inckley fox

I read this last week and it came to mind with something I read today. I do this awful thing where I trawl through international newspapers for a bit each morning, mostly so I can impress (or, rather, annoy) people throughout the day with all the titbits I've come across. And today in the Spanish news there were two pieces side by side. One about soaring levels of depression - or sadness might be a better word - and anxiety among under-30s and teenagers. The other said that 25% of young Spanish males - i.e. the ones who never had to deal with Franco or the aftermath - would support a dictatorship. I couldn't help but feel they were different faces of the same beast. Okay, the question itself was part of the problem, designed to show up young people's 'thickness'. The question 'Would you agree that sometimes an authoritarian leader might be better than a democratically-elected politician?' really isn't the same, despite their conclusions, as 'Do you prefer democracy or dictatorship?' But it backs up the idea that the disillusion among younger people is dangerous, can be seen everywhere you look, and has multiple causes. In the same survey over 40% said that it wasn't only social media which was feeding them with a misleading and unduly negative view of the world. It was (I can't remember exactly) I suppose also TV, news, parents, schools and so on. I'm not sure what the solutions need to be, but I suspect they'll have to be fairly radical. On the back of what happened in Germany yesterday, or in the UK over the summer, we obviously need to find some kind of distinction between propaganda and freedom of expression. And we need people to fear each other's company a bit less. Social networks, news channels, politicians, parents and (possibly the easiest area to impact on quickly) schools are all going to have to be looked at in some way or other. Banning mobile phones in schools may be a useful symbolic step, but a wider cultural shift - as Babylon mentioned - which backtracks on some of the post-9/11 paranoia is vital. We're too scared of the world, we don't get out and have fun enough, the arts aren't thriving (often apparent when cultures starts to come apart at the seams), the football's too expensive, and the rhetoric - in the Guardian as much as the Mail - is too divisive. We've become too cynical, fearful and negative about humanity in general. As others stated, much of life has become about simply doing what you have to do to get by in what's painted as a pretty dreadful world. I see a lot of anxiety everywhere, in all age groups. As a final aside... For the smokers out there, would a measure which could lead to the closure of many pubs which are the last gathering-place for many communities, really help in a climate where people see less and less of each other? And where communal spirit was, in the end, the thing which brought an end to the riots a few weeks ago? Personally, I'd be doing all I could to try to give people ways of enjoying each other's company face-to-face, rather than taking them away. And I'd definitely prefer young people to be going down the pub and vaping and irritating me there rather than hiding the bloody things in their school ties!

I just thought he was too late in attacking the game. At 55 minutes I was screaming that we'd end up two down if we didn't get more creative players on the field. He needs time, of course, and he clearly has the players brilliantly motivated. But his negativity was a problem.

Look back on the forum. It wasn't positive.

Really? I'd say you're wrong on four counts. 1. The idea that a manager shouldn't have 10+ games would have deprived us of the O'Neill years, and the second Pearson reign. Not to mention Wallace and Milne. 2. Surely most expected us to go down before Maresca left? Or did I dream that? We have financial limitations, change of boss, are newly promoted and awaiting a points deductions. Surely that has relegation all over it. 3. The factors in (2), or the general mismanagement of the club over 2-3 seasons or more - or even, if you want to be harsh, the manager - are more likely to be factors in any upcoming relegation than fans wishing to be positive. 4. He kept a Forest side up that were never expected to go up, and have been chaotically run for some time. And was arguably on track to do it again. How isn't he good enough? And how can anyone reasonably come to that conclusion already, regardless of whether it ends up being right? On the other hand, if everyone decides that the manager isn't good enough, is determined to see him gone and fails to appreciate the gravity of the mess caused by previous mismanagement, then yes, that would be seriously problematic for us. But yes, you're right in one thing, in that it is all a bit crap! And I'm not too happy with the boss either based on our set piece defending alone, so I have some sympathy for your frustration.

To be honest, it would have been fine to my mind if he'd said 'While it contradicts aspects of my religious beliefs, I do respect that we live in a culture where these lifestyles are tolerated, and am happy to live in such a culture. Though I don't wish to oppress anyone's freedoms, I'm uncomfortable with being obliged to wear something for which the symbolism, in my view, goes beyond that message.' Or words to that effect. And if he'd been told he had to wear it whether he liked it or not, then his boycott might have been more understandable, because I don't believe we can tell people what they have to believe in, or wear. Perhaps he did articulate something along those lines. Perhaps it was the gun being held to his head which was the critical factor. I have my doubts that he did that, however. I suspect he doesn't want to toe any lines, will boycott games, doesn't want to live in a tolerant culture, and will get himself into more trouble for his extreme views. And then, you'd have to wonder whether it'd all be worth it for someone who's nearly 27, and apparently not very good.

