So good they want to play us twice...Home to Portsmouth, Football League Cup Tues 10th Jan 7-45.

[truewhite15]

I didn't see him effect possession.

I know you didn't.

[GhostoftheBok]

Show me the data to show that then. Did we (as we did against Plymouth) dominate passes, territory and possession? I need outcomes. Show me the outcomes. The turnovers he effected. The greater share of possession we had compared to when he didn't play (because he's our best presser). Show me tangible outcomes from last night compared to the game Saturday. He's our best presser so did that result in more possession? More passes? Winning the ball higher up the pitch. Outcomes. There must be some.

But we do this lots of times with different players, Insane. You ask for detailed answers whilst only offering generalisations yourself, then when you're given detailed answers you either ignore them or just stop talking about it - then you are back on the same complaints shortly after.

It's pointless.

I understand that you do not understand why managers have picked a player you think is "a disgrace to pub players" in the Premier League. I wasted my time with you on Johnston, Santos and others...I'm not doing it again.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Kachunga's pressing game is so good that he has somewhere close to 100 top flight appearances here and in Germany. Over 150 at second tier level. That's despite you basically claiming he's non-league in terms of general ability.

I believe BWFCi's description was "a disgrace to pub players." You (Ghost) see Kacha's qualities; many don't, but some do too (I note Iles put a positive fan tweet in the liveblog last night).

Me personally? I think that 10 role is vital in possession and out. Out of it, Kacha does a hard job very well. In it, he has gone from savvy but shot-shy to just generally underwhelming and totally lacking in confidence. I don't hate the man, but I very very rarely get the impression he's going to make something happen. However, if we play at 10 a workshy creative - say, for instance, your description of Sads - then we won't get the ball back enough to hurt the oppo.

It's a delicate balance, and only Lee really gets both sides right: knowing when to hunt the ball, and knowing what to do with it when he gets it to hurt the opposition (he's arguably still our calmest player in the box). But Lee's 35 in summer.

Where you two (Ghost/Insane) have common ground is that we need better in the 10 – someone who can hunt and hurt. If we can find it this month, that would be very good indeed because it would unlock a lot of things. We could avoid overusing Lee. We could sell Dapo. We could sell Sadlier. We could keep Kacha for certain game moments where we need to lock it up - say we're winning 1-0 at Wednesday with 15 left and Lee's legs go - and then release him in summer.

We need to keep improving. If we can do it this month, we might even improve our division for next year.

[GhostoftheBok]

I believe BWFCi's description was "embarrassing for a pub player." You (Ghost) see Kacha's qualities; many don't, but some do too (I note Iles put a positive fan tweet in the liveblog last night).

Me personally? I think that 10 role is vital in possession and out. Out of it, Kacha does a hard job very well. In it, he has gone from savvy but shot-shy to just generally underwhelming and totally lacking in confidence. I don't hate the man, but I very very rarely get the impression he's going to make something happen. However, if we play at 10 a workshy creative - say, for instance, your description of Sads - then we won't get the ball back enough to hurt the oppo.

It's a delicate balance, and only Lee really gets both sides right: knowing when to hunt the ball, and knowing what to do with it when he gets it to hurt the opposition (he's arguably still our calmest player in the box). But Lee's 35 in summer.

Where you two (Ghost/Insane) have common ground is that we need better in the 10 – someone who can hunt and hurt. If we can find it this month, that would be very good indeed because it would unlock a lot of things. We could avoid overusing Lee. We could sell Dapo. We could sell Sadlier. We could keep Kacha for certain game moments where we need to lock it up - say we're winning 1-0 at Wednesday with 15 left and Lee's legs go - and then release him in summer.

We need to keep improving. If we can do it this month, we might even improve our division for next year.

