Nod.E

I can understand your line of thinking, but you're simply misinformed here. Some breeds of cat are literally bred to be kept indoors. Our cat wouldn't last 5 minutes in the wild.

Excited by this one, he brings skills we severely lack in passing and vision. In this system and with the runs that our wingers make, they should get many more clear cut chances than they do. As good as KDH and N'didi have been more recently, passing is just about at the bottom of their list of abilities. So many times they don't play that pass between full back and centre half, which in fairness to them is prudent. They know their limits.

We're going to get promoted, so my response is a little indifferent. Of late we've not done a great job of grinding out results when we're leading by a goal, though. We need to get better at that, and it involves maintaining a threat when we're clinging on. Attack is the best form of defence, and too often we show our hand a little by dropping deep and allowing the opposition to throw the kitchen sink at us. We'll need to improve in that respect in the Prem.

The problem is, football is a sport in which injuries happen all the time. I'm not sure the velocity at which you slide into a tackle necessarily means you're putting your opponent in any more danger than if you were to, say, nudge them when in close proximity to an oncoming player. Are we trying to achieve some sort of utopian world whereby players don't get injured on the field of play? It feels like that's what we're aiming for. Doing so doesn't guarantee the safety of players, but does damage the spectacle of the game. I don't think any tackle in which feet stay on the ground should result in a red. And on the point of speed, it will just result in inconsistency. How are we supposed to know where the line is between a 'passionate tackle' and a 'reckless lunge'? Is it when they exceed 10mph during their slide? Just stick to high, studs showing = red, with the odd exception such as Jimenez the other week when he jumped into the guy's head.

If that's a red then every mistimed slide tackle is a red. Are we basically suggesting that to slide you have to be sure you win the ball, otherwise you're sent off? Wasn't a high foot, not dangerous. Stupid? Yeah. Not a red though.

Remember feeling really sorry for him when he got the sack, even though I thought it was the right decision. Just seems like one of life's nice guys.

Also looking for 1 adult ticket if anyone has a change of plans

I see your point, but £2m in today's game is peanuts. We paid a lot more for Coady who has been backup for us. It's a calculated risk to recruit a player of a higher caliber than what we'd otherwise be able to recruit. If it's a relatively short term deal and we're not paying him the world, it's got to be a risk worth taking.

Why are people surprised that Everton, of all clubs, might make a terrible decision about the future of their playing staff?

Fatawu is already better than any winger we had last season in terms of being an all round contributor to the team. Okay, we got relegated and he hasn't quite got the finishing ability of Barnes yet, but the boy is 19 and the way he creates chances and tracks back is verging on something special already. The stats support this. Regardless, did you think Mahrez was going to become arguably the most in-demand winger in Europe based on his performances in the Championship? Fatawu's ceiling is ridiculously high, he's already more than good enough to play in this side if we were in the EPL right now, and in theory he should get better every year for some time to come, including next year.

People love to be offended though. In fairness my brand of seeking offence involves rolling my eyes at the idiocy of these responses. But yeah I've always found it odd. Frankie Boyle once spoke about the topic of responding in outrage on social media, equating it to a Judge giving a guilty verdict for indecent exposure, stating; "the defendant is found guilty of showing her... ONE OF THESE." Point being, it rubs salt in the wound. These attention seekers only get the time of day when other people do their PR for them. No outrage, no coverage, no offence, no harm.

Feel for him a bit. His whole game is built on arriving in the box, which we've seen him do well. His confidence is shot, though, so he's making the wrong decisions and snatching at chances when he finds himself in the box. But a lot of the time he's coming on when we have a lead to defend. He wants to impress and get forward, but instead his defensive frailties are highlighted. You could see he was really frustrated with himself when he got a pass wrong on the edge of their box. He's almost trying too hard in a way. As a team we need him to try hard by putting in a shift defensively, but that is never how he's going to make his name. He will live or die on his attacking output and numbers. There's a player in there, but it's starting to look like he's the wrong player at the wrong time for us. We demand our 8's to be complete players; pressing, tracking back, and attacking the box. Maybe he'd look a better fit as a more established footballer. Maybe then he'd put less pressure on himself to be seen to be scoring and assisting and we'd see a more composed and all-round performer. He'd have probably benefitted more from a loan at a lesser team. He'd be a great player to bring on when you need a goal. More often than not we take the lead in matches, though. Ultimately I don't think it's going to be a happy ending for him here.

