Thracian

I'm not sure Shakespeare doesn't rate him so much as wishes he'd grow up and become part of the squad. My impression could be wrong but it's of a lad focused on his own ends, selection, brilliance and internet nonsense rather than the cause, being part of the group, making a contribution whatever is required, constantly finding ways to improve every aspect of his performance and increasing his stamina. Being in and out of the team. or even the squad, is part and parcel of being a member of any Premiership squad these days. No manager or coach expects a player to be happy when he's left out or given less time than he wants but how you react gets noted - and the best way to react is to be supportive and to show your intention just to keep improving at every turn, both skill wise and in terms of your mental capacity to cope with all the glory and setbacks which go with being a professional sportsman. Bottom line is that Gray has significant shortcomings and that's what he should be focusing on. Moving from Birmingham to Leicester and then, in his dreams, from Leicester to Spurs won't change the fact that he'll be taking himself with him and if there are flaws in his attitude/approach at one club he'll have the same flaws at the next place unless he makes a conscious effort to change. Yes, he might - or might not - get more money but, in the long run he'll need to correct his faults to succeed and make a name in the game. And one thing's for sure. Poch won't settle for indifference. Gray would either improve or get forgotten and, at this stage, he'd likely have more chance of staying in and around Leicester's team than Spurs. I wish him luck whatever direction he chooses but his loss wouldn't greatly bother me. My feeling is that he could improve but probably won't. He has so much skill but, rather like Musa, he doesn't get his head up, see the pictures and pick the choices enough for me. David Gibson could pick out a fly on the floor from 30 yards and see hidden planets if they were wearing City shirts.

So, we get rid of a "big name" who completely messed up the notion of either changing or remaining the same. Yet, it somehow follows that Shakespeare will "stick" on tried and trusted and get us relegated to the division he seemed to save us from so emphatically after Ranieri patently left us teetering on the edge of relegation. Is there any reasoning in this singularly reactionary article? Nothing logical that I can see. Even our supposed back four is just blandly assumptious and even if it wasn't somehow implies that these much-proven players will suddenly be effectively useless. The author also assumes our midfield and then insults Shakespeare by saying he doesn't have ideas of his own. How does he know or conclude this? I don't know who Kristian Webb is and don't much want to if that's the sort of tripe he has to offer. Of course he might be right. But there's no convincing argument for saying so just a whole lot of highly questionable assumptions. How his copy would ever have passed a sub editor I've no idea. I also find the comments vaguelly insulting of our owners given their breathtaking success in business, their extraordinary achievements with Leicester City which are unparalleled in our history, the considerable presence of Leicester City youngsters in the Under 21 Euros ( joint best involvement of any club with four players), Harvey Barnes helping win the Toulon Under 20s tournament, the takeover of a European club and various other things that all provide substance for the argument that the club is trying to progress through every aspect of its administration. Oh yes and we've also become one of the richest teams in Europe and one of the richest clubs (thanks to the aforementioned owners) and that not so long after slipping to our lowest ever playing level (Division One) and before that, finding ourselves in financial turmoil. Altogether, given the changes of relatively recent seasons and the successive achievements for the better, I'd say we deserved rather more respect. Change? There's been momentous change from top to bottom. And I cannot imagine our owners appointing Shakespeare as manager without questions concerning his managerial visions and without being persuaded that he actually does have ideas of his own and also the ability and willingness to fit in with the owners' ideas and expectations. A one-year rolling contract might have smacked of uncertainty or sentiment but a three-year deal suggests they've every faith in their appointment. And if they're wrong - cos there are no guarantees - it won't be down to the Kristian lack of faith. I'm quite sure there'll be lots of change and evolution. Furthermore I don't see our owners as being sentimental in the least. Decent yes, appreciative definitely. But sentimental in a business sense? Not a chance. And when it comes to change of any kind I'd say "considered and rapid" were the words which define their time here. .

Devastating. How can simply waving a long and fond "goodbye" to a friend be so mercilessly gut-wrenching?.

