Lillehamring

I think the realistic argument to this 'feast or famine' scenario is that we're often in games with very tight scorlines - which seems to be a gamble that maresca fancies and, too be fair, was going pretty well. Factor in that 8 of those points are from the leeds game (deflected goals), the ipswich game (deflected goal) and the coventry game (10 men) - Maresca is playing the percentages and they've generally paid off, but you're always at risk of something unplanned or uncontrollable beating the odds.

I think you'll find 'long term plan' and 'potential' are synonymous, or certainly carry the same implication. Beyond this, given that this is maresca's first real job, any kind of appraisal of his ability is intrinsically tied into what he is capable of when he develops, again, the implication is clearly about his 'potential'. Sorry if that was ambiguous.

Thus why we were trying to get Sensei in on a loan. It really isn't just about the funds - bringing in a loan player in January is notoriously difficult, even if you can find someone available that fit's your system, not every club is going to agree to sending out a player in january. I'm sure there are dozens of other factors. And even if you get someone, they're not necessarily going to be match fit, and to play that #8 role in this system is not something a player can instantly adjust too.

If memory serves, he had a run in the team that coincided with the pre-xmas 'good run' Also, I'm not sure he was ever really played in the right position for us. I can see him being a better #8 than the deep holding mid/box to box mid rodgers tried him as.

I'm no expert but i feel like we'll only have a few players left under contract that would be on 'significant' salaries, most of the high paid lot (nacho, vardy, vestergaard et al.) are all out of contract. I'm sure daka could be sold, maybe even coady. I can't imagine mavididi is on loads, or hermansen. Worst case is we have to sell them, but i'm sure there's be a few buyers for hermansen and winks at the very least after the season they've had. There's no way they'd not have prepared for us not going up when they started the season, Maresca was too much of an unknown and the competition for promotion spots was always likely to be tough. I'm not, therefore, what you are basing the 'extremely high chance' on?

Not that i want this to happen, but there are some benefits to this outcome - we'd be able to lose the last of the overpaid players and have a fairly clean slate to go out and buy cheap young promising players that are more natural playing the type of football enzo wants to play. The only perhaps 'too expensive players' we'd be left with would be those bought this summer, who were bought to play in enzo's system. It would not be good, but never catastrophic. People were saying relegation was catastrophic and it's actually been, on the whole, rather enjoyable.

They can't predict the weather or injuries, either It's not gospel, it's just a guide where all things beyond form are considered to remain equal

I'm simply not thinking about what might happen if we go up - there are far too many unknowns to waste any thought on. I do believe he was hired for his style of football, but i suspect that they also liked the nature of his managerial education and how that could filter through the entire club. I like enzo and i feel more confident (based on how quickly he's turned the team onto his way of thinking) with him as our manager than if we had Farke.

I think the difference was Leeds scoring. Psychologically it changes everything - suddenly their players have a new energy whereas our players are suddenly feeling a downhill run turn into an uphill run. We've benefitted from this many times this season, no surprise that finally it bites back.

You say that as though we simply refused the option to bring players in - we all (should) know that isn't the case. We just didn't have the financials to do it - do you think they planned for casadei to go, no, is it easy to replace a loan player and acclimatise him into the system in january, no. do you think we could afford to sign a player just to cover ndidi's injury . of course not. Your expectations of what we were capable of seem to be utter fantasy.

You said they worked us out, which is bollocks.

And did he even really complain? He seemed to know exactly what the situation was from the first: 'sell to buy'. Sure he was disappointed by the sensei deal falling through but that seems to have been as much the Milan's fault as ours. I think he knows the squad he has is good enough, and nothing has really changed, yes we've had two poor results (without really playing badly) and the four league games since the end of january were all emphatic wins.