I think calling Sad "work shy" would be very harsh. He is willing to run a bit on the pitch (especially on then attack), so he's not lazy - I would suspect he's just disinterested in the tactical work that modern football tends to require. Which is probably why he's at the level he is. He wants to play footy and enjoy himself, but it's the Warnock quote: "Have fun by being fecking disciplined." He could still come good if he sorts it out, but it's increasingly doubtful.

Kacha isn't what we need at 10, certainly. If we had two forwards in there who were the creative, technical, pacey sort then he'd make a decent second striker to buzz around them and lead the press. What we have is a load of hard workers, though. We need the spark Dapo used to give us.

The question is do you sign a fancy player and try to train him to do the work, or do you sign another worker who you hope is fancy *enough* to get it done. It's one Evatt has to get right.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yeah, workshy might be harsh. My bad. Non-system? Tactically illiterate?

[Worthy4England]

^^ We had more than half "a disgrace to a pub team" out there to start, last night...So it would have been quite difficult to pinpoint one of them...maybe Kacha needs a different pub...

[GhostoftheBok]

Yeah, workshy might be harsh. My bad. Non-system? Tactically illiterate?

I'll stick with "disinterested."

After a year I'd say he'd have got it if he wanted to.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yeah, workshy might be harsh. My bad. Non-system? Tactically illiterate?

I'll stick with "disinterested."

After a year I'd say he'd have got it if he wanted to.

My inner editor insists it's "uninterested". "Disinterested" means not having a vested interest, being neutral, like a judge. A referee should be disinterested but hopefully not uninterested.

That's your word of the day, folks. Feel free to bore a spouse or child with it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Show me the data to show that then. Did we (as we did against Plymouth) dominate passes, territory and possession? I need outcomes. Show me the outcomes. The turnovers he effected. The greater share of possession we had compared to when he didn't play (because he's our best presser). Show me tangible outcomes from last night compared to the game Saturday. He's our best presser so did that result in more possession? More passes? Winning the ball higher up the pitch. Outcomes. There must be some.

But we do this lots of times with different players, Insane. You ask for detailed answers whilst only offering generalisations yourself, then when you're given detailed answers you either ignore them or just stop talking about it - then you are back on the same complaints shortly after.

It's pointless.

I understand that you do not understand why managers have picked a player you think is "a disgrace to pub players" in the Premier League. I wasted my time with you on Johnston, Santos and others...I'm not doing it again.

No we don't. We get to here and you just fall back on 'managers pick him'. Which doesn't talk about on the pitch outcomes or the fact that managers also seemingly are keen to move him on.

Santos is a great example. I've talked about his positional issues, his lack of defensive concentration, being caught on the ball and his obvious distribution but the cost of that is he does it slowly too often and takes the tempo out of our play. I can show examples of all those issues. We know he's brilliant in the air defensively and at his best he's imperious. My issue is that we don't get that imperious Santos enough or haven't to override the flaws he has.

I can very clearly last night show the issues we have when he plays and is not at his switched on best and demonstrate too many times he's not been that this season.

We then see the outcomes with Aimson and how a more capable defender (or one with an attitude or just getting the defensive job done) has improved us.

The problem with any debate is you want to end it with 'Evatt is right and knows more than us' which is fine but then he signed these players and chased them and therefore he can't always be right or always be making the right calls.

And as we've seen with Santos - the team has been better without him recently. That could just be coincidence or it could be that we and Evatt got some judgements wrong earlier in the season (and again there are results and outcomes to suggest that was the case).

[Worthy4England]

Yeah, workshy might be harsh. My bad. Non-system? Tactically illiterate?

I'll stick with "disinterested."

After a year I'd say he'd have got it if he wanted to.

My inner editor insists it's "uninterested". "Disinterested" means not having a vested interest, being neutral, like a judge. A referee should be disinterested but hopefully not uninterested.

That's your word of the day, folks. Feel free to bore a spouse or child with it.

Listen to your inner editor! (Or David Mitchell)...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

"Disinterested" means not having a vested interest, being neutral, like a judge. A referee should be disinterested but hopefully not uninterested.

