By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
On my motorbike 15 mile commute from the leafy 'burbs of TW2 to the office in Kings Cross there was a two year period (pre-covid/WFH so it was a 5 days a week journey) where my route had a minimum of one traffic-light controlled roadworks but probably averaged 2-3. IIRC I think the most at one point was seven during a two week period. That's one every couple of miles.
I do the same journey once/twice a week now and there are still road works, burst water etc but because it's a now less frequent journey I've kind of become a bit ambivalent but if I had to go back to 5 days a week it would boil my pi$$.
I showed this scene to my then 9 year old son and he howled so much he wanted to not only watch the whole film but the whole pink panther series of films, so we did.
Not sure I'd be happy getting the tin-tack for not being able to motive players provided to me who clearly have no interest in being motivated, and we've had a few.
But I guess that's just how it is and is excepted 9again, nice pay-off cushions the blow).
When you the archetypal old school Manager, you effectively live by the sword and die by the sword. Fair enough.
However, if you're being employed as a coach and there's a whole team of people with tablets, spreadsheets, etc etc and they are providing you with the players (players you may not want) then seems a bit odd that you solely get the chop when it all goes south. All these background people seem to still be employed and repeat the same with the next Coach.
I can only think of the lucrative pay-off makes up for this otherwise who'd accept it?
We are also into the same old territory of potential mistakes only being analysed when we lose a game. Let's not forget, the sending off (which no one can predict, yes... I know it's Mbenge), happened after all three windows had be used up.
Had we won that game, no one would have said anything about the substitutions because we, well, won.
I do understand but if you can’t bring on a sub to counter a particular situation, something is wrong in the game. I get that the windows were probably created to stop time wasting but how is it time wasting when time is added on anyway when substitutions are made. We’ll never know of course but had we brought on Edwards for, say, Kone, we may have won the game.
Number of Substitutions: Clubs are permitted to use five substitutes in a match.
Number of Windows: Clubs are allowed a maximum of three opportunities (plus half-time) to make these five substitutions.
As someone else pointed out on another post, we used ours on 64, 74 and 82 4 players in total). So as much as we probably wanted to bring Edwards on, we couldn’t. That cost us the points.
Slight difference in that at Man City we were down to 10 men for a much longer period of time and were being relentlessly battered by a vastly superior team, It grinds you down.
Yesterday was just 4 minutes. To concede two goals is bizzare. There’s been mention of sub windows but surely with 1 sub left, you bring on Edward’s straight away, take off Kone and go 5-4-0 / 4-5-0 and park the friggin bus for four minutes to see out the game at 2-1.
If the ‘window’ hindered this then that is ridiculous. What if a player got injured too around the same time…. then you’re down to 9?
Maybe I’m not up to speed with the changes but how does this account for, at best, making a sub for unforeseen tactical reasons (such as player already on a yellow and starting to lose their schit, or one given a yellow and you want to pull them off, a sending off or scoring/conceding a goal) or at worst, a player injury?
As the site and stadium is owned by the GLA they’re going to have to invest in £1bn+ to demolish and rebuild something akin to Spurs or Everton.
With West Ham paying £4m a year rent it’ll take 250 years to break even unless there is a massive increase in rent and/or the GLA take a much bigger cut of football and event income or West Ham have some kind of joint ownership and stump up a large proportion of the money required.
I think West Ham are stuck with it for a long time until it falls apart forcing something to then be done.
I don’t recall saying anywhere that’s what you said. It was a figure of speech, to imply managers are not going to publicly criticise players (“praise in public, criticise in private”), plus, an employee of the club is not going to ask questions that will make a senior colleague look awkward/uncomfortable/stupid.
As said, these interviews just go through the motions and I don’t think is worth taking too much from them. It’s tabloid.
"Some people lost their sh1t over that. The level of pearl clutching was insane, 1 poster had the decency to say I thought it was just a joke. Boston.
I think part of the problem is that the frustrations have probably built up over time and people may not pearl-clutch if another person said the same thing. This may be a case of 'playing the man, not the ball' but that will be as a direct consequence of how a person has conducted themselves over many months/years.
Each person is of course entitled to act how they wish. Ignore any posts/conversations they don't want to engage in or use the ignore button, either way is fine. Personally, I just ignore any posts I don't want to engage in.
However, responding to posts, any posts, does encourage behaviour.
As Oscar Wilde said "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Don't feed the beast, as it were.
Sadly football used to be an entertainment business. That ship has long since sailed and it’s been replaced with a ‘results business’ these days I’m afraid. I don’t like it but that’s how it’s become due to the ever increasing insane amounts of money involved and the disastrous consequences of failure.
Really don't want to go down this rabbit hole for Clive's benefit but whilst I understand the thought behind that, at the time this all happened I was talking to my friends daughter who was a nurse at the Royal Free and she said all vaccines have a base (think of it like a pizza base) and then the 'toppings' are added to make it into the vaccine that was required. They're not just a bunch of ingredients chucked into a petrie dish and hope for the best.
Funny how the was a huge anti-vax and anti-mask movement in the US but suddenly there are now all these fukkers running around in cosplay army uniforms all masked up.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
