forameus

Except we didn't play 3 at the back. It was set out that way, but as many people said when you originally suggested it, the wing-backs would turn into full-backs because we'd get penned back so badly. Which is exactly what happened. It was 5-4-1 for the most part, with a lot of booting it long while players struggled to get up to support Griffiths. And if you're going to make wild proclamations that we'd qualify for a tournament purely because of an extra man in defence, probably best we have success with it outside of how you imagined we set up, and certainly in a game where we score from open play after offering almost nothing going forward. If we were playing a side that could pick through defences, or even an England with their front players playing like they are capable of, we would've got torn to shreds.

So you're now saying how right you were about them playing a formation that they didn't end up playing? Because what we saw was absolutely not a 3-5-2, not at any point of the game.

And you stated that 4-2-3-1 was rigidly defensive (which it isn't, or at least doesn't have to be) and heavily intimated that your alternative wouldn't be. Where in reality, the way they set up the 3-5-2 meant that it ended up being a 5-4-1 at best, and was more defensive by a considerable distance than the 4-2-3-1 we usually play. In fact, Crawford Bridge put up pretty simply in the very first reply. Which is exactly what happened. To the letter.

When really it went exactly how a few of us said it would. The wing-backs were full-backs more often than not, leading to it pretty much being a 5-4-1 and fairly negative. If you'd said we should play it to keep solid at the back and frustrate England, you'd be 100% spot on. You said we should do it because it would be inherently more attacking. Which it wasn't.

Kane's running for Mayor in...Tennessee? Could be wrong about the location, but definitely running for mayor somewhere

So who's going to win the General Election then? Well, Kotaku decided to employ games very scientifically to find out. First, PES, then WWE 2k17. And for a more serious look, the New Statesman ran the Labour and Tory manifesto through Democracy 3 to see what happened - quite interesting results here and here.

Can see Cena jobbing out Jinder at Summerslam to win the big one, but I always thought they'd wait for WM to do that. Plus I'm sure I read that he is on a continuous losing streak at Summerslam as penance for the Nexus angle. Cena as Champion wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing though, especially if it leads to them building up a decent heel to dismantle him. Or just Nakamura. That'd be nice.

I can appreciate Gwent, I'm just pretty shit at it. I keep telling myself every time I play through that I'll really concentrate on it this time, but never quite manage it.

Very true. It's probably the best Reigns has looked with just being sent out there to hit and hit hard. Would actually be interesting to contrast the two matches when it eventually happens, particularly the situation each guy finds themselves in. I think the reaction to Reigns was still quite vociferous back then after winning the Rumble, but now we're a couple of years down the line with very little changing. Lesnar's contract may not get renewed, so he could be in a similar situation to his first match against Goldberg with people knowing he's going.

I avoid it too. I'd like to get into it, but I'm very, very shite at it. Just finished Hearts of Stone again, so just Blood and Wine to complete fully before I probably leave the game behind finally.

To be fair to the Scottish side of the media, has it really been talked about much on the English side of the media? Genuine question, I haven't really seen England's results mentioned much on the BBC either. TalkSport mentioned a one-liner that they were playing but that was about it. Shame generally really - highly regarded youth tournament at a time where there is nothing else really happening. Why not just get someone a betting account and have them do some coverage of the event. It'd fill a few articles at least.

They'll be saving that for a bigger show. Probably WM, or Summerslam if they go off the Strowman match. I'm not as sold on it though, think that was made to look better because of the setting. Huge crowd, Wrestlemania etc etc. Definitely a good match, but that also owed to the Rollins cash-in.

I'd just like us to sign anyone who can deliver a free kick or corner successfully most of the time. Seems like it's too much to ask these days across a lot of clubs.

It was one of the more believable heel turns. Something more than just "I'm going to turn on you now". Smart to use the real injury he got as the basis, and very smart to play him as angry, dangerous, but also someone who really didn't want to do what he did. Just really sad that the injury he got is so bad. Takeover Brooklyn had a ready made blockbuster match right there, but that's unlikely to happen now. Maybe at Takeover Royal Rumble if he's healthy, or could have to wait until Wrestlemania Weekend. A podcast I listened to suggested getting Gargano back after a wee while then having him go up against Roode as the new super face. A title win for him would be brilliant, then have Ciampa come in and reignite the feud. Or, probably better, Ciampa costs him what looks like a title win and do it that way.

