I'm not particularly bothered who has control as long as they're all on the same page. From the outside, it would appear that was the problem with the last 2 coaches. As far as Eustace goes, I'd say he got the positions covered he wanted, but didn't get to choose which players filled them. The situation needs clarification or we'll end up with another unhappy coach. Just another point, it does seem that Ismael has the backing of most on here, much more so than when he came in.

I know it doesn't fit the narrative, that's why it's never been considered. Playing well as a partnership means complementing each other.

Good point on partners, it's never considered that it may well have been Hyam bringing out the best in Batth, that wouldn't do.

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.

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.

Or he's unhappy at the 10k wage cap.

For some reason, Dolan is held to much higher standards than anyone else , I mean it's almost as if some have made up their mind and trying to prove it, whatever next. With only 13 goal involvements plus being involved in many other build ups, plus being the hardest working player on the pitch, I'm sure we'll have no problem replacing him.

Fair comment. Regarding Batth, he did play well, but he's one player, you know what point I was making.

Absolutely spot on, he's a credit to the club and himself and no player works harder. I've hardly hard him say anything since he's been here, let alone a bad or arrogant word. It's a notion without any evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, people were cracking open the champagne when we signed him.

Aye, there's nothing like an imminent departure to raise a player's stock. It's like Jackanory on here this time of year.

Whether he has final say or not isn't the most important point, the main thing is that they're all on the same page. We don't want another coach throwing his toys out.

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?