sgncfc

Fulham are currently on target for 95 or 96 points. So, about the same as we got but we dipped a bit at the end. After 26 games we were a point ahead of them.

Every club has "an injury crisis" every season, which is exactly why the strength in depth becomes relevant. Brentford used their early season momentum to get some points on the board from reasonable fixtures. They then lost 6 in a row as they got injuries. Their form since then has been mixed, but they get accolades for playing "bravely" against the big boys. Toney isn't scoring anymore. Does this sound at all familiar? Remember when we were the best team to ever be bottom only two seasons ago? No strength in depth took us back down. They will survive because they already have enough points to stay ahead of the bottom 3, but next season everyone will target them and they simply don't have the time to acclimatise enough players to get that depth - it takes too long at this level when results are all that matters. Ridiculously, I genuinely think our squad is stronger than theirs (by which I mean I wouldn't want to swap many of our players for theirs) but we didn't get the results early on that we should have (Leicester, Leeds, Watford, Brighton etc). If we could have "bought" ourselves a bit more time to widen the squad experience by getting earlier points the season would have worked out differently. It took 12 games to get Rashica playing, for instance. Tzolis is still nowhere near though it looks like Idah may have started. Watching Fulham is interesting - they have developed well, again under a different manager, and look like storming the Champs even more than we did. Will they be better next year in the PL because they have more depth now?

They will face the same problems as any second season club, including (for example) Leeds who despite adding lots of quality are finding it very tough because of the lack of strength in depth. It's not just a money thing, it's having 25 "PL quality" players, in the right positions, to pick from for most games - that takes some years to get to. Brighton, Palace etc seem to have done it. Brentford are miles away.

Seriously? I'd be astonished if we had even thought about it at the wages he will want.

All the clubs agreed the process for call offs. They all made the point that with players out with Covid it meant injuries to fit players were more likely so injuries should count too. They decided that the criteria was the number of fit and available first team players i.e. players who had made a first team appearance. Against Palace we had 14. Smith brought Rowe on for his debut which then made it 15. The only team who may have abused it so far are Liverpool with their pretend "false positives". The coaches who are moaning in public are just trying to excuse a bad result or a potentially bad result. On the Burnley situation, catching up 4 games in hand with the winter break is going to put huge pressure on what is already a small squad.

This.

Also great to see Sargent, Aarons and Pukki take cards for stopping their attacks. Rather less pleased that no one closed down Pickford so that he couldn't release the ball early.....

There is no chance of them being dragged into the fight I'm afraid. They are too far ahead.

We still have to play Watford, Burnley, Brighton, Palace, Southampton, Newcastle, Brentford, Villa, Wolves and Leeds. If we could pick up 5 wins and a couple of draws we still need to get two or three more surprise results against City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, West Ham, Leicester and Spurs. Can't see it myself. I am at least quite confident that we will beat our 21 points from last time, but I think the 33-34 we will need is just too many. As ron says above, as soon as we start picking up points, others will too. It just adds extra motivation.

Win at Watford on Friday and we'll get another one sacked. Maybe that should be the measure of how successful our season is rather than staying up. Lose to Norwich, lose your job.

The front four were very mobile and Everton never got remotely close to working it out - Benitez was extremely slow to move to 3 at the back to try to overload midfield and even then failed to bring on Townsend to give us more problems against pace. Dreadful management. Sargent and Rashica swapped sides two or three times; Idah was all over Keane from minute one and dragged him around the pitch like a puppy; Pukki's running was crucial all game, the way he moved them around. Everton were awful because we didn't allow them to be any good, chasing them down in possession and snapping at them all the time. I really thought we surprised them and they didn't expect to find it so difficult. Sorensen and PLM both very good at clearing up too. The biggest difference to the West Ham game is that Everton didn't have a player of Bowen's ability to move into the space around Gibson - Everton never exploited that. This formation and line up was a huge surprise on Wednesday but showed some good signs. Today, with Sargent back and Sorensen in place of McClean it looked 100% more effective across the pitch. A small glimmer.

So did Sheffield Utd - that went well.

