yellow jumper

he's part of a narrow front three, the big fanny. it's hardly dirk kuyt's role. he's increasingly been pissing about in deep/wide areas anyway, as the central striker.

f*** off dyche you croaky t***

the whole loan to rivals thing is a bit weird full stop. but it can work well for the parent club in the sense you can gauge your player in relevant competition as well as see him help take points of other teams.

right. well, yeah, compared to him. was just the mention of no disciplinary problems with mangala that threw me. as though he went to show you get what you pay for.

am i missing something? mangala's been an absolute disaster.

it's about six sentences. that you've no real interest in. there's a difference. i understand you want owners with and willing to spend more money. why not just leave it at that? rather than this desperate attempt to turn every little thing that goes on here v. any other major football club into proof of FSG's negligence.

probably mane, no?

the frustration that we aren't better, but could be, is there for everyone i imagine. and i'm fairly agnostic when it comes to FSG. i'm just not that into ignoring the context or making excuses for other clubs, i wouldn't make for my own. you can't have it all ways. the mancs have spent more money. mostly as a function of making more money. and being more prepared to load debt on the club... none of which they've done very well of late. unless you want to jump to conclusions two games into a season. the choice of managers might be ferguson's fault. but isn't he the sort of football man on the board that FSG are routinely criticised for not having?

do the glazers take the football side seriously? since you've pointed to them. they just see their asset failing. it's business. their model is just as cynical. probably moreso. they've just got a bigger dog. the more the club makes the more we'll spend.

yeah, the mancs ability to both pay and attract is a result of two decades of commercial and football success that we don't have. it's not a mystery. FSG are, at least, appearing to take the commercial side a bit more seriously than previous owners. http://https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn it might be ambitious, but there isn't actually that much correlation between stretching what you can afford to pay and levels of success. there are, of course, perfectly reasonable arguments about how we structure our wage bill within this though.

the mancs can afford to pay much more at a similar or lower percentage of their turnover. it's not an argument for us not going much higher on our wages, but there's greater risk and less scope to do it regularly.

reason mane now looks so important is as much to do with function as well as ability. previously we felt overly dependent on sturridge and coutinho, but now you see alternatives, even if they aren't quite as those twos level. lallana a factor in that. as well as firmino and origi. and also i think he's probably going to continue to fulfil a slightly deeper role as his main hand from hereon in anyway. about a balance of attributes. but agree we need another option to do what mane does. other player i'd say looks hard to replace from within squad if we lose him for any length of time is emre.

they were all pretty bad. do wonder about where and if henderson functions comfortably in a klopp midfield though.

is anyone saying he's beyond criticism?

and four of them in defence, presumably? i understand the point you are making. you may be right. i just don't think it's a counter argument to what i've said. i'm trying to engage with what's in the manager's thinking, is all. rather than offer a critique. i don't know, honestly. milner's played plenty of football there though, and under different managers including capello and pelligrini. and it probably isn't going to be henderson ahead of alexander-arnold or gomez or stewart (maybe), i just mentioned him as he's filled in there at times, and to the extent that you might want legs and ability to cross it doesn't seem that outlandish. whatever, it's obviously in no shape or form comparable to playing mario balotelli there.

silly. if you can't see the difference, not much point in discussing it further. gomez has played as much senior football as a full back as he has as a centre back. as for the other two, i dunno, could be a disaster, but it's not as if these kind of switches aren't happening in football at the moment. blind and valencia playing in the mancs back line. full backs and midfielders being used unorthodoxly by guardiola. spurs using a winger at left back. there clearly are. do you honestly believe the manager's just not going to field players in these positions if we have injuries?

yes. stewart's gone to CB pre-season too. and played at full back. can's been used at centre half. randall's had games. henderson's played full back too. again, i understand why there's a debate, and you don't rate this or that player, and in some instances i agree or also have concerns. and probably we'll bring another in. but by same token it's daft to deny the existence of these options, when clearly the manager must have some faith in them.

see this a lot. 'we've only got one full back' or whatever. dunno, it's not really a numbers question is it. just because you don't rate the other options or they're injured or whatever it doesn't invalidate them as options.

there's obviously, above anything an issue with his professionalism and that's going to be a problem at any top club. especially when you see it reflected in injuries and form. PSG had an issue with it. as did rodgers.

think you saw what wijnaldum does well in patches v. arsenal in terms of hitting box, but not sure the balance between him lallana and henderson really allows full expression of it. they all did it in that game at points. but that facet totally missing v burnley.

was a game he was arguably better suited to. and for all his defensive faults, the counter they scored their second from was the sort of situation he can be quite good at recovering. makes more sense for me for clyne to go left in that switch, but hey ho, he's quietly making as many defensive mistakes as anyone.

he's a chelsea fan isn't he?

doesn't really describe what wijnaldum appears to have done mostly/best in his career so far though. although been a bit surprised how he's been used by us so far. if for argument's sake we signed dahoud, i think you could still make sense of it. more likely to replace/compete with lallana in the way we set up than wijnaldum (who'd then arguably be freer to do the third man runs/finishing that appears to be more of his strength or at least compete with henderson/grujic for that role). emre can/lucas as the holding options.

interesting what klopp said about expecting burnley to collapse after 70, but they didn't. suggests that the plan is going to be a lot about ball possession. can understand sense in that. just wonder if we're not better suited to going for throat. but probably that also has it's own pitfalls. over 80% possession only been done once before in PL I think.