inckley fox

Well, yes. But Schmeichel, Morgan, Drinkwater, Vardy and Mahrez had a fairly significant role in that too. And of course De Laet, Schlupp and King picked up medals, with Wasilewski also a prominent squad member. This squad is a fair way off that sort of talent. In fact, very few 2nd tier sides in history have come close to that level of talent. If this side provides the backbone to one of the greatest ever top flight line-ups, as the 2013-14 side did, then we can speak about them in the same terms.

Pearson's Championship-winning side did, for the most part, go on to win the Premier League two years later. That makes it one of the best second tier-winning teams in history. We're doing well now, but don't get too carried away. Points totals are always relative to the league at the time.

Unless there's been a rule change that I've missed, that's 100% Ndidi's goal. I've literally never seen one awarded to anyone other than the final touch by a player of the same team, intentional or otherwise. And in this case the goal almost certainly doesn't happen without the touch, so it's fairly straightforward. Does Gerry Taggart (for fellow Foxeshub sufferers) decide who our goalscorers are now? If there had been a rule change, it would have to be along the lines of 'unintentional deflections by any player (as opposed to opposition only) of a goalbound shot are not deemed decisive in the attribution of a scorer'. Or perhaps there was something illegal in Wilf's contact which I missed, and there's a rule change involving illegal contacts on (incorrectly awarded) goals where there's a deflection. But like I say, I don't think he was offside from what I recall, nor that the ball went anywhere near his arm. It's potentially important because of the huge amounts of money won and lost by people who gamble on this sort of thing. It might not be this instance, but if someone someday stood to win or lose a significant amount based on the incorrect awarding of a goal, you might end up with some raised eyebrows.

Did Foxeshub just broadcast him saying something that we weren't meant to hear? Who was he referring to who 'thinks that they're better than everyone else'?

Yes, if anyone has a stream that works, please PM me too.

Perhaps part of the problem was that he too thought 'they're the worst side in this league and we can do them with a half-strength side.' I understand the need for rotation but felt at the time that six changes was excessive, that the 8s would struggle, and that the opposition would be begging for us to show just enough in the way of lack of purpose for them to stay in the game. It hardly came as a surprise when it panned out that way, especially given recent form, and how sides are proving increasingly efficient at stifling us. And we won our previous game after back-to-back losses, so clearly the reason for shaking things up wasn't the poor form of the players who were up against Watford. If you consider those changes 'a good call' based on form, then you would never have had, for instance, Cesare coming in for KDH.

Yes, that's the 2015-16 dip I was on about. Perhaps less marked than this one, and less worrying given what expectations were at the time. Two years earlier, yes, you're right. Those poor results were dotted about. I was just trying to be upbeat after spending a day or two complaining!

It's important to remember that we also had a dip or two in our last two league-topping seasons in 2014 and, a division higher, 2016. Didn't we need Kasper (or, if you like, Chris Wood) to rescue us late on in a dour 1-1 draw against someone theoretically rubbish? It's all down to how well we recover now, just as it was then. The apparent insistence of an inexperienced boss on absolutely no flexibility whatsoever worries me, as it should everyone else, but he's shown that he can meet expectations already. Despite my many reservations, I'll give him ample opportunity over the next ten games to deliver again.

O'Neill also got a promotion from this league and did well for several years with a side expected to struggle - two things Pep has never done, and precisely what Maresca is expected to do now. We don't have anything like Pep's resources, even relative to the league we're in, so it makes sense for people to look at our last two 'ultimately successful' promotions to the top flight, in 1996 and 2014, for guidance. Of course the game has changed a lot since then, and I understand the need for a fair degree of rotation. But six changes resulting in a line-up with three CBs and three wingers in essentially a 4-5-1 variant, with a young player who's looked out of sorts for much of the season in an entirely rejigged midfield, seems excessive and poorly thought-through to me.

Some good points. I also think that if you're uniformly unwilling to move the ball up the pitch quickly, take the odd risk and test sides in the first 60 minutes, then sides will simply realise that there's less danger in pressing your defenders. Even if you can break, you won't, because the 'patience please' mantra tends to prevent it. They have too much time to regroup because we're too keen to 'recycle' possession.

