M_B

I've no idea, but with no end of cheap squad fillers knocking around, would it seem logical to you that Gestede would have signed Forshaw against Ismael's wishes?

No I wouldn't be happy, I said first or second replacement. Obviously we might get stretched and he may have to start, there are cup games to consider as well, but without taking it to the nth degree and seeing he knows what Ismael is after, it has some logic to it.

There are plenty, cheap, experienced midfielders knocking around, you'd think Ismael would know one or two. Therefore, it would seem logical he's happy with the signing.

Spot on, if he's first or second replacement, then OK signing. If he's a starter, then obviously not. As you say, the longer the season went on, the better he got, which shouldn't be a surprise given he hadn't been playing at Plymouth. It also looks like a signing with Ismael's blessing to me, which bodes well going forward.

I wouldn't be paying a million quid for a keeper who was kept out by Pears.

Honestly, you're not telling me the last 14 years aren't down to bad luck? We were so lucky under Jack when he bought us the best forward in history, I can't understand where all the luck has gone, maybe we just used it all up. Surely nobody can have bad luck for 14 years, surely we'd have had some good luck like Wrexham. Who hands out this luck, you're the expert? Where do we get it from? Maybe Father Christmas will bring us some this year.

What's ridiculous is using mumbo jumbo to drive a narrative. As Gary Player said , The harder I practice, the luckier I get. You get what you earn. I'll tell you what, you and Upside down nip and get Rovers some of that there luck,we haven't had any for about 14 years. All that bunkem about it being down to Venkys, I tell you, we've just been plain unlucky.

As ridiculous as it is, this "theory" has to be applied to every match of every tournament that has ever been played, ie not just England . According to this "theory ", one side has been lucky in every match which has ever been played throughout history . That's how mental it is.

Your problem is a, even entertaining the concept of luck, when every subsequent fixture is determined by results. B, having used the concept of luck (which in this case is ridiculous), you're only applying it to having good luck, never once have you entertained he might have had bad luck. The whole thing is ridiculous. I just hope Tuchel employs a Witch Doctor to help with the training.

I think high heaven is a bit high for a last 8 finish don't you ? I'll judge Tuchel the same as I did Southgate, hope he surpasses Southgate's really good record and judge him on results, I won't be using luck to argue away how he does, either way.

They weren't draws, the draw was made before the tournament started, later fixtures were determined by football results,any supposed luck ended with the original draw.

Did Southgate have bad luck having to play the teams he lost to, or did the luck only stretch to having good luck playing the teams he beat?

As far as I'm concerned, we've done well at each tournament under Southgate, but just fallen short. The whole luck thing falls apart when the exact same "logic" (I use the term loosely) is applied to losing as well as winning.

Yeah well, were we unlucky to have played Italy, rather than a team we would have beaten ?

England could have beaten a different team in the euro final, Italys route had nothing to do with England, so were England unlucky to have played Italy?

I don't think anyone would argue with that, in fact you've summed up the difference nicely. They were drawn out of a bag every round except the final. Major finals groups are drawn beforehand, from there the route to the final is determined by results, nothing to do with luck whatsoever

That's it, grown adults putting everything down to Mumbo Jumbo rather than just say he did a good job.

So every fixture of the world Cup finals is either lucky or unlucky to at least one other team?

It's why I keep renewing, when they do go there'll be 50000 banging the doors down and I don't want to miss out on a seat.

England are in the World Cup final and play either Argentina or Croatia in the final. Is it luck which determines who they play ?

I'm not missing the point, I'm arguing the point. You get your wall chart and the route to the final Is mapped out. The fixtures are then determined by results, nothing whatsoever to do with luck. If you get an "easy " game or a hard one, it's as a result of how each team performed. Luck would be drawing an "easy" game out of a bag every round.

It isn't luck, it's a result of winning or losing games. Would it have been bad luck for England if we'd messed up like France did, and we'd ended up on the other side of the draw?

Going back to the last Euros, the draw actually gave us the hardest route to the final, we were scheduled to meet favourites France in the semis. Some saw it as luck that we avoided them, I saw it as France messing up.

Luck plays a part in the original draw, after that the path is mapped out and it's results which determine who you play.

By the same token, Rovers weren't playing against the best players and managers in the world. If reaching the quarter and semi of the world Cup and both European finals open to him, making him our 2nd best ever manager, whilst overseeing the whole system from first team down isn't a successful period, we'll have to agree to disagree.