Fix You - Savage Garden

King will do well to remain a squad player this season but that's convinced me of nothing relating to anyone else. Mendy didn't impress me greatly in what little there was to see before his injury, but serious ankle problems often leave a lasting weakness so I'm only hopeful ,rather than optimistic, on that one. Barnes will need to adjust and adapt to Premiership football in the face of considerable competition a lot have failed to cross that threshold so I'm not going to be assumptious. And I don't think there's any more certainty of James returning to his best as a Premiership player so I'll be keeping an open mind on him too and hoping we sign someone proven to have the quality we need. Anything else then will be a bonus.

There are always pressures to joining a new club and its the winners who adapt and cope with those pressures. If a guy's got character weaknesses, a football team will find them out.

Rare day at home sorting this and that. Several short breaks coming up and very welcome they'll be too. Oxford and Cambridge most recently, Ely and Portmeirion to follow. Should be choosing a holiday to remember for my 50th anniversary but I'd just as soon go to the Edinburgh Festival or something. International travel just seems like hassle now and I've not got the patience for it, though my wife's been favouring a trip to Thailand. I used to use planes like buses at one time, spending wonderful times in Switzerland, Italy, Monaco, France and Holland in particular. Now I'd sooner have a good game of golf, a walk in the Dales, a memorable meal in good company and a jug or two of Pimms in the sunshine while punting on the Cam. Simple days in sensual places. Haha - I must be getting old.

On what basis do you say that?

Didn't see it, but what's a centre-back doing taking a penalty?

Not Walton but I have played Forest of Arden and the deer didn't seem too concerned about it, which was encouraging! It was a while ago and only a friendly off the whites but I was reasonably pleased to keep the round in the mid-80s. It wouldn't have won any prizes but then golf's always that harder on an unfamiliar course so I was just glad to enjoy the experience.

!

That sure tests the theory!

Mixed blessing. Ruins the golf because it brings so many occasional players out who spend ages looking for lost balls they won't find and wouldn't hit far if they did find em due to the deep undergrowth, leaving the queues to build up remorselessly. The longer the queues the more sleepy, tired and fed up the waiting groups become, making the whole situation as frustrating as a traffic jam. But if you play late, or do something else like picnicking, swimming and sunbathing at some favourite river pool that's a bit off the beaten track, then the water's invigorating and the sun's just great for warming you afterwards. Even just reading in the garden, accompanied by a big jug of iced Pimms and Lemonade, is paradise if you're far enough from the sounds of constant traffic and near enough to a cool shower. I realise the sun doesn't suit some but I just go brown as the stain on antiqued mahogany and probably look as weathered as the real stuff as a result. But who cares given the reward of feeling so relaxed - and even more so if there's good company as a bonus.

So is the forum accepting excuses about the Spurs game or not? Some seem willing to, others don't. Anyway, my point was that Amartey didn't show signs of not being able to cope - just of being in the same seemingly lethargic frame of mind as when he arrived. I know that hospital in Glenfield fits pacemakers but do they have anything that turns Ambling Man into Action Man or Unmoved Man into Urgency Man? Somewhere in Amartey is a decent player - at the very least in a spoiling sense - but, my life he needs to impose himself. It's alright being less than tight on Viccy Park but let Dele Alli look you in the eyes and he'll mesmorise you like something out of Greek mythology. I'm not saying he needs to clatter people but I am saying he needs to make his presence felt like a speed camera. Any threat at all and the light flashes.

What are these attributes that seem so elusive. Or is he just a pre-AFCON performer? Cos I'm sick of the effect of AFCON.