A bit of context is needed for both the over-reactions and the under-reactions. For the former, the obvious point is that Maresca started superbly, he's still learning as you say and we're in a position, overall, which should afford the manager some backing. Dips are bound to occur and, while any new boss deserves ample time, his early success warrants even more patience on our part. For the latter take, I'd say we are pretty much where the squad which, on paper, is the best in the division, should be right now. Points totals are all relative, but the margin between us and 2nd, and them and 3rd is roughly what most pundits expected right now. So yes he's delivered over the short-term, but no, he's not done anything yet which goes above and beyond expectation, regardless of how thrilling it may be to see the points clocked up after a couple of years of decline. And yes, we've only dropped points in four games, but three of those games were in the last four, so we can't simply dismiss it as an off day that we draw a line under. As for comparisons with Rodgers, well, BR really did have a lot in the bank when his decline occurred. He had achieved success which went above and beyond, which is why people didn't want to acknowledge that anything was up. We don't need to make that same mistake because of a fine run of form early in a second tier season. Because of those lofty and justifiable expectations, the manager will either prove himself or otherwise, in a fairly short-term timespan, as a result of the tweaks he makes to remedy this dip. Regarding comparisons in footballing style, I'd say that they have a fair bit in common. There's a lot of apparently (but not necessarily) purposeless possession with very little variation on the theme and not too many chances created. Yes there's an inverted full back, no ten, two 8s and even less risk-taking in offensive areas, but it's still easier to draw comparisons between Enzo and BR or Puel than it is with most managers, and most of our managers in living memory. Quite apart from that is how you feel about the football. But if it's deemed negative and dull, you're always going to have to provide the results to back up your choices. As blistering a start as it was, we don't know whether he can deliver that yet, and there are a few worrying signs.

'Shite', no, of course not. But we're where we were expected by most to be, with our noses just ahead of second, and we're on a slump. I understand why sides with our quality want to dominate possession, but even within that we're not at all a tactically-flexible side. That can work, but the obvious question is always 'will there come a point when you're sussed?' That happened after the brightest of starts at this level under Pleat, McGhee and Sven, and of course it could happen again. He's a long way from achieving what he was employed to achieve, and things are looking tighter and tighter. So I wouldn't get too carried away with what a great job he's done. You consider it unthinkable that people are underwhelmed by a manager who is top, and you say that it's wrong to think any old manager could do a job with them. While I'd agree that Enzo deserves more credit than that, you have to think of some of managers who have taken teams to the top of this league in recent years. I know Enzo has been flavour of the month, but he's still not achieved what many others - who most would term 'shite' without a word of debate - managed to pull off by ending the season in a promotion place, or as champions. So I'm not going to rush to judgement one way or another.

It's mind-numbingly unadventurous football. Once in a while, at very least, it would help us to participate fully in a first half, if only to keep opposition guessing. I understand the reason for all the patience, but we're deliberately taking games to the wire late on, instead of making a concerted effort to wrap up the points earlier. And yet, while it's painstakingly risk-free going forward, we're sailing perpetually close to the wind at the other end of the pitch. It's as if risk-taking is great so long as it isn't confused with any notion of attacking urgency. As for the unnecessary risk-taking with that team selection - which felt like a true case of picking numbers blindly from the hat - well, it was like the boss wasn't treating the occasion as a serious challenge. He's started well, and even if the dip continues I'll be patient. But expectations for this side have been sky-high, and a good start to the season still leaves him a long way short of what you'd classify as success for the club. There are warning signs now that Maresca's preferred system is all getting a bit easy to read, and that future success may require more flexibility, and a few less self-inflicted wounds.

I think someone needs to read Enzo the riot act, personally.

Totally agree that Hamza's ratings are too low. He was one of the best players on the pitch for me.

I wouldn't take Hamza off. I'd look at the attacking three who seem to be lacking in initiative.

You're kind of encouraging people to overreact one way or another when a goal is scored. I think it's fine to point out that we look a bit flat while things are going well. I still think we'll win, but we're being too conservative when in good positions, and occasionally being hasty when we're not. And there have been a handful of sub-par displays.

We're boring as hell.

Yes, same problem. But hey, according to the club we're imagining things. Thankfully nothing has happened (again). Otherwise it'd be really annoying. Cheers Enzo!

I always understood the ref to be the 23rd player on the pitch, and that his performance - and often the bleating on about it - was part of the game. I worried that even goal-line technology could diminish that, and start to open up a greater gulf between the experience that millions of people had of playing the game in the UK, and what was going on at the highest level. I believed we weren't doing enough to maintain standards with that 23rd man. Perhaps they did need more money and, in turn, the kind of scrutiny and transparency that such an important role deserves. I felt we should look at that more before opening the proverbial pandora's box. Of course, I totally appreciated the argument that technology could do a lot to raise standards too. And there's no doubt that the goal-line technology has served its purpose superbly, because the use of technology made sense (even if it wasn't my preferred way forward) with the caveat that it doesn't detract from the spectacle or spirit of the game. However there's little doubt that VAR in its current form has done just that. Powers-that-be didn't do enough to make sure that it didn't become invasive, cumbersome and at the same time almost equally controversial as what went before. The rule changes, specifically to handball, were madness as it gave more reasons for people to disallow goals, and therefore more for VAR to check over. I also believe that if more attention was paid to the impact on the 'entertainment' side to the game, many of the other gripes would get less attention. People don't like VAR because they want to celebrate a goal properly when it happens, and don't want to be waiting for minutes for decisions while everything is forensically analysed. That's crucial to football. So if the authorities ask themselves 'how can this be used, but still allow for all that?' Then you might see a lot of the disputes about 'clear and obvious' (grey areas which ultimately serve to benefit bigger sides) become obsolete. For instance, 3 out of 4 goals can be given on the spot, with a ref calling explicitly and visibly for help from VAR when he or another official feels the need, so that peoplr know whether they're celebrating a goal or waiting for a check. Yes, occasionally something would be missed, but if refereeing standards were better-monitored, with recognition of errors, things would improve. You could still have a routine check of red or even yellow cards (I still see no need for the faffing around, going to pitchside monitors if there's another ref with a better view of the incident), but it wouldn't hit the game where it hurts the most. The problem, and its creation, is from people's inability to accept that human error is inevitable. And not necessarily the end of the world.

