Search results

If you look at a lot of the Brazilian superstars that break through at a young age, most of them are done at a meaningful level by 30. Although part of it will be down to the stereotypical party lifestyle.

Re the first point, I suppose it comes down to the type of fitness we were building. Plausible that the fitness work pre-Lampard was more around durability, being able to get through a full 90, whereas clearly there's an expectation of intensity with the team now. Regardless, clearly we're...

Mad init.

I think it’s a ‘miles on the clock’ thing given he’s been playing regular PL football since 16.

Never really understood why full backs change sides on corners.

What line of work are you in? Or would that give too much away. Happy for you to PM me if easier.

That’s awful.

What if the kids prefer smoking to carrots?

You joke but I have been wondering whether that might be too unrealistic?* He’s likely to have had some crossover with Lampard playing for England. *The answer is yes, btw.

It’s the slight misnomer with being the party of ‘the working people’. Vast swathes of SMEs will be very low-numbers employers and almost de-facto workers for another company (i.e. their main client). Should be looking to loosen things for them in some way.

If you take this and think about whether the extrapolated points total is achievable for any team, there's only Ipswich in there that you'd say is realistic. Apart from us obviously.

Ha, think you've got my explanation confused with advice! Yes, agreed, homeowners who fall on hard times are basically going to have to bumble their way through on a pittance. I would imagine the majority on housing benefit have never owned a home, though. And that seems to be the kicker that...

See, the high line/offside trap that we deploy fairly regularly needs loads and loads of practice for it to work properly. Also probably struggle to recreate the scenario in training to the same level that you'll see in a game. Entirely possible that this was the basis of persisting with it for...

A very dumbed-down explainer: if you sold your property for what you paid for it, so no additional savings in the background, and you magically managed to get into social housing on Day 1, you'd not have the property cost as it would likely be covered by housing benefit. Still wouldn't call it...

Equally, it's good to analyse how you'd play against your own system. No system is infallible so being aware of the weakness(es) and having the ability to adjust to protect those, like we did on Tuesday, is a brilliant sign.

Ah. Like I said, not across the detail just saw that referenced.

Not wholly across the detail yet. Saw something about business rates reform for hospitality, etc but appreciate that’s not market-wide. Generally agree with the sentiment, though. A lot of (fairly punitive) window dressing.

And then you get a mortgage and then kids come along and all the stuff you need to furnish/baby proof the house.

We defended the box well, but they seemed to get in behind us far too much for my liking - admittedly that was in part down to them playing well and playing quickly. Feels a little bit “the ends justify the means”.

Only heard a snippet of this on the radio and haven't had chance to look into it, but optically at the very least it's an awful idea. Will only amplify the whole "two-tier justice" malarkey which I think is a nonsense anyway.