Yes, King does and I've mentioned it myself on occasions, but he gets no sympathy from anyone. My main point about Amartey though was that - match fit or any other way fit - he always seems to have this languid style which gets him around but not with any great sense of urgency or impact If he can shadow a man two yards away he can shadow him one yard away and get a foot in. ,

I've no real sympathy for anyone not being fit to play. As a fringe player opportunities are always around the corner and it's up to him to keep himself ready to be effective. Besides it didn't look like he was unfit - he was in and around the play all night. He just lacked any urgency and that's always been the case since I first saw him either ignoring runners or reacting far too late. The idea of shadowing people is not a kind of escort service. It's about waiting for the right moment to pinch the ball. Kante was a master at it but Amartey sits off people - more as a guy spoiling their view than trying to dispossess them. At first you do forgive him and presume that he'll learn but it hasn't happened. It might be a confidence or respect thing I suppose but really good players show no outward respect for anyone in an opposition shirt. They see dealing with top performers as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Kisnorbo's problem - if memory serves - was not so much defending in itself, but doing something constructive when he got the ball.

At least when Amartey's on the bench I think of it as a damage limitation exercise. As as last line of defence in front of the goalkeeper, no thanks.

Reflecting on Chilwell's performance:- a) Comparison with Simpson on the right was misleading. Simpson had his failings today - one related to a major weakness i've referred to before - and there was plenty of danger arising from his side as well as Chilwell's, particularly in the first half. b) Being an effective full-back is not just about stopping the winger beating you. It is part of a team effort. Lots of teams double up on dangerous players like Mahrez and what matters is how they work together. I thought Chilwell was left without sufficient help at times today, both in terms of dealing with Sterling and in terms of team-mates offering passing options when he had the ball. c) Chilwell had a far better second half than first but then Man City were much more defence-minded second half so little if anything was proved about Chilwell's defensive reliability. d) A definite fault first half was his poor passing. It started in one of our early attacks down the left when, faced with making a simple five-yard pass inside he missed our runner, passed the ball into empty space behind him and a promising move broke down. Thereafter he put simple passes out of play or just misdirected or misweighted them. It disappointed me because passing is one of his strengths. e) He looked sharp and strong which was heartening because he's looked lightweight in the past and once again, he looked for the ball, tried to take responsibility and showed promise going forward. More positives. f) Too often though he was left short of a quick call for a one-touch pass which is not his fault directly but he needs to demand support if it's lacking. It's the same when he's faced with a strong individual talent. He needs to demand and direct that colleagues provide back-up and that, to me, seemed more or a problem than the basic problem of Sterling's ability. g) To keep things in proportion Manchester scored two goals at home today, of which one was a clumsy penalty that had little or nothing to do with Chilwell and, apart from a 20 minute spell before half-time I thought we contained them quite well considering our re-jigged backline. Chilwell played his part in that because he did face up and he did demand the ball which will be one of his great strengths as he evolves. Another strength is his coolness. I like defenders who are determined but don't panic or act rashly. Altogether I think him highly promising but he needs to work on his consistency, his decision-making, his organising and demands of others around him. And his reading of situations in terms of when to be positive and when to jockey an opponent until more help arrives. It doesn't help that people ignore his weaknesses in trying to big him up for whatever reason. He's a young prospect right now and needs to focus on improving every weakness he can identify. But of the three "emerging" youngsters out there today - Chilwell, Amartey and Gray - I'd say Chilwell was the one I'd back to become a first teamer if he stays grounded and accepts that his breakthrough will take time and still greater effort.

No, you build around a solid, reliable, talented core and introduce promising youngsters gradually at first and more regularly as they grow in confidence and show they can take greater responsibility.

Yes, it was a maizey run and there were other moments of promise, but let's not forget all the errors. And N'didi no less.

King was one of our few competent passers in the first half and it was a pity no-one around was able to continue some of the moves. In truth our passing first half was generally appalling. Even people like Chilwell and N'didi were doing anything but finding the right shade of blue shirt. We did improve second half but then Manchester were much more concerned with "contain" rather than "destroy", Fernandinho excepted, or course.

King is rarely given a forward-looking role any more, his function seems to be retaining possession and keeping the tempo calm as we play out time under what might otherwise be increasing pressure. As ever, King will happily do what's asked of him but he can hardly be criticised for not providing assists if his instructions are to help shut up shop.