Jump to content

Ghoat

Members
  • Content Count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Ghoat last won the day on June 21

Ghoat had the most liked content!

About Ghoat

  • Rank
    American Evertonian
  • Birthday 11/06/1969

Profile Information

  • Favourite Player
    Tom Davies
  • Location
    Montgomery, Alabama
  • Nation
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

840 profile views
  1. Bah, key typo. I think Chelsea WITHOUT Hazard is still petty loaded. Funny how a couple/three letters changes everything. I think they still have damn good squad, but the manager/system will be interesting to see. They are aging, and the may feel the effects of the ban more in the following season than the upcoming.
  2. The top 2 are set, and while losing Eriksen would hurt, I think the Spurs are still top 4. Chelsea with Hazard is still pretty loaded, ban or not, they just need a decent manager (Lampard?) ManU is going to have lots of new parts to get sorted, Arsenal...not sure what to make of them. The advantage we should have is that we don't need an overhaul, just a couple quality additions and depth and we'll have consistency on our side. ManU and Arsenal are the teams we supplant to get up to 5th. That seems like a reasonably ambitious goal to set. If Chelsea or Spurs regress significantly and we can capitalize, 4th is possible - but I think that's a stretch. I'd be pretty happy to see us consolidate our gains and grind our way into the Europa spot. That won't be easy, but I think an awful lot of stars would have to align finish any higher.
  3. On the flip side. if Gana goes we will have less chances due to the drop off in recoveries, tackles, interceptions and such, unless we get a package deal with Zouma and Kante. I enjoy watching Eriksen play, but if he leaves Spurs I hope it's for another league. He would be a massive upgrade for just about every squad, and that does us no favors.
  4. Appears this wasn't as clear written as it was in my head - "not because I am trained journalist" was meant to imply "because I'm not". To be fair, I was educated in Mississippi, so the fact it only took 3-4 edits before the spell-checker could even realize it was "journalist" I was trying to spell makes me kinda proud. Ish. And in case you missed the details, Baines signed a one-year deal with us
  5. I am certainly glad we are keeping him another year. Not a bad piece, decent quotes and interesting stuff but.....The headline was "Details Of" which leads you to think that's the crux of what you're about to read. "Baines signs a one-year deal." And then 500 (made up number) other words that have zero mention of details. I rolled my eyes when I read it because even 30+ years after the fact, my high school English teachers would rip me if I turned that in! And yes, I am qualified to speak on this - not because I am trained journalist, but because I live in Alabama, the home of bad journalism 🙄
  6. Maybe I'm looking thru blue-tinted glasses, but I agree. It's all speculation from the outside, but it appears the current management has greatly improved the quality inside the dressing room even more than quality on the pitch. I'm guessing a more defined "culture" and a consistent set of expectations from a management team that is unified is creating an environment the players have bought in to. I think that starts with getting good players, who are "good eggs" focused on doing the collective job the manager has set forth, and their role to achieve it - not their individual goals that may or may not align. And those on the fence either buy in, or find a different situation for themselves. The "toxic" players you mentioned have all been removed from the locker room, or will be, in one way or another - when Brands finds the best return for the club. I think the change in Morgan is a perfect example. So is the Gana situation - where he seemed excited for opportunity that was even better than the one he had. And when it failed to materialize, instead of sulking his way the rest of the term with little to actually play for, he returned and played some of the best football of his career. Didn't really hear public chirping about transfers or playing time from players or agents who's roles weren't as big as expected - Davies, Morgan, Walcott, Lookman, Tosen, Baines lost his job, and just signed on for another year to work, train, and watch Digne play etc. I don't think Vlasic was happy with his role, so he's been moved, and I think the same may happen with Henry with the right offer (I'm sure he frustrated with the permit too) And Gomes...bought in the system (not to mention the charity work in the community) and went from being lost in the woods, to a star EPL CM just entering his prime with many interested suitors. We could have been a one year stepping stone for his career, and that really wouldn't have been unfair. But it appears he wanted to hitch his star to THIS manager, THIS club and play his role in management's vision. It appears, at least, Zouma may be similar. When you add all that up and look at how we closed the year...it doesn't look like unconnected dots, it looks like a plan and a growing culture within the squad. Blue-tinted glasses and all!
  7. Stunned this isn't posted yet. One of the most masterful bits from the master. Oh, and spot on 🤣
  8. New manager, new system, new players coming in and out, lots of tinkering - which I don't really have a problem with. However, one result is that our MF has been hot garbage under Berhalter so far. The forwards aren't getting service because we're floundering around in the middle of the pitch, and the backline is getting put under pressure from sloppy giveaways. It will be interesting to see the starting 11 tomorrow night, and their positions for Berhalter's first competitive game in charge - even if we're playing a minnow, which is fortuitous.
  9. I'm not sure why he was played further up the pitch like a winger than as a fullback. He looked very uncomfortable trying to play a creative role, but to be fair, he is a LB. He is very one-footed. He can put in pretty decent crosses, but getting the ball up the pitch with his back towards the goal isn't his strength, but that's also ok, because, well, he isn't a LW/LM he's a LB...I hate he didn't make the 23 man Gold Cup roster, but our current system doesn't really use a true LB much - but he still would have been cover. The kid just needs to keep playing.
  10. I'm disappointed this album isn'tt getting it's due from anyone. Sad!
  11. It's your lie, you tell it how you want! That's how I roll haha
  12. Sounds like you might have rolled into a strange bed two hours away...
  13. Yeah, I agree but if it "works" why stop? But God I hate theatrical football with a passion. Honestly, I think in a VAR situation, that would have been overturned and a yellow issues for simulation.
  14. Seems to be the norm really. If a moderate candidate is nominated, the DNC/RNC is going to push hard for a further left.right candidate to appease that wing of "the base", for better or worse. I mean i "get it", but also don't. I mean if you are a way left dem, and your party doesn't put someone on the ticket that's extreme enough you arent going to vote gop because of it - or ditto a far right winger isn'tt going to got dem because his ticket. Generally speaking, I think most of the country is more moderate than far left or far right, and that's how the want to be governed. Like MJB mentioned, the dems had super majority, the white house, the senate...and at some point the country will push it back to the other side - especially with a 2-term president. Same with W. GOP held everything, and during his terms, the house started to swing back Dem, then senate, then WH. The far left and far right make all the noise, but it's my opinion the majority of Americans want balance and moderation. Neither party holds power over the branches, especially all three at a time before it swings the other way. So here is something I've wondered before - assuming a "moderate" is the presidential nominee, what if the party put another moderate as the running mate? I'm not sure they ever will, besides a 2nd term election of a popular opposition president when they have no real chance. But, if one party ran two moderates, what do you think would happen? I mean if there were on gop ticket, the left would paint them as bible thumping right wingers, and if the were dems, the right would paint them as liberal socialist - no matter how moderate they actually were.....But I think they would likely win convincingly, assuming bother were at least decent candidates. Thoughts? Would either party do it? Would it be successful, total flop etc? What might it do to the house/senate in the following election cycle?
  15. 2-0 loss to Brazil, including an utterly blown penalty call. Attacked Robinson all night, and Douglas Costa abused him a time or two, but he hung in there and had a good game all in all. Good learning experience.
×
×
  • Create New...