These transfer targets are weird and there's something I'm just not grasping. We're looking at a 27 year old unproven CB from a shit league for 2-3 million? What I'm guessing is its another Tavares type approach where we've likely offered about 800k upfront with the rest heavily dependent on add-ons. I'm not buying that we're spending this much up front for any of our targets. As much as Gestede will probably try to dress it up that way.

Well I didn’t know that, but what I do know is the Lancashire league was once seen as the place to play cricket, hence why all the players above came over. Who did you follow in those days Jim? East Lancs?

any news on the Away kits??

Yeah, newly promoted teams are a no/no first up. They’re still full of confidence, all their squad to pick from and an enthusiastic following cheering them on. Best time to play them is after a few months when they’ve had a few bangings, lost a few players to injury and suspension and their fans are getting restless.

"stop promotion in january" model

Could be. Let’s hope he can play for more than 20 minutes a game though.

The 'Winging It' model.

I watched most of the previous game against Germany and it could have gone either way. We were worth a draw. We badly need a centre forward who impacts the game though. The lad from Big Club is ineffectual leading the line. He looks like a poor man’s Adam Armstrong.

Imagine where we would have been if Sammi has stayed! Isn't that the point? We never build anything.

Yeah he was. I thought he was trying to play the ball with his left foot when it really needed a right foot touch. It gave the Dutch a chance to clear a ball they should have never had. Then our centre half ( Cresswell ? ) got in a tangle and gave their striker a chance of a run and shot at goal which he took really well. Just an example of how small mistakes in the opposition half can lead to a goal. That was the only mistake the centre half made though. He was outstanding. The Dutch defence parted like the Red Sea for our second goal.

Yes it was generally settled 10 of the starting 11 were the same for those last 6 games

No I know I just went of on a tangent as the thought entered my head🤣

Don't know to be honest, I was actually meaning how the team as a whole was set up.

If the team was set up more defensively, and we scored a higher ratio of goals to chances, then despite scoring fewer goals, the attack obviously did better, not worse. It isn't even an argument, although I don't know whether it's true or not.

Our team changed so many times last season, can't quite remember but was our 6 game run a consistent squad?

I am not bothered who we play first game , as long as the Rovers fans sing 'we want Venkys Out'. Forget the wild Rover this should be the go to chant/song at the beginning and end of every single game! Regardless of result! We Want Venkys Out!

Arise Sir Gareth Southgate for services to association football. Well deserved.

There was approx 130 less goals this season than last over the division the top two scorers last season was 27 / 21 this season 19/18 if people want to argue pure black and white we scored 7 less then fine as statistically that is correct but today we didn’t fill that void is wrong - we filled it in other ways other players increasing their goal tally or their assist tally. Defensively improved massively taking the heat off the players up top arguing this point to me is silly because when you do significantly better for me it’s irrelevant

We certainly didnt create loads of chances in the season before last. We just had a player who became clinical.

Yeah, he probably wont play much. But when he does from the start, he isnt good enough. You speak as if it doesnt matter who is backup because they wont play much. Also, one of those 7 goals would have got us into the play offs. No big deal though according to you. Just stick to your guns. You dont have to defend a club decision you have clearly said that you dont agree with.

Depends on the ratio of goals to chances. With a different team set up, it's possible/probable having only scored 7 less, that the attack actually did better. It depends on the chances created.

And Eustace, who certainly got the side performing beyond the sum of its individual parts. We scored 7 less but conceded 26 less. We didnt fill the void and people didnt chip in to make up the difference. But overall as a team we did better because we were so much stronger defensively. 3 key variables that led to that (Batth, Eustace, Beck) have now gone and Brittain may follow so lets hope that doesnt cause a regression there.

Or we could have beat teams heavier than what we did and still got on the same points….its irrelevant the facts are we did better

And was that before we spaffed 2 on Nani 2.0

You aren't going to replace Szmodics like for like. Everything is about the team and winning as a team. It's 7 goals but no surprised how much you making such a big issue of it.