Rousseau

The Leeds DoF has made a howler, there. I don't think the Forest guy did too bad in terms of singing all those players. They did need to sign a lot of players because 7-8 members of their Championship promotion team were loans, and none were made permanent, even if they were able to. The fact that he let that happen is the issue, for me.

They shouldn't be butting heads, though. They have to work together. If a coach doesn't want to work with a DoF they shouldn't be here. I know you're not saying so - and I don't believe MB is - but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a coach dictating recruitment strategy to the DoF or the board.

He must have done something right to be approached by a PL side.

It was a sitting midfield three of Kamara, Davis and Jack, who are all still here. (Aribo sometimes played there, but mainly further forward.) It doesn't matter who the players are, though. If you're depending on a player in form to be a solution, it's not a proper solution. The solution for SG was using a sitting midfield three; the players were mostly irrelevant.

I get your point, but SG had a solution (three sitting midfielders) with these exact players. We conceded as few as 13 goals in one season.

Or another Dundee Utd signing Steven Thompson. Ooft.

I agree with your point, but I would argue they are dated.

The game's professional now, though.

It can be that simple, but often managers tweak their team's structure to compensate. Klopp uses counter-pressing, so when they lose the ball they are set up to get the ball back ASAP so they don't get caught. Pep dropped the #6 between the CBs to cover with Barcelona. Now he inverts one FB and keeps the other back to make a situational back-three. Gerrard used three sitting midfielders - something Klopp does, or did, too. There are a lot of solutions.

We've had two somewhat mistaken 'in my day' takes from @compo and @Scott7, mainly because of a difference in terminology. The W-M (or, 3-2-5) formation is actually still in use: Man City use it, Arsenal use it, and - as much as it pains me - Celtic use it. The only difference being the labels applied to the player positions. Take Man City--on paper it's a 4-3-3, with the '4' comprised of two FBs and two CBs. On the pitch, they morph into a W-M, or 3-2-5: Grealish (LW) - Haaland (ST) - Mahrez (RW) DeBruyne (#8) - Silva (#8) Cancelo (LB) - Rodri (#6) Ake (CB) - Dias (CB) - Walker (RB) The RB stays to make a back-three, with the LB 'inverting' to make a double pivot - or, the old Half-backs. The old Full-backs would be Ake and Walker in this situation. But today they are just CBs. It came about because the old W-M was countered by a back-four, which then became ubiquitous. To counter the back-four, the 4-3-3 emerged. To counter a 4-3-3 ... it turns out the W-M works quite well. The other way that Full-backs are used today - which is still the most common - is actually as wingers; they would take on the Grealish and Mahrez positions, with the wingers coming inside to take up DeBruyne and Silva's positions. It's a different way of creating that front-five. In Tavernier's case, he plays as a winger; he is the furthest forward wide player, with Cantwell and Sakala playing narrower. To sum up: We still have the W-M, with Full-backs, Half-backs and five forwards, it's just that their positions have changed. Old Full-backs are just modern CBs. The old Half-backs are the modern double-pivot. The other way that Full-backs are used today are actually as wingers, which is where Tavernier plays. Stay tuned next week for another great episode of 'Well Ackchyually...'

Rangers with David Weir conceded 146 goals in his 5-years, or 29.2 goals-per-season. (He scored 4.) Rangers with Tavernier conceded 214 goals over 7-years, or 30.6 goals-per-season. (He scored 64.) Interestingly, Weir's sides never conceded fewer than 28, yet Tavernier's side has conceded fewer on three occasions (27, 19 and 13 in those years) - and that's a defensive Walter Smith side!

I'm not. @Bill I'm not so sure...

We've conceded 214 goals in the 7 premiership seasons Tavernier's played; he's scored 62 goals.

Agreed. Although, I don't think Shankland is in the same category, as he is 27.

I'm not as dismissive of the Shankland link, as it appears the rest of you are. He always hits, or over-performs, his xG. This season he has an xG of 18.6, scoring 18 goals; two years ago it was 8 goals from an xG of 6.4; he scored a goal-a-game in the Championship. He's clinical. I wonder what he could do with the chances we create. I would have signed him after he had a difficult spell in Belgium (5 goals from an xG of 7, which is the only time he has under-performed and it's not by much), because he would have been quite cheap. Hearts will play hardball, though.

What are your thoughts, folks?

Arsenal's Xhaka just single-handedly won the league for Man City. Arsenal cruising to a win, and then he has a needless dig at Trent, riles up the silenced crowd, Trent and the team now play like men possessed and Arsenal struggle to resist the onslaught.

Martin Tyler: 'Aaaaand it's liv—' Me: STFU!

Roy Hodgson is 75-years-old. Incredible.

Oh my...

Yes, but it helps me make you look stupid. Like I said, I think he's worth more than £5M now. There's no risk, for me. 'Based on performances across the whole season' and assuming he doesn't improve at all - unlikely - he's worth £5M. IMO. I think MB likes him. Did he not say somewhere that he wants to do the deal? I might be wrong.

I've said this before but, the way in which managers conduct press conferences doesn't matter. If he speaks eloquently and succinctly but losses a game, he talks a load of shite. If he mumbles out cliche after cliche but wins, he's the messiah. He needs to win games.

DELETE OR YOU ARE GETTING PERMA-BANNED!

Is that it then? A 20-year-old dwells on the ball a wee bit in four, one-off games so he's not and never will be good enough? That's silly. Not quite as bad as the temper tantrums shown by those wanting MB gone, but it's not far off. To be honest, I think a large part of it is him not having options on the ball, which is more of a team issue. I've complained about that before. A lot of our players play of-the-cuff, rather than as a team. For me, Tillman is worth more than £5M now. We could sign him in August and flip him in January for double.

No one's doing that - most aren't even helping against the diddies! He is a superb talent, already, at 20-years-old. In a couple of years he'll be worth a lot more than £5M. I think he's worth more than that now. We spent £5M on Yilmaz, btw.