craig

Rhian Brewster isnt a right winger - he is a centre forward. That is where he played for Swansea all season. Lad may well go on and have a very good career but any time I saw him play for Swansea I was left unimpressed. Harry Wilson is another matter - that boy will have a very good career IMHO. Quality player - am a little surprised that Klopp would let him leave - also surprised that Howe didnt give him more game time at Bournemouth as they were screaming for creativity. We have NO chance of getting him though unless it was a loan - if they are selling him he will be inundated with offers. Benteke ? No thanks

Haven't seen much credit given to the lad for starting the season with a couple of goals.... that all seems to get swept under the rug when it suits.

Agreed. As much as I dislike them, Power and Dicker are a decent combo in there - and if they are using Brophy up top then they have pace, makes it all the more important to have Jack and Kamara whereby one of them can drop off to assist the CB's and squeeze the space for Brophy. We need to combat their presence in CM.

They are starting at 15% for a couple of weeks and then looking to move to 30%. I don't disagree bud. I was on a repatriation flight in April back to the UK... the flight had social distancing with spaces deliberately left in each row and people staggered in where they sat in relation to the person in front or behind.... all seemed very good... until the flight landed and the seatbelt light went off.... mass exiting of seats, people right up the back of the person in front etc.... was mind-blowing how quickly people "forgot" the need to socially distance... and not one of those people had a connecting flight to catch because regular commercial flights were all grounded. So to expect "common sense" to prevail in football grounds is fanciful at best.

I see they are using the Seville Calculator again. No way they've sold 50k ST's.

England are using staggered entry times and one way systems.

It’s all a matter of who blinks first. Lille saying they are covered whilst we say their offer isn’t sufficient. Nothing wrong with that. Appears that Lille MIGHT have blinked first by saying they “might come back in with an improved offer”. Time will tell. I think I’d prefer to move on Kent than Morelos and replace Kent with a little more end product - and I’m surprised I say that because Kent gives you 100% every single time he steps on the pitch..... but at what we paid we aren’t quite getting value for money. But the issue with keeping Morelos is whether his heart will be in it if his head has been turned. Decisions decisions. Can’t imagine us picking up any new forward players unless Morelos or Kent are moving on.

Depends. if they follow the English and only have 15% capacity for a period and it is managed well then it should work. Might not be financially feasible due to policing etc though. I’m sure we won’t see capacity crowds until January at the very earliest, if not next season.

Nobody interesting is what I’ve been told

Trying my best to find out....

Glad you’re taking it with a pinch of salt Cammy as Wilshere was NOT playing for us as a trialist today.

Sell on clause might be based on profit, not sale price. I would sell him to make a £2 mill profit, especially if we attracted a better player for less..... who that player is though I don’t know ?

Aye, but Coutinho went for £130 million

Not sure Boyle would work for us Relies on his pace but he wouldnt need that with us as he wouldnt have any spaces to run into. Often we see these players that look good with lesser teams struggle with the OF because the way they have to play needs to adapt - see O'Halloran as an example.

As I said previously, not physical enough for CB and not technical enough for DM. He isnt of the required standard unfortunately. Hope he does well enough with them on loan against everyone else.

No kidding, he looked abject when he played against us in the League Cup Semi. Another Burke or the other one that escaped my name that went to Sporting, Gauld was it ?

It isnt that simple though when teams play like Livvy did - they had a bank of 4 and their midfield 5 sat about 5 yards in front of them - there was literally zero space to be able to play balls into feet and hold it up.

We do, Goldson does it often

We had absolutely no issue “getting further up the field” yesterday because Livvy willingly gave up territory.

Mate, at points yesterday Goldson was halfway inside the Livvy half, that’s how deep Livvy played. The average position in the first half for 10 of their players was 5 yards inside their own half. Their striker’s average position was about 5 yards inside ours. Whilst we may have started as a 4-3-3 yesterday at times it seemed like a 1-3-3-3 with Helander dropping off Goldson, Barišić and Tav like wingers. The problem wasn’t so much the formation as it was the lack of creation. Livvy played so deep that a formal formation was nigh on pointless as they just blocked the 18 and let us come wave after wave

Give it up man. You’re talking nonsense. The game played out with no violent play. You can guess and suppose all you like but there was zero violent play. None. Which makes a mockery of what you’ve been rambling on about in this thread. The main thrust of your argument now is no better than “if my aunt had balls”. There was no violent play and you’re merely guessing that the game never played out as Holt apparently intended. The thread was started because the OP was highlighting that Livvy would be physical and “in our faces”. You turned that into “Holt wants his team to intentionally deploy violent play” - something which never actually happened. But rather than admit you aren’t actually a mind repeater you’re doubling down. In the worst possible way by inventing a narrative to fit your agenda, but which isn’t borne out by the actual events. Its also highly amusing that you castigate Gonzo for “last wordism” when you simply don’t know when to give up, even when you’re completely wrong. i ad no unrealistic concerns. Football is a contact sport and the quotes in the OP don’t talk to “intentional violent play” but rather the ugly side of the game but, again, you’re so stubborn as to refuse to see It. Instead you play amateur mind-reader only to be found to be wrong, again. But be my guest and have the last word. But no amount of last words will change the fact that Livingston didn’t deploy violent play tactics today and that the words used by Holt are commonplace verbiage for having to do the tough stuff such as tough running, closing space, applying pressure and spending long periods without the ball. I’m no longer replying because you literally would argue in an empty room, even if wrong. You have zero capacity to accept you could be wrong and that makes this futile. Enjoy your evening

No worries bud. We don’t often have to moderate which is why I so enjoy the forum. We expect respect to each other -ven in rigorous debate it can be done civilly and respectfully. Thanks mate,.

Mate, I even missed the meaty 50:50 tackles ?

?? Where was this violent play you spoke of ? You know, the one where you KNEW it was what Holt meant ? if anyone is rambling it’s you. You’re babbling incoherent nonsense in an attempt to deflect from being unequivocally wrong about Holt sending his team out to inflict violent play. Nice deflection though ? Sometimes it’s better, easier and saves embarrassment to simply admit you were wrong ?

It’s not a cult rule. It’s called respect or, in your assessment of Gerrard, lack of respect.