evilweevil666

Rooney is supposed to be the outlet ball and drops deep constantly out of frustration. At this rate don't play him or play him at CM, but he's a passenger as our lone striker.

Thoughts on Marcelino at Valencia at seasons end, assuming we give Unsworth the rest of the year? I think he'd have been a perfect option, but he's just started in his role and Valencia has to be viewed as a bigger club than us at this point. He plays quick counter attacking football, so I don't think the style would be too difficult to implement with our current squad.

Valencia 2nd in the league with a +15 GD. Previously got Villarreal promoted and immediately finished top 6 three times in a row, including semi finals in the Europa League.

I don't understand why these aren't the kind of managers we're in for, rather than ones who have bounced around premier league mediocrity for years.

13 minutes ago, Bailey said:

No its not... Kante, Mahrez, Drogba, Zola, Vardy, Knockaert (at a lower level), Essien, Idrissa Gueye for us (at the very least) and plenty others.

I agree with the last bit, there was definitely a confused strategy, probably too many chefs having too much of a say. The heirachy above the manager and Walsh need to clearly outline what should and shouldn't happen. I imagine that will be easier with someone like Unsworth as I imagine its hard having a so called "super manager" in Koeman below an ex PE teacher in Walsh. I can imagine the board would much more inclined to listen to the former. Its the first time we have tried it so its no surprise that it hasnt gone right, but hopefully it will be much better in the future and we learn from this debacle.

 

You're right that I was maybe overly dismissive. I personally don't factor his success at Chelsea that highly, since I think the world of football scouting is much different now than then. Many more teams are active in analytics and a broader range of scouting. In general I'm worried Walsh is too old school and focused on "eye testing" to really take us up a level in the modern game. Even Vlasic, whom I think will turn out to be successful, was only brought in after we saw him play first hand against us. That doesn't give me a lot of faith that that kind of success is repeatable, unless we get lucky to face the kinds of players we need. That said, I probably underrate the Mahrez, Vardy, and Gana signings. The first two would surely add a lot to our squad.

I'm completely on board with the idea that there's a structural problem that was exacerbated with Koeman's ego and reputation. I'm just hesitant to assume Walsh wanted to do all the right things and was stopped by Koeman. Walsh may work out fine in the long term, but it's clear he also made some mistakes this summer. 

https://twitter.com/JM1TTY/status/922744134481440768

Video of Niasse talking about his treatment by Koeman. It's been beaten to death, but his determination and ability to keep his head down is truly incredible.

11 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Let's put a spin on this...what if Walsh did put forward a number of left sided defenders and strikers but Koeman prefered to chase the others first?

Maybe that's also a reason for his sacking. That he dug his own grave, so to speak.

4 hours ago, Bailey said:

Exactly. I am 90% certain that since Koeman came to the club Siggy, Klaasen, Martina, Schneiderlin, Rooney, Keane and probably Williams are all 'his' buys. 

Gana, DCL, Vlasic, Lookman, Sandro and all the other young lads bought for the U23s are Walshs.

Pickford is up in the air. I'd be certain Walsh wanted him and I imagine Koeman did too. 

The Koeman list have all been big price, high wage let downs. They are all pretty slow players but they are genuine footballers. 

The Walsh list is largely a group of young lads who have pace, energy and mobility but aren't the finished articles. Realistically that is the reason we brought him in. He isn't there to find the obvious signings, he is there to find diamonds in the rough. IMO he should be doing the same level of scouting for new managers as well. 

Why does Walsh automatically get the benefit of the doubt? He's found one genuine diamond in the rough in Kante and that's the sole extent of his pedigree. Koeman obviously played his part, but the biggest problem as a whole is the genuine lack of coherent plan. Everyone could see we brought in 3 players with the exact same weaknesses and position and did not strengthen in our biggest problem areas. The entire job of DoF should be to steer the overall strategy of the club so we can have better long term planning, and he's clearly failed on that account so far.

Voted against the grain and went for Baines.

Mature performance without doing anything spectacular.

 

Only player I can think of that played a football match instead of playing Liverpool.

 

Anyone that's played football will know exactly what I mean.

I thought Baines was the best of a bad bunch as well. Holgate fine too. Baines was never caught as a complete passenger (as Gana and Davies were on multiple occasions) and put in a couple good crosses for our best chances of the match.

Barkley, Rom, and Valencia the standouts for me, although solid performances all around. Given it to Rom in the end, good holdup play in all of our more threatening attacking moves and much better first touch and movement. Ross came close though, brilliant vision and passing, which I think is often the thing holding him back.

Has to be Stekelenburg.

I think your support for Hillary is blinding you to just how much people dislike her. Her favor ability is awful. Only slightly worse is trump. That's not going to get better. When you have 2 bad cabdidates you can't go up, you just go further in the muck and hope your oponnent ends up dirtier.

 

What Keith said is true, Bernie would kill trump in the election because he's not hated, if dems got behind him, any undecided independents or non trump repubs would have no problem voting for Bernie. On the other hand if Hillary and trump everyone's voting party lines because repubs hate Hillary with a passion and will vote trump regardless just cause they hate her.

 

My parents are repubs but hate trump. They like the above would vote for Bernie, but given Hillary versus trump they said they'd just vote trump and tow the party line.

 

I think Hillary would still win the general but it will be an awful election.

