world knows about them there.

Just looked at their lineup for last night and I genuinely don't have a clue which ones are first team players.

Gallagher looks like he's lost all belief in what he's saying half way through saying it. It shouldn't have took him that long tbh.

A midfield of Bruno, Joelinton and Willock wasn't really clicking because it meant that Bruno was the deepest lying and wasn't able to influence the attack enough from there. For all of their good work, the two Joe's aren't the most creative passers so we were struggling to break teams down (this was particularly apparent against Bournemouth). Admittedly it's less of an issue when Wilson and ASM are playing but imo it definitely benefits Bruno and the team to have someone else sitting deeper than him. Longstaff is our weakest midfielder but he seems to be the only real option for this at the moment. That would leave a choice between Joelinton and Willock, which Joelinton wins for me unless Willock can add goals back to his game.

Most footballers are thick as fuck and pretty lazy beyond training and playing. So it follows that most pundits are too. They don'tt have the intelligence and don't make the effort to properly study what they are talking about. It's telling that even sky sports are getting podcasters and the like onto shows to talk about their teams more and more. They've discovered these people know a lot more about what they are talking about. Yes they might not have the inside the dressing room knowledge that Robbie Savage and Gabby Agbonlahor have, but they're also not complete cretins who can barely count to the number they used to wear on their backs. They look at stats and watch countless games involving their own teams as well as others. They also see how the game is changing to be much more based on statistics. The regular pundits, even the younger ones, come from an era once removed from this and simply don't get it. I can see a time in the not too distant future that the traditional ex pro pundit is phased out unless they can show themselves to be a lot more on the ball than ones we've had for the last twenty years.

That Athletic article is really good and shows how out of touch he (and tbh West Brom) is with modern football. We first heard with Rafa about the extensive details a manager and his team now go into regarding players (both the ones they have and potential signings) the opposition, training etc etc. And now Howe is doing exactly the same thing. It's just common place now for this to be the managers role. Compare that with Bruce signing his neighbours & employing his family to put out the cones and just hoping that a star player can turn the game for you. There was a time when how he 'works' could probably suffice as a football manager, but that time is 15 years ago or more. The top end of the game has evolved so much in the last decade and he just doesn't seem to see it. The fact that he didn't know how many substitutions he could make though just smacks of laziness. He can't even be bothered to put in the minimum amount of effort required to know what rules have changed from one season to the next. If West Brom's board had anything about them, they should have sacked him on the spot for that gross incompetence.

Don't fear this lot anymore (which is down to both us and them) but you still have to respect them as one of the better teams in the league. I fancy a draw.

When you consider how far backwards as a club Souness took us, for Bruce to be more hated by anyone than him speaks volumes about the bloke.

Murphy is still mostly awful mind. I'd love him to prove me wrong and turn into a player because the lad really wants to do well for us. But he's not got the football brain or the skill to be a decent premier league player. Fortunately having players like Bruno and Wilson around him make him not dog shit. It's when he's playing without those players he looks well below premier league level.

This is exactly right. His ego won't allow him to go any further down the league even if any club had the money to throw away or the desire to employ a dinosaur like him (lower league clubs are more willing to give younger managers a chance anyway). The only hope he has of another job now is some championship club in a desperate situation wanting someone in short term and that is surely incredibly unlikely after his performance with West Brom. I expect to see him stinking up BT Sport's coverage shortly.

A hard fought 2-0 and no sign of Murphy would do me nicely.

First away game I've got to in ages and it was well worth the effort and extra expense of a two night stay in two separate hotels. Totally dominant performance from start to finish. I can't remember the last time I've been so relaxed and confident that we were going to win and win easily. Of course the sending off helped but the level of complete domination can't be overlooked. It might have helped them somewhat if their manager, players and supporters (the few that stayed past half time) had done anything other than accept a hiding once they went down to 10 men but that's their problem not ours.

I like the way that post is suggesting that's it's better to be 5th in the championship than 10th in the premiership. Any normal set of fans would be happy to have had their start this season rather than dragging up a tweet from a year ago. Strange bunch never does cover it with them does it?

I thought it still couldn't be more obvious from the angle that was shown. The only excuse I can think of is that the ref only looked at one side of the screen.

I think the argument about taking the decision out of the onfield referee's hands a flawed. In cricket they've realised that sometimes umpires make mistakes because not every decision is easy from the view they have. Apparently umpires were initially not happy that it highlighted their mistakes but they soon got over it when they realised they weren't punished for making errors that were in many instances unavoidable. The same would be the case in football. Of course this wouldn't have helped us in any way on Saturday because clearly Mason thought it was more likely than not that the ref made an error with his orginal decision. So if the decision had been left up to Mason he'd have come to the wrong conclusion either way. Which is no surprise after seeing his refereeing for years.

I'd be hoping on Murphy personally. The kids absolute dogshit. But Fernandez is clearly nowehere near the team these days and was linked with Stoke yesterday.

Would Anderson need registering?

If we got down to it, would Schar not be an adequate option for cover at fullback? I mean I'm all for having three players to cover every position but when we still have starting eleven positions that aren't locked down I'd rather see that addressed first.

Well I do think they've signed him as they think he gives us a potential option there. At the price we've paid for him you have think they expect him to be one of our best players and we already have Wilson who is one of our best players so if they both only play as a striker then you could only play one of them at a time. Obviously Wilson is injury prone but you'd still have large portions of the season where you'd have one of them on the bench. So it makes perfect sense to look for a player who can play as a wide attacker. I don't know whether Isak is that player as he doesn't appear to have been used in that way before but that would seem to be the option.