Firstly, I'm not sure whether all of this is true! I've only seen the Wikipedia segment. Wearing a rainbow armband surely doesn't mean you like or partake in anything; rather that you'll support people's rights not to be oppressed for perfectly normal lifestyle choices. In a free country, surely that's fundamental. I don't agree with religion, but you have the right to be religious. I don't think you need to agree with something to be tolerant of it. In this case, it seems that he's the one who is being overly sensitive. It's his stance which is so extreme that he can't even do his job properly. That's going to be a problem from a practical point of view and, as this thread attests, draw a lot of unwanted attention. He's saying he can't deal with others living as they choose, not the other way round. Of course, he can have his opinions. He could have extreme ideas if, as a well-paid, high-profile representative of a community, he made sure that they didn't interfere with his job. I've had teachers with some very extreme beliefs, and that's fine if they don't affect their professionalism. If they did, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. In his case, it seems there's a big question mark there. It's quite different to forcing a non-Christian to wear a cross on Xmas Day, or an Argentinian to wear a poppy. It's about tolerance, rather than signing up to any viewpoint. And I think he'll rightly have problems if he truly does have such a serious issue with that.

I suppose, unless you watched Cannon extensively on his previous loan, it's hard to say. He's barely kicked a ball for us, so all we have to go on is that successive managers haven't appeared to rate him highly. I think he's one of those where his absence has led to people mixing up their curiosity with the hope that he's what we're missing (if that makes sense). Mind you, I haven't seen enough of Broja to be sure that he's an upgrade either. I doubt there are all that many on here who have studied either of them at length, let alone both.

If he refuses to play games as a result of it, they will.

You must have loved it when we signed Vardy, Mahrez, Schmeichel, Ulloa, Drinkwater, James, Kante, Maddison, Soyuncu (and so on)!

Obviously you weren't paying attention to our post-Xmas form. Everyone was rightly worried about where things were going towards the end under Maresca. Factor in an upcoming deduction and limited dealings, and we're in a right mess. Any manager will need time - and a lot more than two games. A draw vs Spurs and a narrow loss to Fulham are by no means cause for people to be calling for a manager's head. That's such an obvious observation, that it seems absurd to even be repeating it.

Potter would be crazy to come. The Forest fans I know thought Cooper was nuts too. Pearson tried a lot of different ideas before he got it right in the PL. It clicked in March, with a 3-4-1-2 and an almost all-out attack approach which few of us saw coming. Two games in, it is absolutely the definition of knee-jerk to say the manager is out of his depth. Especially given (a) that he's already shown elsewhere that he isn't out of his depth and (b) we're in a right old mess, and were before Maresca left. Just look at our post-Xmas form.

I agree with many that Justin was poor for their second, but also felt Fatawu switched off and led to him being pulled out of position. Hermansen might also have done a bit better. Reid is one of those players I've never rated at all. I'll be patient, but it hasn't started too well. Winks and Wilf could also be an issue. And poor Kasey, I suspect, is going to find himself squeezed out if we bring new men in.

It's good to see people giving a new manager a fair crack of the whip, given that he's walking into a club which looked barely good enough to go up post-Xmas, is facing a deduction, and hasn't done much business thus far. If we lost the next three or four or even five we'd still be the biggest laughing stock in the game for firing him, and rightly so. Potter in?! Delusions of grandeur, once again. Perhaps some will remember the shaky starts under Wallace, Milne, O'Neill and Pearson Mk. 2. Or the amazing starts under Taylor, Levein and Sven. I understand anger and frustration, but that doesn't make it right. We competed away from home with a side that finished 13th, having got a point vs one of the league's best teams in our first game. Yes, we were poor and need to get a LOT better. No, I don't think much of the Ayew signing (though our bigger problems today were longer standing ones). No, I'm not convinced that the club is headed in the right direction, nor that Cooper will turn out to be the right man. But I'm very thankful that the noise I heard our fans making at the game was a lot more positive than some of the rabid nonsense on here. In fact, much of this is embarrassing, childish and totally unhelpful.

I've always been Andres rather than Andrew in certain countries. They just revert to that automatically, and of course it's fine. People do ask for the correct pronunciation from time to time. I often find it a bit pretentious when football commentators and 'people of that ilk' (to quote the big man) try to pronounce names correctly, and usually get it wrong. I remember Steve Coogan saying that the origin of Partridge was the fact that sports commentators have a sense of their own intelligence which isn't merited. Perhaps that's what's going on with that. Another example is how Spanish people always call Queen Elizabeth 'Isabel' and Charles 'Carlos', whereas we try to call their King 'Felipe' rather than 'Philip'. It shouldn't really matter, but perhaps some English people do this to either compensate for their poor grasp of foreign languages, or in some cases to sound cleverer than they really are! I'm not sure. Actually, I do this when it comes to ordering curries. So I have no right to sneer.