I'd make a couple of points: 1. We need to be careful about promoting Brentford as our golden boys. Two years ago it was Sheffield Utd. Twenty years ago it was Charlton. Last season (only 6 months ago) most of the Championship fans were asking why their club couldn't be more like Norwich. Football below the top 10 of the PL is still cyclical and that's pretty much always been the case. 2. If we get new owners, and they put some money in, does anyone really think we can spend it wisely? Every time we have had any funds to speak of, we've wasted it on show ponies (Naismith), injury prone former stars (Jarvis/Klose) or just the massively over-rated internationals (RVW/Sargent/Tzolis etc). If we had £100m to spend wouldn't we just waste that too?

Hearing we'd shipped out Hugill to West Brom. Frank Lampard withdrawing from a job selection process he was never involved in. Realising that not only do some people listen to Talksport, they actually take it seriously.

2-0 Everton. Plus I think the atmosphere could get a bit fruity and our owners may not hang around long at the end......

It's a very valid point that football fans fixate on transfer fees when Soccernomics evidenced years ago that wages were a more accurate indication of success. It's very difficult to get any accurate comparisons of wages being paid but whichever sites you compare, it seems that our wages are higher than Brentford's and comparable to Watford but everyone else pays a lot more. To attract even fringe players from another PL team would blow our budget. Brentford have consistently been better than us at the moneyball game, apart from our one unexpected PL sojourn in 2019-20 they have outperformed us in most years in terms of value/results for what they spend. Their current levels are not that surprising. For what we pay, it is hard to be too critical given what we are up against in every game. Competing in one game in 6 is about all we should really expect.

I see the Turkish equivalent of Simon Cowell has just snapped up Hull City for £30m and is telling the world about their push for the Premier League, cups and titles. He's worth £100m tops. Will be very interesting to see how he seeks to invest in Hull City with such a limited amount available. I rather suspect he's bitten off more than he can chew, but we'll see. Interestingly he also says he looked at 4 other clubs - wonder who they were? (Not us, obviously, as even little old Norwich are worth more than he has).

After a 4 year £60k a week contract at Huddersfield, he signed a 2 year deal with Sunderland in the Summer at £10k a week (probably with a bonus for promotion) and a big old signing on fee as a free agent. And he's still only 28. And he's still better than anything we can put on the field at the moment.

So, given that he's rated at £100m that would still be a £50m player......

Williams lost his position and Gibson was dreadful.

Kabak in the middle of a 5 stepping forward alongside Sorensen, drop PLM move Maclean more forward, Giannoulis on the left instead of Placheta. There you go.

Sorensen on the bench. Kabak could play there, or Byram. Both benched with him. Sargent and Cantwell not in the squad and Smith on the BBC site saying he's got some really big players back. Very confused!

I can't believe that team. No defending midfielders of any merit and four attackers. Antonio will absolutely murder us.

Surely they have already shown that with a fully fit and available squad they can get more out of them than Farke ever did? Were you not at the Southampton, Wolves and Man Utd games? They are the only games this season we have looked like a PL team. We were slowly improving until Covid and injuries hit. Not enough to survive maybe, but enough not to be embarassing.

This is why I love football so much. I agree with much of this but not about Hanley. I think we have solved the CB position but they are never all fit. Hanley is our best "defender" by a country mile. Again yesterday he was the one blocking, pulling, kicking, heading. He needs Omobamidele alongside him for mobility and speed. Kabak has the turning circle of the QE2 and completely loses his position; he will never, ever be a decent PL standard CB. He is more likely to move forward to be a CDM and that is where I would play him, in a kind of 5 at the back but with him stepping forward to make the space and link Gilmour. (incidentally, that's how Godfrey should play too, as evidenced by his latest performance on Saturday - he's not a CB either, never was). Gibson is, I agree, somewhat limited but a decent enough back up for Hanley but not the others. Sorensen is the Omo back up, and the Kabak back up at a push. I'm not sure we've ever had Hanley, Kabak and Omo available as the 3 in a 5 alongside Aarons and Williams (Giannoulis isn't a left back at this level - I'm not sure Williams is either but he's the best we've got).