I'm simply pointing out what I saw in our game - that if you play them right they are bang average. I don't know what has happened in previous games. We scored twice, even if one was wrongly disallowed they still conceded it with some piss poor defending. And for us to not have scored another two is down to our finishing rather than their defending. We don't know what will happen in their next games, but I don't see them as some invincible monster.

Not at all (the clue is in the word 'potential') - i'm saying that they feel in Maresca that the potential to do something special is there, that this is a man who can revitalise and change the direction of the club from top to bottom - no it's not a given, but the early signs are very promising. As opposed to.... Farke, who has failed on two separate occasions in the PL. The point is, Leeds hired a manager with a track record for getting promoted, so Leeds winning the league or being promoted shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

The trouble with that logic is that when we were 1-0 up we were playing superb, we didn't need to launch the ball into row Z because we were consistently playing through Leeds as though they weren't there. And the moment they equalised, we had to keep playing for a winner, so we had to try to continue to play to our strengths - which is passing our way out of defence.

But people don't seem to be able to factor this in - it was a bad result sure, but not through playing poorly, and we didn't play poorly against boro, we created 24 shots, and the 5 games before that we won by an aggregate of 15-2. The talk is as though we are a shit team playing shit. But i think the confidence is still there, the tactics are still spot on and the performances are of a high standard - Sometimes you just don't get the results.

We've dropped points from a winning position with 15 minutes to go on 6 occasions - at least two of those were to deflected goals, one to a worldie free kick and one was after playing half a game with 10 men. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bit harsh to judge us on those two games (especially one being our hardest game on paper this season) - look at the five previous games - 5 wins from 5, scored 15 conceded 2 (thanks Winksy)

I think he saw that we were totally dominating and creating chance after chance, but that daka and mavi were clearly flagging (probably why they made such messes of those one on ones), so he made a like for like swap. I think that leeds scoring straight after makes it look in hindsight like a bad call. but the reasoning behind the changes was sound.

I think more what enzo said - when they got that goal, the near silent crowd and the momentum totally changed. I think the timing, following straight after our changes was coincidental. Add to that, that as capitulations go, there wasn't much we could have done about either of the last two goals. That said, for me, the subs needed to be ten minutes before to capitalize with fresh legs when we were dominating.

Yeah but you can't just look at the goals and define our performances as poor. The linesman cost us one goal, so we scored three, we conceded an own goal and a deflection that was never going in - so that's only really three that we've had any control over. Also Leeds' form, especially at home, suggested they'd blow us away, when in fact we made them look bang average. The Boro game, it was only our finishing that let us down, we did enough to generate 24 shots. I'm not saying we were great or even deserved to win those games, but we didn't play like a team that deserved to get beat. And that's just the last two games, we won the previous five, outscoring our opponents 15-2. So, to criticise our form is a little unfair. I take back nonsense, but only to replace it with 'very little sense'.

The own goal. as i distinguished from my actual point, this was just being a bit facetious.

Tell that to Southampton. First time we lost to leeds, we'd won 9 straight. momentum is fine until you hit a wall.

Against Leeds? so couldn't finish for shit apart from the 2 goals we put past a team that had conceded just 11 goals in 16 games? And by 'crumble' you mean get caught out by 2 wicked deflections? Or the other 5 games out of 34 where we've dropped points in the last 15 minutes. Overall we're still 19-13 in the last 15 minutes. And this bottling against Cov - dude, have some føkking respect - we we're a man down from half time and were still on for a point up until the 88th minute - that's not bottling it, that's fighting until you've nothing left to fight with. Unless you mean the Coventry game where we 'bottled it' by coming back from 1-0 down with two goals in the last 13 minutes? I get that you're a negative sod, but at least try to come up with some plausible reasons why you think we're shit.

I get what you mean, and sure it would be a drag especially after leading for so long, but you have to remember that Leeds picked a manager with a track record of doing well in this division, and failing badly in the PL. We've taken a risk on a long term plan for a much higher ceiling. As long as we go up i'd rather be there with Maresca that Farke.