Well they're always a good judge of a player...

Yeah, absolutely. It's hard to criticise Ubisoft too much though I guess - they're selling absolute truck-loads every single time. They could well sell more if they innovate, but they could ruin the formula and go the other way. Frustrating, but easy to see why they keep going on the same lines. Even one of the more successful "new" titles like Horizon Zero Dawn wasn't really departing too much from the formula, they just did everything extremely well. Having said that, they are soooo formulaic these days. The Division, Far Cry, Ghost Recon etc, all the same core formula with different maps put over the top of them. Weren't they caught reusing the same map from another game in Far Cry Primal too?

Oh jeezo...where to even start with that one. EDIT: Ooft, it keeps going. Thought he'd added 3 or 4 lines as an update, but he's gone complete head's gone. I'd laugh, but it's actually extremely depressing in points. I'd put this guy on some kind of watch list, he doesn't seem like the most well-balanced chap. Along with the over 1500 people who've signed it.

Wyatt is probably in with a decent chance of winning on Sunday. After all, do they really want to waste either Reigns, Balor, Joe or - to a lesser extent - Rollins on just getting fed to Lesnar? I'm presuming Strowman is up next at Summerslam for Lesnar, so having a guy they actually care about get put up and roundly beaten doesn't really do much. With Wyatt they can have a match no-ones seen before, have him get absolutely pummeled, and move on from there. Not saying that's what they should do, but could see it happening.

Nakamura being advertised as challenging Mahal on the house show circuits soon. Granted it appears to be because Orton isn't available but perhaps points to where they're going in future. Particularly if he wins at MITB

You intimated that there was much more than that. While it probably wasn't the best choice of action, at it's core it was fair enough. Burke was probably a bit annoyed, and I imagine WGS would want him to be too. To call it "disgusting" is over-egging it by a fair bit. He got picked in subsequent squads and was only left out of this one to give him a chance in a less pressured environment. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the coming years,all being well, he is going to become crucial to us. He's not there yet though, and I doubt he's crying himself to sleep at night about choosing to play for scotland. Not quite the meltdown you were hoping for, eh?

...that's it? While it could likely have been handled better, he showed his inexperience in the game he did feature in and clearly it was thought that in a tough away game he wouldn't get a sniff. Wouldn't have sent him away from the squad, but then I wouldn't go near the wild hyperbole you're giving either. Clearly he was really bothered by it all and is massively regretting his decision by refusing to get involved from now o...oh, wait, he was picked and played in subsequent squads? Wow, must be really cut up about it. Disgusting.

How exactly has he "treated him horribly"?

TV Tapings happened for the next few weeks last night, and from what I've read, they've played the explanation for the Ciampa heel turn absolutely perfectly. Expect it'll be on the show on Wednesday, looking forward to seeing it live.

While that's probably true, he'll at least be playing people he should be a lot closer to in terms of ability (or far exceed in a lot of cases) while in a Scotland shirt. While he could have been put on against England and had an absolutely star-making performance, I don't think he's quite there yet. There's far more chance of him going out in the Toulon tournament and just enjoying himself without being relied upon in what is an absolutely crucial game for us. But he's going to be learning far more at his club.

No it isn't. Formations aren't defensive, systems are. We could easily play 5 forward-thinking midfielders in the 2-3 part. It doesn't have to be two sitting midfielders, and even if they are sitting, they don't need to be all the time. It's quite telling that the formation you suggest will totally not always be defensive (even though it will if we're playing any kind of quality that see how easy it would be to pen our only source of width back), yet this one will. I don't really care what formation we played in a match nigh-on 17 years ago. We may as well point to how we played against England in 1967, it's probably just about as relevant. 3-5-2 is an option, but if it's set up as poorly as our current system sometimes is, it'll be just as pish. conversely, setting up the system properly and having the players carry out their jobs properly would see just as much benefit.