taupe

You don't have to understand why people hate Spurs, just accept that they do. Hate is simply a personal reaction to something, an emotion, it needn't be cause to call the police (there are other names for the kind of hatred; racism, misogyny, homophobia etc) I think it completely normal that football fans will 'hate' another team and/or irs fans. It's not compulsory of course but it goes with the territory. People hate all kinds of things; baked beans, strawberry ice cream, double parking, Harry Stiles (I'll bet someone chuckled at that, and thought 'quite right too') Hatred exists within most people, often for reasons the person themselves won't understand. Admittedly, it's what they do with that can cause problems but I think for the most part hatred is a quite normal human emotion. Don't make into something it's not. If the word offends then read it as 'I don't like' with a bit of extra zest.

Indeed. Swallows and summers etc. There were promising signs against Villa and Spurs will be a better test of what difference the new signings will make longer term, and to consistency. Unfortunately, I'm never confident against them so that is admittedly and sadly colouring my outlook BUT we are capable on a good day, as we have seen. Yes we do all want the same result, and particularly against them for me!

I won't believe a weather forecast unless Brendon Rodgers delivers it

Tongue in cheek or otherwise, it's been said. Odd thing is, you clearly agree that we haven't turned a corner, nor are we back.

As am I.

Actually, they have....

Possibly not. It's a while since I read it but the character's detachment, other world-yness, alienation is perhaps reflected by the prose style.

One of those goals I shall never tire of watching.

I don't think so. Unless I've misunderstood the point you're making.

I agree. There were obviously encouraging signs, particularly from Tete (not just him but also the change of shape and options he gave us) but I am aware that Villa were awful defensively and that may or may not have flattered us. I'd certainly want to see more evidence before proclaiming we're back.

I'm never confident against Spurs. And I hate losing to them. More than any other side in fact. I would luv'it, just luv'it, if we beat them. Loris is good for a howler as a rule so looks like we can't rely on a gimme there.

I don't see it as putting us down to comment on a performance. For me, that's confusing two different issues.

You'd have thought.... but then there's mileage even in that, as I say, if played right. I don't know. The fearful part of me hopes it won't simply be a platform, the hopeful side of me wants talented writers to do something more nuanced with that character. Some comedians have been saying satire is dead in the current age, well here is an opportunity to rewire it. There's a tightrope to be walked perhaps.... or it could just play to a subset of the nation. But then, so did Fawlty Towers. Tbh, I'm not sure if it's a mistake and if the legacy should be left intact.

Villa's defending was awful. Ours was better if not somewhat frantic on occasions. The commentators on the stream I watched were saying it could be a basketball score. I didn't think Rodgers liked basketball but he seemed happy enough at our performance. Spurs will be a much better test of our new look. What will Rodgers do for that one? We can't hand over the midfield as we arguably did at Villa, Kane will have a field day - he likes to drop deep.

I'm fearful, and hopeful. Depends what they do with Basil. Written and played right. there's definitely a story to be told. It needn't tarnish the Fawlty Towers reputation. Let's not forget, Basil was not meant to be a likeable character. The scope for where he could go, and what he could do, in the current climate is immense. Rich soil for satire. It could be spectacular - good or bad.

Jonathan Liew, in the Guardian, is such a good writer, a cut above most imho. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/07/jurgen-klopp-liverpool-strange-ritualistic-power-of-the-press-conference For Klopp, read any football manager. It's often struck me how tolerant some managers* must have to be when dealing with the press because of that gulf in knowledge. Top managers must see the game in such a different way to the average punter or reporter. Akin, I reckon, to how a chess master views the game of chess, or a mathematician can describe the world in mathematical equations. Pepp too probably sees shapes, forms and movements in football games that most of us have no inkling of. Edit: perhaps Pearson showed visibly stretched tolerance on occasions!

Maddison is a natural in front of a camera. I was watching his goal again (after his description, his assessment of their daft attempt to play out) and realised that if he hadn't have turned away from that incoming challenge, it'd have probably been a stretcher needed.... plus a red card and penalty. Jeez, Konsa flew in and would have scythed Madders down.

Completely disagree with what? It's true, Nacho's mistakes are of the "odd" variety! Nah, I'm 'avin a larf. I do happen to think he's our clown prince (if Mahrez was our sweet prince... yeeech) and if people don't see his misses, falling over and miscontrols etc (jeez, even his goals sometimes) as comical on occasions, and certainly not quite like those like of all players, then I do wonder what they are a seeing. But that's as it is, and I've always acknowledged his talents... he's a bundle, it's all him, and what you get with him. The comedy and the genius. What I don't get, and I mean this, is why some people like to see this as a criticism that makes them believe I (or anyone else for that matter) am writing Nacho off. Far from in in fact. I've been at pains to say that I'd be starting him at the moment; in the right system (not a regular 9, playing a little deeper, allowing players to come past him) then he most certainly has a role to play, and a role that is to his strengths. The problem for BR has been how to use Nacho, and I can both see and understand the reticence. Now, I think he has the opportunity (and the need) even though it does mean a regig in midfield (the loss of a dedicated CDM??) But to track back, this discussion only started because someone remarked they thought Nacho 'strange' (was that the word?) and I can see where that remark comes from. I didn't take it (as others did) as criticism. It's hardly a damning remark and I don't see the need for people to treat it as such.

This is it for me. He's a manager for when he's getting his own way. When he's not, then he does seem to pack a sad and seemingly infect all around him. Further, I'm not sure we can, as a club, afford his ongoing want list. I'm not sure how sustainable he is. I do think, longer term, we need to move him on. Hopefully that will be his choice when a more affluent suitor comes along. I don't like his brand of football at all but that's a preference thing and if it returns results then I'm ok with it. That's the important thing. And as a person I don't like him, and I agree a great deal with that which @jayfox26wrote above on that point. I can differentiate between Rodgers as an individual and his abilities, talents and successes - I see no contradiction in my dislike for his personality but acknowledgement of his abilities.

With you there.

Lost me there!

The focus is on neither the miss nor the the through ball, the focus is the apparent contradiction of the same player being responsible for the both. Hence the use of the word... whatever word you want to use for it.

What's the opposite of an enigma?

It doesn't need to be a narrative, his legacy, but it is an occurrence and, as said, all strikers miss sitters; goes with the territory. I'll say again, people are mentioning the fluffs and the like only because they are in direct contrast to his abilities and proven record. It's not negative. At least I don't read it as such. I can see what's being referred to.

I'm lost tbh. I don't know what you think I meant But whatever, strikes me many people are saying pretty much the same thing, whether they use the word frustrating, baffling, inconsistent, enigma or whatever. It recognises the variable nature of Nacho's skills. He misses sitters, falls over, and sometimes even looks like he doesn't know how to play the game... but he's capable of the sublime pass, the finish out of nothing. His record speaks for itself, and I doubt anyone would try and deny it. All of those words I used earlier allude to that. I don't think it negative, I find it endearing. As I said above, I'd be starting him at the moment.