That's your word of the day, folks. Feel free to bore a spouse or child with it.

Listen to your inner editor! (Or David Mitchell)...

Oh yeah, it's very him. And a quick search reveals he's made the same point on one of the rare WILTYs I mustn't have seen....

[DJBlu]

Just checking we did win didn't we?

[Worthy4England]

Just checking we did win didn't we?

Yes - but VAR has overturned it...

[TANGODANCER]

Didn't Evatt say he'd accept scruffy wins (or words to that effect? For me that's being sensible in knowing we're not going to turn out a stellar performance every game; but neither are our opponents. Like I've tried to say numerous times, so many things effect a result that if they didn't, betting and bookmakers wouldn't exist, players wouldn't become millionaires and punters wouldn't bother going to games.

In the reality world of "top of the tree" football, our beloved super Whites aren't the Angel or even the fairy lights. We're decorations that every season try to sparkle and shine. Like such, some get worn out and need to be replaced and some get moved up or down the tree accordingly. Football, like most commodities, is ruled by finance and in that respect we're lucky to still have a club. There are a lot of singers in the world but not everybody is a Luciano Pavarotti. Peter Kay singing "Is this the way to Amarillo" can't compare with Nessum Dorma just yet, but give him time..

[Prufrock]

Just checking we did win didn't we?

I was just thinking the same.

For what it's worth, I think Kacha has similar struggles to Dapo in this system (for different reasons).

He's not particularly quick, or good technically, but he's a very bright footballer. Ideally you want him wide where he can do relatively simple things on the ball but his movement gets him in the right place and he can press well. But there's no role out wide in this system beyond wing back (which is why I compare him to Dapo, obviously not in terms of what sort of player they are). Was striking when we signed him how many of his goals for previous teams were tap ins/free headers at the back post. He's a slow Raheem Sterling.

I think we need to upgrade on him, but I can see why Evatt has him as Kieran's understudy. Thought we were notably better last night when Kacha went up top and we went to a flat 3 in midfield instead of a 10. But that's when 1-0 up. Not sure we'll ever score a goal like that other than on the break!

Comments about Sads are interesting. I think people would be surprised how much there is to a press and how it's not just a case of anyone can learn it. Apparently the reason Pochetino got rid of Andros Townsend at Spurs was basically that he just couldn't get it. He loved him as a player, two feet, quick, worked hard but he just couldn't get when to go and when not. And off he went. I like Sads but I can't see us changing system any time soon and he's another there just isn't a role for currently. Best for everyone if he goes, I think.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just checking we did win didn't we?

I was just thinking the same.

For what it's worth, I think Kacha has similar struggles to Dapo in this system (for different reasons).

He's not particularly quick, or good technically, but he's a very bright footballer. Ideally you want him wide where he can do relatively simple things on the ball but his movement gets him in the right place and he can press well. But there's no role out wide in this system beyond wing back (which is why I compare him to Dapo, obviously not in terms of what sort of player they are). Was striking when we signed him how many of his goals for previous teams were tap ins/free headers at the back post. He's a slow Raheem Sterling.

I think we need to upgrade on him, but I can see why Evatt has him as Kieran's understudy. Thought we were notably better last night when Kacha went up top and we went to a flat 3 in midfield instead of a 10. But that's when 1-0 up. Not sure we'll ever score a goal like that other than on the break!

Comments about Sads are interesting. I think people would be surprised how much there is to a press and how it's not just a case of anyone can learn it. Apparently the reason Pochetino got rid of Andros Townsend at Spurs was basically that he just couldn't get it. He loved him as a player, two feet, quick, worked hard but he just couldn't get when to go and when not. And off he went. I like Sads but I can't see us changing system any time soon and he's another there just isn't a role for currently. Best for everyone if he goes, I think.