Hillary has really high unfavorables, there's no denying that. But, do you really think the traditional establishment republicans frustrated with Trump would vote for Bernie? The fact remains that he has not been attacked at all because the GOP was more concerned with Hillary as the nominee; I think the anti-Bernie ads write themselves. Socialist ads, while maybe not accurate, would be effective. He's also proposing the largest peacetime tax increase in US history - that alone is enough to lose you an election in my mind. Then there's his weird 70s sexual psychology writings. Those things should be discarded imo, but if we're going to dig deep into Hillary's background, you can bet those would come up for a Bernie candidacy. His lack of experience in foreign policy and coalition building is less likely to be a problem since Trump doesn't have those either, but they would be against any traditional candidate.

Historically Hillary's favorability rating is also not that bad. In fact, she had one of the highest favorability ratings as secretary of state ever. Her favorability has taken a dramatic downturn in the last ~2 years for some legit reasons (emails, wall street speeches), but I believe more to republican and Bernie slander. People act as if Clinton has always been corrupt and untrustworthy, but these are largely constructed campaign ideas. I also believe there's a strong gendered element to them as well: http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

 

I am a Bernie guy and I agree with this. Hillary has won more votes and has won the states that matter most. I did hear today, however, that the California primary is tightening. If Bernie wins California, I think that could be a big moment

 

The superdelegate stuff is tremendously stupid I agree. Why do they exist? No one understands why, I guess, unless you are a party operative. The sooner we go to a national primary day or 5 or 6 super regional primaries the better we'll be.

 

It is crazy that the GOP nominated the one guy that can't beat most Democrat and the Democrats are going to nominate the only person that could lose to Trump. I mean, holy shit this country is absolutely fucked. I mean really and truly fucked.

No disagreements on either of the first two points. Bernie needs a big win in California though, and I'm expecting a single-digit, but comfortable Hillary win. That said, any sized victory for him there would also send a big message, regardless of whether it can give him the nomination. Super delegates are old-school machine party politics and should be gone the sooner the better.

I'm not sure I agree that Bernie would fare any better against Trump though. I've seen the polls and agree there's an argument to be made, but the fact is that Bernie hasn't been vetted or attacked by the GOP. In fact, Trump is trying to court Bernie voters and play into the narrative that the nomination has been stolen from him. Hillary's unfavorable ratings are being dragged down by Bernie supporters right now, and I personally believe as she clinches the nomination they will start to come around. That said, the race is way too close for comfort right now vs. someone as insane as Trump. The FBI investigation as well as a ton of other baggage Hillary brings does not make me thrilled with her as the candidate.

I was traveling in Wyoming yesterday and hadn't heard the results of Tuesday's primary in Washington. I looked at the major news sites online and not a word. I glanced at the TV playing in the breakfast room and not a word. I turned to a colleague and said, "I'll guarantee that Bernie Sanders won by a landslide." He looked up "Bernie Washington" on Google, and lo and behold: Bernie Sanders won by a landslide. Funny how the media clam up when their candidate doesn't do so well.

This is wrong. Bernie won the Washington Caucus back in March. That was already reported and was a big part of his "comeback" and "momentum" narrative. The Washington primary that was held this past week is non-binding and does not have any delegates at stake - in other words is useless. Hillary actually won this primary and it had more people vote than participated in the previous caucus. This just exposes the bullshit holier-than-thou attitude of bernie supporters and idea of being denied democratic process, when in fact he relies on undemocratic caucuses. Regardless of individual policy, Bernie is not starting a popular revolution and is not somehow unjustly losing; he is performing worse in popular vote than he is in delegates.

 

Wow, I live on Capitol Hill in DC now. Five or so blocks from the US Capitol Building. If you are ever at home for a match day, would love to share a pint.

 

My name is Keith.

 

I grew up in southern Texas, less than two hours by car from the Mexican border. It's a very small town of 2,500 people. I haven't been back but one time since the year 2000. Spent some time in Colorado and Los Angeles, CA along the way. Consider Washington my home now as I've been here 9 years.

Wow, this slipped through the cracks somehow. I'm also about 5 blocks from the capitol...I'm home pretty frequently, although that will probably change once I enter the working world. I will definitely take you up on your offer though if I'm around for a match day. And yes, as you pointed out there's a surprising amount of Everton fans in DC, although I haven't been involved in the supporters club or anything. Went to the DC United vs Everton friendly a couple years back and was surprised at the amount of Everton fans there.

Aaron.

Born and raised on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Currently going to university just outside Boston, but graduating in a week. Headed to NYC for the summer after and then moving to China (spent about a year there as well in total).

Jags best of a bad bunch. Should've had a goal, but at least was getting on the end of things and putting in the effort. Good defensive display as well I thought.

I guess Rom for showing some effort? No one deserves it today though.

Rom, can't be anyone else.

Agree with what's been said. I thought tactics were pretty spot on through ~45 minutes, but later game subs have and continue to be a massive weakness for Roberto. Did us no favors seeing that game out, although I think he deserves some credit for having us cruising in the first place.

Well done from niasse, buy ourselves some time and move up the pitch.

We need to tighten up here. Too much confidence and leaving ourselves exposed at the back.

No excuse to not score there, but Adrian so far off his line.

Tactics spot on from Martinez this game so far - credit where credit is due. Just need to keep possession better now and see this out.

Rom is bossing this game.

Oxford a massive liability for them at the back. Need to counter down that side.

Joel, Barry, and Barkley in that order for me. Aside from the penalty save, we also just seem more composed and confident at the back with Joel. Gives us a much easier foundation to build off of.