forameus

I agree partly. Anywhere I've read seems to point to Nakamura never selling the knee, but he did in parts, which almost makes it worse. Continuity was not good in the match, which took it down a few grades. Still a great match, but if Nakamura doesn't learn to sell properly, it's going to keep happening.

It would've looked better had there not been the absolute lunacy of the Hardy's effort just a week before. Of course, had there not been the Final Deletion, I doubt we would've had this either unfortunately.

spoilers for the next Takeover card, avoid if you don't want to know, but...

Once again they're really suffering by having such a long gap between pay per views. It's 5 weeks between MITB and Battleground, and that's far too long for the current creative team to handle. Storyline wise, probably their most focused time was the period last year where they had Extreme Rules, Payback, Elimination Chamber and Money in the Bank in the span of 7 weeks. The storylines themselves weren't the strongest, but they were forced to quickly build feuds, and they had no time for long spells of 50/50 booking, or poor segments. Now they have five weeks with very little happening. I know having brand specific PPVs isn't the answer, but having a few network specials that advance storylines in between these long gaps would focus them more.

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not that into alpha. The matches I've seen have undoubtedly been good, but it just all seems so obviously choreographed with all the double team moves. Probably not explaining it very well, but it's hard to suspend disbelief when they're wrestling. They're undoubtedly talented though, and they'll go far.

It's all lovely in hindsight to point at what Toshack did with Wales and say how great it was, but as the moonster points out, we can look at what vogts did with exactly the opposite. The reason Toshack looks good is because his players were good. We do not have those players. Not that that'll stop the argument, because people will just say "aye, but what if they are?" Circular argument that will go round and round and round.

But they're not getting made now. In fact, a draw that uses the World Rankings is over three years away. One using UEFA coefficients is about eighteen months away. Since the turn of the year we've had four friendlies, two of which we got the square root of f**k all for, and two that we probably wouldn't have got great marks for. Countries around us will have played in the Euros. Looking at FIFA Rankings is pointless at the best of times, but right now it's even more pointless. 4 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said: Aye, and if my auntie had baws shed be my uncle etc etc. We now have a qualifying campaign to get back up the rankings in time for the Euro 2020 ones. Unfortunately not. It'll be the UEFA coefficients used for that draw, and they're a lot less likely to change. We could have an absolutely blinding campaign but I don't think that would mean we'd shoot up the pots like we would with the World Cup ones.

Because he was rated as better on a pure ability basis than any of our current options. That's why he was given the chance. Gauld hasn't yet because he isn't better than any of the options we currently have in his position. He may be in future. They had their chances because, again, they were good enough at the time. It's nothing to do with not wanting to try something different for some abstract reason. Are you really asking this? Our last campaign saw us rise in the seedings, and had we played a few more friendlies (cheers SFA) or beaten Ireland, we would've been in pot 2. To put it into perspective, we were in pot 4 when the groups were drawn (23rd February 2014). You want to know how much worse not making the playoffs could be? Not improving our seeding so that we stayed in pot 4 (or worse) in World Cup Qualifying, and essentially consigned ourselves to a longer barren spell. Our World Cup group holds an outside chance of getting into a playoff - would being two pots below that have meant we'd have a better or worse chance? I can't actually believe that some people think that it couldn't have been any worse. Moving away from just wailing generalities, we give each member of the squad as long as they have when they're the best option in their position. Not the best player, notice, the best option. For most areas of our team, that'll be one and the same, but there is absolutely no sense in dropping, say, a Premier League regular just because he's been pure shite for Scotland but, only to replace him with someone fresh out the U19s just because he's "different". If we want different there's plenty of Scottish players at Partick Thistle we could call up as scapegoats. And I'll say it once again, by your logic every Welsh squad since 1958 has failed. Northern Ireland have never succeeded. But then they did. A little under three years ago, we beat Croatia 2-0 and finished above Wales in our World Cup Qualifying Group, despite being beaten by them twice. Their only other points in the entire group were a draw against Belgium and a win at home to Macedonia. And we had Craig fucking Levein in charge. Now three years later they've just been put out in a semi final, with largely the same squad. But aye, they should have just thrown away their good players and got worse ones in, right enough.

Much better than the home one in my opinion.

I don't, but I'd say the chances that he would make things better are far less than he would make either no difference, or make it worse. What evidence is there that he would make things better? I'll say it again, putting worse players into the squad doesn't make that squad better. Gauld may end up better than anything we have, but right now he isn't, as evidenced by the fact that he's an U21 regular, but has been ignored so far.