Actually agree with all this. I do think the closest analogy to Kachunga for us would be Stelios. No searing pace or ability to beat a man consistently but a good football brain and I suspect that role would work for Kachunga similarly. Getting in on the far post in a 433 ish sort of system.

And yes no viable role for Sadlier that will get the best out of his talents. Frustration for me is he has that ability to score goals from half chances we lack yet we can't find a way to get him in the team to see if he would do that. But I think its clear now it won't work for whatever reason and its clear he's lost his mojo here and can't see him getting it back without a manager who has confidence in him. So best all round he goes and we sign replacement wing backs, and a number 10.

[truewhite15]

Just checking we did win didn't we?

I was just thinking the same.

For what it's worth, I think Kacha has similar struggles to Dapo in this system (for different reasons).

He's not particularly quick, or good technically, but he's a very bright footballer. Ideally you want him wide where he can do relatively simple things on the ball but his movement gets him in the right place and he can press well. But there's no role out wide in this system beyond wing back (which is why I compare him to Dapo, obviously not in terms of what sort of player they are). Was striking when we signed him how many of his goals for previous teams were tap ins/free headers at the back post. He's a slow Raheem Sterling.

I think we need to upgrade on him, but I can see why Evatt has him as Kieran's understudy. Thought we were notably better last night when Kacha went up top and we went to a flat 3 in midfield instead of a 10. But that's when 1-0 up. Not sure we'll ever score a goal like that other than on the break!

Comments about Sads are interesting. I think people would be surprised how much there is to a press and how it's not just a case of anyone can learn it. Apparently the reason Pochetino got rid of Andros Townsend at Spurs was basically that he just couldn't get it. He loved him as a player, two feet, quick, worked hard but he just couldn't get when to go and when not. And off he went. I like Sads but I can't see us changing system any time soon and he's another there just isn't a role for currently. Best for everyone if he goes, I think.

Actually agree with all this. I do think the closest analogy to Kachunga for us would be Stelios. No searing pace or ability to beat a man consistently but a good football brain and I suspect that role would work for Kachunga similarly. Getting in on the far post in a 433 ish sort of system.

And yes no viable role for Sadlier that will get the best out of his talents. Frustration for me is he has that ability to score goals from half chances we lack yet we can't find a way to get him in the team to see if he would do that. But I think its clear now it won't work for whatever reason and its clear he's lost his mojo here and can't see him getting it back without a manager who has confidence in him. So best all round he goes and we sign replacement wing backs, and a number 10.

Hang on. I thought he was totally inept, a hazard to any team he was on, a player most pub teams would turn away?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

we were notably better last night when Kacha went up top and we went to a flat 3 in midfield instead of a 10.

Oddly, that flatter three - which I saw as more of a 6 (MJ) behind two 8s (Moz/Demps) - terrified me. Reminded me of early last season when we swapped Lee sitting alongside MJ behind Sarce to having Sarce and Sheehan ahead of MJ. Oppos could flood past the first two then dive either side of MJ. And MJ was a little.... quick to ground last night.

[GhostoftheBok]

My inner editor insists it's "uninterested". "Disinterested" means not having a vested interest, being neutral, like a judge. A referee should be disinterested but hopefully not uninterested.

That's your word of the day, folks. Feel free to bore a spouse or child with it.

A common error these days, but "disinterested" to simply mean lacking interest has been entirely proper since the 1800s (used in Dickens, for example). If you check any dictionary on either side of the pond it will provide you with both meanings.

[Worthy4England]

My inner editor insists it's "uninterested". "Disinterested" means not having a vested interest, being neutral, like a judge. A referee should be disinterested but hopefully not uninterested.

That's your word of the day, folks. Feel free to bore a spouse or child with it.

A common error these days, but "disinterested" to simply mean lacking interest has been entirely proper since the 1800s (used in Dickens, for example). If you check any dictionary on either side of the pond it will provide you with both meanings.

There is no such thing as an English dictionary from one side of the pond....aquaplane....