I honestly didn't see that.

I honestly thought he had a nightmare. Thankfully, for him, most of his colleagues were equally dire. It's highly unlikely that anyone will pinpoint his deficiencies when they're up against those of the CBs, CMs and wingers. Something huge needs to happen if we're to avoid humiliation this season. We should be 3 or 4 down. But you never know.

The O'Neill era was marked by unimpressive and unimaginative-looking signings which made you say 'oh, that old carthorse?!' or 'is that really what we need?' I'm clinging on to the hope that these signings are in that Claridge / Keller / Prior / Marshall / Cottee / Taggart / Sinclair / Impey bracket, rather than anything from the Adams era. Even Pearson liked a few veterans, albeit at budget prices. It's more expensive, even relatively speaking, than any of the aforementioned, but then again he's a good few years younger than most of them were. Even if Reid and, if he comes, Ayew, certainly aren't. And our recent recruitment hasn't always suggested that recruitment is in line with management. But you never know.

I remember that when Pearson was fired, they both celebrated it on the grounds that Neil Lennon might be the next boss. So I'd hesitate before going wild about their endorsements. And I might be wrong, but I think Pearson - when asked - said he preferred The Cure and XTC. And not just because the latter wrote 'Making Plans for Nigel'.

Didn't Nige tell them that he thought they were crap? Or did I imagine that?

I suppose the question is the degree to which he's in charge of it, given that he reports to Top. Is it Rudkin who decided, for instance, that only a possession-based game is truly sustainable? When the owners first turned up, before Rudkin was in charge, we heard similar assertions that they wanted a more continental brand of football. We also saw a haphazard transfer policy until Pearson and his team reappeared. So these things predate his tenure. Equally, the book-balancing which seems to have done for us recently is unlikely to have been his principal remit. And if Whelan is also reporting to Top and, as with Rudkin, the boss has seemed no cause to move her on, you'd have to guess that there's consensus. This is all retreading old ground, I know, but within it all - especially given the inherent level of risk-taking in the business, and the past success that these people have had - there's room for people to sound a note of caution in our retributions, while still wanting change. And being balanced enough to point out that, if our current footballing woes are of Rudkin's making, then he'd also need praise for past glories under his watch.

Okay, I could be wrong. I don't go over everything with a fine tooth comb, to be fair! But would you agree that there's a danger of people having made their minds up that Rudkin, regardless of who he reports to, is primarily responsible for our decline? Might that let others off the hook? Might it even be the case that Top quite likes him being in situ in order to take the flak? I'm sure you'll tell me that people do all of those things too, but I don't get the impression that it's to anything like the same extent. To clarify, I want to see evidence of the club learning from its errors, and think a rejig which sees Rudkin moved on would be encouraging, because it'd demonstrate a serious rethink. I just find the degree to which people focus on his role is a tad strange, and maybe a result of us not wanting to 'turn on' Top.

Totally go along with that. I've seen him loads since he was at Derby. Really don't rate him at all.

You've been pretty consistent. I might not agree on everything but you've gone to pains to explain that the board, including Top and Rudkin, have question marks against them. Still, balance matters. I think sometimes people just want to rip their shirts off, daub themselves red, don a bandana and go baying for blood. And anyone who doesn't is 'one of them'.

He misses the point that a person can be responsible for something positive, and then subsequently be to blame for something negative. Pearson took us up two divisions and formed our best ever side, but history shows it was right to fire him. Ranieri won the league, but likewise. Shakespeare kept us up but had to go. Puel restructured our squad superbly, but few would argue that he needed to leave. Rodgers outperformed expectations for two years, but was patently counter-productive by the time he departed. I mean, in life in general people aren't just uniformly good and bad. You can't go saying 'well, you got that right so we should just carry on doing whatever you say'. The same Prime Ministers who oversaw our recovery after World War One were the ones who failed to rearm the country, and appeased Hitler. Should we have stuck with them? Where Top is concerned, he wasn't primarily responsible for our ascent. He was the son of the owner, rather than the owner, and the 'football people' have always been the boss and their people or, if you want to be overly generous, Rudkin. For a long time he's overseen decline at the club, and it's right to ask whether he's still the right man, or is even interested in being the right man any more. You can appreciate the money he's pumped in, much like Derby fans might appreciate Mel Morris' investment, but at the same time see that either he changes his way of operating, or needs to hand over the reins for the good of the club. Even a first half hat trick doesn't mean you shouldn't come off when you're pooped after sixty minutes.

Okay, so you don't have anything to say, you just want to be a bit spiky. That's alright.