The current Wales and Northern Ireland crop had "failed" until they ended up qualifying. Same with many other countries this summer. And saying we should be there because of "our history" is England levels of stretching. Queens' Park dominated Scottish football in their history, but that doesn't mean they should still do now. I honestly can't believe that so many people seem to think the answer to us not winning enough games is to put out players who are - at this current moment - worse than what we've already lost with.

It stops when the manager in charge at the time deems him good enough. I just don't buy this whole "we never give them chances" attitude. A while back he went on record as saying he would give young players a spot in squads to get them experience of being in the group, but admittedly I think that died down a little once the matches that really mattered came in. If these players were good enough to make a significant difference to our fortunes, it doesn't matter if they're 16, 26 or 36, they'd be in there. So, assuming that that's the reason why he isn't picked, is that such a bad thing? I've always said we should save two or three slots in each squad for players like him, but given he's regularly involved with the U21s, is it really such a travesty that he doesn't get dragged across Europe with no chance of playing? Also, I wouldn't bracket him in with Scott Brown and Darren Fletcher. From what I remember of Gauld, he's much more likely to slot in as the one behind the striker. In that case, he's up against some of our better players. Is he likely to get in in front of Maloney, Ritchie, Snodgrass or Naismith? Or even Steven Fletcher or similar forward if they decide to go with a similar system to against Denmark? I dare say that if Gauld was a striker in the Fletcher mould, or a competent central defender, we might have seen more willingness to get him in.

My mistake then, I didn't know he had in cup games. I'd agree he should be in the squad at least, but I completely disagree with the "we can't do any worse" attitude that could well see him getting scapegoated if it inevitably did get worse.

Maybe it's just purely down to 4 being bigger and outgrowing the story. Playing 3 seemed like it had the story tightly woven through everything, whereas 4 is a bit looser, and you have way, way more to do. Plus, unless I'm remembering wrongly, with 3 wasn't it just that your father disappeared one day out of the vault? It's similar, but I'd say seeing your son stolen and wife killed creates a bit more urgency. You mention not getting personally invested, but I didn't find myself that invested in the way they told 4's story. Might be due to the relatively unfocused nature of having such a huge open world, but I don't think they did everything they could to really get the player hooked. Might be a personal thing though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Fallout 4 is bad in any way. If I had to describe it any way, it'd probably be frustrating. Bethesda could have made the game of a generation. They did so much right, but there's a few glaring things that stop it reaching those heights. It's a great game that should have been better.

Absolutely this. I hate this "couldn't be worse" mentality, because it comes from people who would be screaming even louder once it did, in fact, become worse. I don't follow the U21 team as much, beyond results, but has Gauld even been that impressive for them? Where is the sense in then promoting a player who is yet to make a first team appearance? Just saying "it couldn't be worse" is absolute pish, for the reasons that Craig has just said. The time to judge Scott Brown wasn't last season - if he still looks the same lumbering presence that he was last season in the run-up to our first qualifier, then fair enough, he probably shouldn't be a starter. But with a good pre-season behind him, and better fitness, I doubt he's going to be anywhere near as bad. As Craig said, we have had history of giving players debuts at a younger age. There's little difference in mentality between those countries - if we had a talent like Sanches or Coman, they would be in the squad, absolutely no question. Gauld is definitely one for the future, and I'd have him in the squad to get him bedded in (if he's not needed for the U21 squad) but he's not good enough to be starting games ahead of players who are playing at a much higher level.

Is there an argument for 4 not really needing this over-arching story? I mean, why do you need to start the game out with your entire arc defined within 10-15 minutes of kicking the game off. The "present-day" stuff was cool, and the entering/leaving the vault scenes were brilliant, but you could have that without the need to tie it into this over-arching story. Forget the family angle, as it just doesn't work with this game. You enter the vault alone - keep the part where you're a solider from the previous war, maybe even play into that why he's alone. Rest goes through as normal, and if you really must have the Institute assassin in, have him kill one of the frozen anyway, just not family. Continues on as before - he wakes up, leaves the vault, but the big difference is that there is no initial questline that demands you find out what happened to your son, meaning you don't have the situation where you're doing anything but that. The first parts of the game can be about just finding your way in the world, meeting different factions. Personally I'd have you spend the entire first "half" of the game doing work for the factions. The game will not really "advance" story wise until you pick a side at the half-way point. Up to then you're allowed to just explore without having quests pushed on you that are super urgent. Then once you pick a side, introduce the Institute, which can be where the main story comes in. Mr Assassin comes back in, and you recognise him, and go to him for answers. None of those "You killed mah son you baaastard" plots, just a simpler needing answers plotline. You can kill or save him (because remember when it wasn't all about shooting things in the face and you had a choice?) and that kicks off the main Institute stuff. You'd lose Shaun being your son, but I don't really think that had much impact anyway. They're a credible enough entity on their own without that extra detail. The main quest can then pretty much go the same way from there - you're in the institute thanks to the Railroad/Minutemen, and you perform tasks for both ultimately to make the choice as to which side you're really on. That way you've got a game that encourages you to explore, not chase down a mawkish family angle, while still retaining an ultimate reason to be there. The storyline as it stood just felt pretty meh to me, compared to 3 and New Vegas, and inevitably other games.

