inckley fox

I'd love Luke to do well for us, but I really don't think he was.

What's good about our play - drawing players into a press, then advancing the ball up the pitch - is also what's so dangerous about it. His style of play is one which makes it very hard to be in control of a game even when you're seeing way more of the ball. It's a style which is based on massive risk in dangerous areas in order to build your play. There are thousands of ways of going about the game, many of which allow you to dominate possession. But Martin's take on the possession-heavy approach has never, at any level, looked like a consistently effective interpretation. It's ineffective at its core and, in KP terms, definitely not a 'sustainable' brand of football (if you remember that proclamation back in 2017).

I strongly oppose using terms like 'spineless goon' and 'gormless waste of space' to describe our players, and would never wish to apply such slanders to poor Tommy Watson. But he is crap.

Well what a ****ing surprise.

Nice of us to employ a tactical approach and style of play which meant that our one man advantage effectively meant nothing. Thank god the referee liked us.

Great answer, and makes perfect sense to me. It does beg the question whether AI is more dangerous when it's scuttling about to do a human's bidding, rather than setting its own objectives. We ask it to reach for the stars; it covers the earth's surface with solar panels. We ask it to kill rabies, and it kills all animals that can potentially acquire it. Maybe AI will be better at setting the task than we are, if that makes sense. On the other hand, I'm well aware that this is a gross simplification of the inherent risks (on my part). It's obviously much more messy than that. Still, a useful dilemma for sci-fi writers, perhaps. Maybe we have some on the forum, who knows!

I know in philosophical circles there's this question going on: does sentience presuppose compassion? I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it (god, that sounds like something Google AI would say!).

Obama, Sanders and co are right to say this needs to be at the forefront of Democrat campaigning. The Trump-Xi summit should be the moment to address this properly and begin to form an international consensus, but he's going to resist that immensely. The good thing about the current furore is that much of the domestic AI-related US legislation - and a lot is being passed; 150 odd bills in recent times - will be out of his 'steady' hands, to quote Johnson. The downside is that it may all come too late, but from what I've read the likeliest outcome is, first up, smaller scale 'catastrophes' rather than straight to Armageddon. And, given his current stance and, conversely, given the reservations that the huge survivalist brigade that vote for him have about AI, this could well serve as the turning point we've all awaited. Why? Because lurches to fascism and populism never reverse unless those who support it pay a real, and dear, price. The moment they say: oh god, I fell for this, and now I'm ****ed. So if this leads to a moment in which countries work together in a way they've failed to in recent times, and Trumpism is truly exposed to those who back it most in a way that most severely affects them, then something positive could potentially come from disaster (with the proviso that we don't all die during the learning process). Because let's be honest, with or without AI, the love for extreme right-wing ideals is going to end in the worst imaginable form of disaster. History tells us that. But if it's a disaster which refocuses human attention and leads to effective regulation of something which isn't human, then it won't be all bad. In the meantime, as nuts as it sounds, keep stocked up on your dried food and water, and get yourself a battery radio. Because the chances of the 'lights going out', and worse, are going to be high in the days, weeks, months and years to come. What a shame, of course, that people will most probably have to learn (if they get the chance to learn, which I hope they will) the hard way.

If you lived where I live, you wouldn't touch him with a forty foot pole. He's made some baffling decisions and looked way, way out of his depth. For me, I'd like us to look at managers who are actually good at their jobs for once. He's had a mare at three of his six clubs and in two of his last three jobs, and even in his native tongue doesn't come across as a particularly sharp chap. I know it's tempting to go for managers who have managed high-profile clubs, especially when they're foreign, but I would honestly give this one a wide berth.

You have to wonder what would have happened if we'd developed him more last season instead of giving him a few matches till he signed on, then prioritising Skipp, Soumare, Winks, or bringing in loanees like Ramsey and Aribo. Perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now, and facing the prospect of selling him to keep the club afloat.

You're right about him fading, but I'd consider that first half more than 'a few moments'.

I think it's generally agreed in football that keepers organise their wall. And when a limp shot comes in, naturally they should save the shot. The defence was poor and that's been an issue for Martin throughout his career as a boss. While he's pulled off a good win there and deserves credit, I find it odd that you'd watch that particular game and exempt him from criticism for his ability to set up a defence.

I honestly don't get it, and never have, when people say he's a good talker. He comes across as self-indulgent, unsophisticated, self-pitying and easily flustered. I've never seen anything to suggest he's management material in any field. I'm amazed anyone has ever been kidded by him. When people spoke highly of his Lineker interview I watched it with an open mind and was utterly unimpressed. I pin all my hopes on there being something, unidentifiable to me, which makes him a competent manager, though his past record suggests there isn't. Like I've said before, though, I have been wrong in the past. I want him to do well too, of course. What sort of fan would I be otherwise? And I think we haven't quite seen enough to say that it's worth uprooting all of our pre-season team-building, only five league games in, in order to be rid of him. There's a degree here of having made our bed, and so on. But after those early results, and the last game - regardless of my feelings that instant returns are unlikely for a manager at this club - you have to say that his time could be short. After all, we're trying to sell the club as a sleeping giant, rather than as a substandard third tier side with mounting debts. That's going to be impossible if we don't pick it up very, very quickly.

Well, I'll give him a bit longer than most on here, but to me the 'hurt' that he was feeling in that interview seemed to be more about himself than it was about the club. He was seriously threatened about comments about his style rather than willing to articulately defend it. Instead he uses the word 'energy' a thousand times over, loosely blames our younger players, and points towards his past record (which I wouldn't, too much, if I were him) as cause for optimism. Of course, a win tomorrow and loads will forget their pessimism. But in the medium term, and even more so in the long term, the early signs aren't good at all. Still, I've been proven wrong many a time. Let's hope it happens again.

There are a lot of successful football managers who aren't massively bright so you never know. But he strikes me as exceptionally unintelligent. I hope he turns it round and, with that squad at this level, he might. Still, his pre-match was extraordinary for me. He seemed to be especially seething at the excellent, more searching questions by the female interviewer. I had to wonder whether he's a man who struggles with articulate women, because it clearly, visibly unsettled him. He took it extremely personally. To me, he looked like the archetype of someone who knows they've failed, and is ready to lash out at the world for failing to understand him. Even so, strange things can happen - but they have to happen very soon.