That's fair and well-reasoned. I certainly won't be arguing with you about that video either! It worried me the moment I heard Peter Jackson saying he couldn't make a Beatles video without new footage. Thank god nobody said that to the artists who prepared great visual accompaniments to 'Eleanor Rigby', 'Sgt Pepper', 'Lucy in the Sky' etc. without any such luxury. I can understand why you'd consider that this isn't a song which has the consensual participation of all of The Beatles, and I totally get your suspicions that neither John nor George would have been on board. As for your view of the song, well, that's your personal take, and I'm sure you're not alone in feeling that way. However I'd make three points in response. Firstly, that George had taken part in those sessions, and two previous releases. Even though he may have expressed a desire to leave 'Now and Then' alone, I can't get too upset over what his wishes may have been when he'd not shown a whole load of interest in whatever John's reservations would likely have been up to that point. Secondly, even when The Beatles were together the definition of what constituted a 'Beatles' song which had the group's full collaboration and/or consent was often stretched. Was 'Revolution 9', solely recorded by John and disliked by the others, truly a Beatles song? Was 'Why Don't We Do It In the Road?', recorded by Paul on the sly to John's bemusement, a Beatles song? Or 'Dear Prudence', made while Ringo had briefly quit, with Paul taking his place on drums? Or 'The Ballad of John and Yoko', entirely recorded by John and Paul? I'd argue that a Lennon song - by no means permanently abandoned, given that he often sat on songs or developed them over years - which Yoko and possibly even he intended for Paul, and which features all four of them on the recording, is every bit as much a Beatles song as some of the aforementioned. And my final point is that I maintain it's a pretty damn good song. The positive reception reflects many fans' pleasant sense of surprise that 'Now and Then' might pass muster as a Beatles track. Perhaps that judgement is muddied by nostalgia and sentimentality, but I'm quite happy to enjoy the moment myself. Even if I hate the video! As for whether it's The Beatles - it doesn't matter too much whether John wanted to look on 'Let It Be', 'Why Don't We Do It' as Beatles songs, nor Paul and the others when it comes to 'Revolution 9'. That's what it says on the can at the end of the day, and beyond that all that really matters is whether you're into the song, as I am, or not, as you are. Is Paul a revisionist? Absolutely! He can't stop contradicting himself about who wrote the verses for 'A Day in the Life', which literally nobody including him had questioned for half a century, and has consistently downplayed John's work on a whole load of other tracks. But John used to play that game too, claiming 'Eleanor Rigby' was basically his lyric, when everyone else disputed the fact, or that he offered the best lines in 'Blackbird' and even 'Taxman'. They were competitive, and while it gets on my nerves too at times, I also appreciate that that's what made them work so well as a partnership.

I honestly couldn't disagree with you more. It's a good new song by The Beatles. We haven't been able to say that in my entire lifetime, and yes, I was there when 'Free As A Bird' came out! No, it's not 'A Day in the Life', but you couldn't expect that from them in 1969 or 1970 either. It's a very suitable ending, and not everything has to be groundbreaking or bouncing with the joys of summer. It's reflective and lamenting, I grant you, but plenty of good music - and plenty of their good music - is. If you don't like it, fine, but I do wonder if some people either had unrealistic expectations or are just being negative nancies! Mind you, I wouldn't encourage anyone to watch that video. Aside from the shot of Paul looking back with wonderment at where he's been and who he's been there with - as corny as it may be, I still think it's an affecting moment - I think the whole thing is quite crass and amateurish. I fully expect to see an alternative video, or perhaps even fan-made vids which supplant it as an accompaniment.

If you're asking me that, you fundamentally misunderstood what the problem with Rodgers was. What a silly comment. We were ploddish, predictable, poor. It's been on the cards as well. We'll be fine if we see that we deserved to lose (which didn't come across in the press conference) and learn from it. If we're arrogant and decide that it was sour luck, we'll be in trouble. Surely that's stating the obvious.

No striker could have prospered in that game.

Can't win them all?! We were crap. Again! We'd ridden our luck for two games beforehand, and are starting to look jaded and predictable. Read the warning signs, and improve. Let's not kid ourselves that this is an outlier, nor that we've been at the level over recent weeks. If we're honest about it, and reappraise things, we'll be okay. If we shrug it off as ill-fortune, it'll get a lot worse.