1. The fact we didn’t bowl well doesn’t alter the fact the conditions were ideal. 2. Therefore Anderson clearly has had ideal conditions to bowl in. 3. Therefore that can’t be used as an argument against him being over the hill* * Just to be clear, I don’t think he is over the hill. Edit to add - I agree with most of the rest of your post, the bit I disagree with is that it’s our worst attack for a decade (don’t ask me to name a worse one though!)

I guess that increases your chances of winning the argument 😁

I see your logic about Huddersfield et al. I’m sure we could make lots of arguments about Everton 😁

Under FFP you can lose £5 million a season but this rises to £13 million with owner ‘contributions’. This is assessed over a three year period so essentially you can lose £15 million (or £39 million) over this period. Owner contributions must be in the form equity, which ‘on paper’ increases the value of the club (they’re clearly not going to get all their money back!). I don’t know if this is the reason for this injection but it’s why they usually do it.

Huddersfield Town?

It’s to add equity to the club (not debt). In our case, this is usually done to comply with the FFP regulations as the money owners can contribute has to be in the form of equity.

As with many things in life, success is more important than size. I guess you still get the debate as to what defines success, is it purely trophies won or does, for example, qualifying for Europe count? You also get the discussion around whether success from ‘before your time’ counts or not eg. ‘ Sure your club’s won x FA cups but they were all before (insert world event here)’

A couple of further questions if you don’t mind… You’ve mentioned the rigidity of the system in respect to each position having specific expectations but was there any fluidity in terms of players switching positions with each other during the match? I’m thinking of things like the outside forwards swapping flanks. Do you know whether ‘keepers starting to wear gloves was because of a rule change or because the rules never prohibited it and eventually someone just decided to give it a go? Thank you

Surely you can see the contradiction.

Brilliant, thank you so much for taking the time to share this. 😀👍

It doesn’t matter what your tactics or mindset are, if your execution is this bad the Aussies will take advantage.

It was said entirely in jest 😀

Textbook tackle:

Worth keeping him in the team just for this:

Surely you should be subscribing to YouTube Premium… 😁

Of course someone can be guaranteed to be first choice - if he’s the better player, and maintains his form and fitness, why wouldn’t be?

In due course…

Who’s Steven????

Pay for preferential treatment? - that sounds like a money spinner 😁

Monetise the ignore feature.

That was my first thought as well.

Team for next test: England XI: Crawley, Duckett, Pope, Root, Brook, Stokes, Bairstow, Broad, Robinson, Tongue, Anderson.

Kevin joined ZEDRA March 2017 and has over 20 years of experience in compliance roles with experience leading functions, contributing to strategic objectives, delivering a pragmatic and commercial approach. Me neither…

Perhaps you need an ed-blocker 😁