Hobsons Choice

I know, I was agreeing with your last sentence, when you said 'By choosing to engage them closer to their goal we can turn over balls in dangerous areas close to their goal.'. I was giving some extra sauce to that comment, cos I think it's true.

At the end of the day a high line = more conceded, and more scored. I feel I need to point out, obvious as it is, that no matter what the former is, if the latter is higher, then....yay! This is gonna be one hell of an entertaining season.

As I understand from reading 'Inverting the Pyramid' the effectiveness of pressing was backed up by a number of studies going back to the days of Viktor Maslov and Dynamo Kiev (Kyiv?). There is no definitive way of playing football, obviously, as it is what works under the circumstances, but apparently (again according to the book mentioned above) forcing a turnover in your opponents final third is 7 times more likely to lead to a goal than forcing a turnover in your own third. If anyone wants to question the source by all means take it up with Jonathan Wilson, I'm just passing on what was presented in the book.

Well maybe not all, but the Coutinho and Olsen ones are.

Nice to see Der Hammer can still put his left boot in. Fair play. 12 years of top flight football, and he had to wait until he retired to come out for fear of abuse. I wonder if any of those criticising him on twitter have had to give up anything, even who they are to make a living.

Really? I like Dundee United. East Fife are my Scottish team, but I have a soft spot for DU.

In 1983 Aberdeen beat Real Madrid to win the European Cup Winners Cup?

Said before we really miss Mead drifting inside. She was my player of the Euros.

Good luck Wes!!

Bleuch...

I was just about to post that I've never seen her play well.

Bang

Bad injury. Looked a tournament killer. Denmark are pressing like crazy atm.

He does run a bit like Ashley. Arms quite low. Gonna be very exciting to watch.

Well for context, Nakamba was doing a crossword when he signed.

Ah, they can all Ettifaq off as far as I'm concerned. No one is gonna watch that stupid league.

Better chance than if he played for Villa.

Reminds me of when Yorke broke through into the first team. He'd come on as a sub, and everytime he got the ball, everyone around me in the Holte simultaneously shouted 'Go on, skin him Yorkie!'.

Nice HVAC!

This is the argument I always use when people talk about excessive regulation damaging economies. Companies care about 1 thing and 1 thing only. Profit. And that's OK. It's understandable. Regulation is there to ensure that in the process of doing whatever it is they are good at, they don't mess anything else up, be it economically, socially or environmentally. Companies rally against this of course, and that's why the lobbying system in America is so disastrous. But you also see it in the Media. PR campaigns by big businesses to change public perception about something. Because Oil companies have stacks of money, they are especially good at this. Expecting Companies to undertake their businesses ethically, or altruistically is folly, always has been. But again, that's OK as long as you keep in mind their motivations and flaws. That's why I always say that change has to be led by governments, not by us as citizens. We are far too susceptible to clever ad campaigns by lobbying business. Shell. Do they really think that because they built a few windfarms and put a few ads on that they have turned another leaf and are now conscious of the damage they've done, or rather that they care? No. It's clearly them realising that there is no economic future in fossil fuels. That's what governments can do. Put economic pressure on these big, dumb, but entirely predictable beasts. On your other point, scientists, including those employed by the government absolutely commissioned studies on this during the 80's. The IPCC was formed in 1988. There just has not been any political capital to do anything about it until recently. BUT it is the government's responsibility not only to enact the will of the people, but also to protect the people from themselves. Climate change frequently falls under the latter.

Ooh, steady on there, bud.

Well if she could **** the poor by shutting solar power plants she would have done that, so I wouldn't give her too much credit. Yes I know it's more complex than that, I was being facetious. Apart from the giving her credit thing.

I dunno, I think (if I wasn't well below the financial threshold) I would be more likely to want to bank with Coutt's now.

Well I for one would not offer Farage my Urine Extinguishing services if he was thermally challenged.

I'm not really up to speed on this if I'm honest, but superficially I don't get the problem. Maybe someone can enlighten me. If they refuse to bank with him as a private company, what's the big whoop? We don't have a right to obtaining services from a private company, they can choose to provide services to whoever they want, no?