No wonder we never win anything. One player who looks like he might have a bit of talent and everyone's clamouring for him to be thrown straight in, comparing him to Renato Sanches and Kingsley Coman. Jesus wept.

I wouldn't say I exactly feel that way about it, but it touches on a lot of similar points. I enjoyed Fallout 4, and if I looked at the number of hours I sank into it, it'd probably be more than I thought. But it's just all a bit pointless in a way. It's a good game, but it's frustrating because it could have been so much more. They built a fantastic open world - in fact, probably the best. Witcher's is bigger, and more beautiful, but it's still pretty sparse. JC3 is very pretty, but even more sparse and pointless. FO managed to craft a huge world but keep it very dense and packed. It could have looked better, but it's understandable why it didn't. They also tacked on a wonderful settlement building system. But then I start to agree with the article. What's the point in that settlement system? You can build great things with it, and they're adding more, but what's the point? I only got attacked once in all the hours I played, and beyond that there isn't really anything other than the Sims can give you. The story is nowhere near the quality that they've done in the past either. In fact, in some places it was pretty badly written, and meshed quite badly. Also, it's been said before, but I think they really got screwed by releasing it once Witcher 3 had come out. There's a hell of a lot more to do in Fallout, but the RPG elements and sheer beauty showed everyone how it was supposed to be done. I don't doubt that had it not existed, Fallout wouldn't have seemed as bad in that sense.

Very unexpected, but brilliant news. Cynicism suggests that maybe his injury is a bit more serious, and other clubs aren't wanting to take a punt on him, but doubt the club would be held to ransom on it. If we can get him back in the team regularly it's going to be great for us.

I really wish I hadn't been lazy and bought the season pass for this when it was cheaper. Yet to get any of it, but maybe hold off for now. Division is taking up most of my time, so still got the Witcher DLC to go through. Then it'll be on to this again.

Hmm...I don't know. One it would involve WWE actually writing a storyline with some death, but other than that it seems like they'd be making light of something they take very seriously. Essentially taking any blame off Reigns (kayfabe I know) and onto someone else. Just doesn't seem like something they'd want to blur the lines on.

Yeah, Rose isn't really comparable to Reigns at this stage. Second offence, and it wasn't really the wellness policy that got him canned. Plus it's always going to be more likely that they'll cut ties with a talent like Adam Rose, than they are with Roman Reigns, rightly or wrongly. It's still not entirely clear what happened with Lawler, seems like just a very sad case. Some people have gone way over the top about him, despite the facts not really being known it seems. Company-wise though, is he really that much of a loss? Probably not. He's a product of a bygone age, and seems intent on staying there. If it turns out that he's cleared of the charges, then probably let him go on good terms. Or knowing WWE, they'll book him and his fiancee in some kind of match at Summerslam.

The triple threat will likely still be on. 30 days suspension, Battleground is after that. Would not be surprised at all if they still held it with Reigns out of the picture for the build-up and make absolutely no mention of it story-line wise. Let's face it, they didn't stop the Roman Reigns Express when the vast majority of the crowd was booing him - different situation of course, but I don't think this necessary kills him either. They should use this to their advantage though. Make something of it. I don't think t hey should realistically still do the triple threat, and having Ambrose vs Rollins doesn't really make sense either. Maybe just don't defend the title next month, throw them into an uneasy tag team battle, then have Reigns come back post Battleground and build up to the Triple Threat at Summerslam where it belongs. Then have Reigns take the pin and move out of the scene for now as a further punishment for being such a fucking idiot. EDIT: My initial thought was "Sunday makes sense" too, but I don't think they would have had him appear on RAW last night if they knew, let alone put him in a program for Battleground. Could be that something happened post RAW, or maybe even earlier today. No idea what their testing policy is like, or even what it is he's actually taken. He's owned up to it though, fair enough.

I'd rather the decision of whether Tierney could make a decent CB was based on whether he could actually perform the role, rather than how big and strong he is. Isn't that the attitude that we're trying to leave behind?

I said "strongest". As in it's better than the defence we're severely lacking in, and the forwards that we don't really have either. You do get the concept of relativity in that sense, don't you? If Gauld turns out to be the creative midfielder he has the potential to be, then he could easily fit into the system we play. I know that doesn't fit your admittedly well structured agenda, but them's the breaks Kenny doll.