I think the previous rusty performances from Coady overshadowed the reality of his performance tonight, because that's a harsh rating. I was as concerned as anyone else about his introduction to the side, but second half especially I thought he looked assured.

I've just updated my post having seen the other angle again!

At the ripe old age of 32 I must have lost touch with the game then! My understanding was that it was a contact sport, but I think the scope for 'allowed contact' has continued to diminish over time. I understand you can't change your direction and forcefully push a player, but my interpretation is that they're both running for the ball and the Ipswich player's running momentum takes him into KDH. He'd have had to have taken evasive action to not make contact in the position he found himself in. It's perhaps an odd distinction to make that because the contact is with his upper body, that's fine. Had the same thing happened and they tangled legs, I'd be calling it clumsy and a blatant penalty. I just think he's been strong and I'd be furious if it was our defender and he just allowed their attacker to waltz in. As a side note, I reckon the way the defender falls on his back (rather than on top of KDH), probably adds to the idea that it looks like a coming together of players. Somehow the defender falling on his own back makes him look less so the aggressor. I can totally understand why the referee, from his angle, would think that's not a penalty. EDIT: I've just seen the original angle again on KDH's tweet and that angle looks more of a pen than the other tweet which is more the ref's angle. You can see the force more from that angle. I think with full hindsight it probably is more of a pen than not. Maybe a 70/30 pen! Unfortunately we fell within the 30 tonight. But to be honest the modern game as it is, if the ref sees it from the other side I think he'd have given it.

I think the main pushback is we were comfortable enough until our self-inflicted substitutions. The game was ours to throw away and it feels very much like we contrived to let 2 points slip rather than Ipswich being anything groundbreaking. They did what any half decent team should do when one goal behind at home.

Yeah everyone, including the pundits covering the game and even my Forest supporting relative seems to think it's a pen, so I'm clearly in the minority with my opinion on this one. I just think he's not legged him up and just used a bit of upper body to ease him off the ball. Could be perceived as a foul given it was into his back, but I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out.

Personally think given the context of Ipswich's level of desperation, the better route would have been to introduce ball winners (like Hamza) and more pace (leave Daka on). There was so much space to attack in behind them, and they were so determined to not lose two on the bounce that they were throwing everything at it. They were pressing hard and I don't think control the ball was the correct shout in that isolated 15 minute example. I think if we go the Hamza/Daka route, that results in counter attacking opportunities for us. Might not result in a 2nd goal, but at the very least it relieves the pressure on our defence as they deal with the throw-ins and corners we rack up deep in their half. Towards the end it very much felt like we were sitting deeper and deeper, waiting for the final whistle to go.

Only me that thinks it would have been a harsh penalty then? Thought it just looked like a coming together. For me it's one of those that could have been given, but if you're on the receiving end of one of those it feels like a harsh one.

I've found that you're often guilty of not appreciating nuance when reading and presenting statistics in your posts. Most of those Ipswich shots were pops from outside the box. We could have played better of course, but a lot of our chances didn't result in shots because of poor decisions, and our early lead gives Ipswich the initiative to try to hit back. Ipswich were lucky, but having said that we did not do a good enough job of closing the game out. Mostly due to the subs we made, partially because of a refusal to take the ball to the corners and run the clock down as well as the other dark arts associated with running the clock down.

It's not a bad point, and I love what Enzo is doing here, but I have to say, I hated those subs. Daka, KDH and N'didi are our fittest players. They're the spine of our press. We removed it and replaced those players with slow, technical players in Iheanacho, Akgun and Casadei. Almost immediately what happened is they had more time on the ball bringing it out and runners weren't being tracked. We looked like sitting ducks. I said they will score here, so it was no surprise when they did. When you're 1-0 up away from home you do one of, or a combination of the following: 1 - Bring on pacey players up top to gain territory in the space the chasing team leaves in behind 2 - Bring on midfield legs to ensure the chasing team doesn't have time to settle and sustain attacks I'm one of the people most vocal in my support of the Enzo way of playing. I was never concerned about any of the perceived slow buildup play or 'boring football'. But these subs? It's not the first time we've looked dodgy closing a game out. First red flag for me. Here's hoping he learns.

Missing the energy of N'didi and Daka since the changes.

Someone has to be! Completely different set of players and staff vs. previous years, so it's irrelevant.

Yes. Just think it's most noticeable the through balls we fail to play and the number of times we lose the ball in the middle through scruffy play.

This system with upgrades in the middle of the park is going to be scary good.