forameus

I've done every single one of the 89+/86 pick SBCs. Not a single special card out of them all, apart from a Champions League Busquets. I mean, I didn't really have much intention of playing again, but ooft.

I dunno, I got the feeling Blampied was quite a big fan of wresting, as he seems like a big fucking nerd anyway. But wouldn't put it past him - he's charismatic and can do this kind of stuff pretty well, wouldn't be surprised if he spent a few days with the big book of "How to be a Mark" to get ready. Agree with all the rest apart from Jack, who I put level with Ross. The "king" gimmick was never, ever good, but at least that seemed like a solid enough gimmick to have. Jack being an awkward loser grated far more than it should have.

I'm the same. When everyone + Blampied were at WhatCulture, they were somewhat enjoyable. Well, the two Adams were, as they bounced off each other quite well. Tolerated the others. But I've never taken to Cultaholic at all (although to be fair I haven't really seen much of them since the early months, maybe they're better). The whole move over from WC and the "name redacted" stuff was a bit cringe, and they came across as wee lads who felt themselves far more important than they were just because they worked at a company that seemed to not be the nicest. But the early content was just a bit shit. The Adam guy was nowhere near as good without his namesake, and it just showed how fucking awful the rest of them were. But like I say, maybe they're better now. I used to listen to the WhatCulture podcasts a fair bit as they were at least staying away from the clickbaity stuff that the website used, and the people involved weren't trying gimmicks (for the most part) but moved away from them too. With certain exceptions, a lot of people covering wrestling are, well, a bit of a riddy. EDIT: Not in the quotte above, but you mention the Scottish guy from WhatCulture. He deserves special mention as he is utterly unwatchable. I felt a wee bit sorry for him initially, as although what he was doing obviously wasn't great, the firestorm around it was a bit much. People way over-egged it. Unfortunately for him, he bought in to it and took it to 11. Shaving his head, writing maudlin articles imploring guys that "come on, we ALL need to do better". f**k off. Seems like he did have some issues which he's worked through, and to be fair to him he has tried to stay away largely from the youtube thing for a while. No idea if his new ventures are any good. Shame he ruined it for himself, as he was genuinely good at what he did back then.

He always seems like a daft wee ned to me, but if we start taking personality into account when talking about players, you could probably count the number of ones coming out positive on that front on one hand. I don't care if he's a proper c**t as long as he plays well for us.

I read about it before I saw it, and it made it sound like a New Era Nexus. But it was just...well, it was a bit pathetic, wasn't it? You just know they planned that chainsaw part thinking it was this massive escalation, when really it just looked a bit shit.

Only seen a youtuber playing it and it looked good fun, downloaded through plus so will give it a go. Do you get split screen? EDIT: No, you don't. Fucking boo. Och well, seemed like something the wife might like to play, but I thought that about A Way Out and apparently I was wrong.

I should say, I was EXACTLY the same. White Orchard just seemed...meh. I was a lot earlier to the game, so hadn't had the hype, but remember thinking that I'd probably put the game down. Decided I'd give it a little longer and the benefit of the doubt. Now it's probably still my favourite game ever. For me the writing, story and quests are its main strength, but struggling to remember anything from White Orchard. But it is an acquired taste. Seems like you'll either adore the game or hate it, so not going to tell you you're wrong or anything. I'd give it a little longer, maybe you'll get into it.

What's season 5 like for those that have played? Hear there's some decent map changes, so will give it a go.

2 89+ pack apparently coming either tonight or tomorrow. List of players possible from those packs are actually quite attractive, but there are a handful of NIF players that people are ABSOLUTELY going to pack.

The wording of that suggests that there's little chance of fans in the Playoffs for anyone, regardless of circumstances. Not great for our semi-final, but should mean a more level playing field for a potential tricky away tie.

Good to actually have something concrete to plan towards now, even though it is still months away. Question now is whether there'll be attendances by then. I'd earmarked Broadwood as a good one to slip off to while the wife and kid were at the in-laws just up the road, but doubt we'll be at that stage by October (although would love to be proved wrong) Stuart Bannigan. He's not a tramp he's the captain of a U-boat. I hope we don't end up giving him DAS BOOT! Ha! Shite, I know.

Oh I don't know. You never been down the local Spoons and saw some mad lad do a swanton off a ladder during a brawl? Tale as old as time.

Yeah, I'd say it was a typical WWE B-show PPV. Sold-to-good matches, few good moments, and some really questionable stuff thrown in for good measure. Have to say, when WWE have a moment that, in kayfabe, is supposed to be really, really serious, but is instead utterly ridiculous, there is nothing funnier than the announcers covering the moment like they're reporting on a grisly murder that happened right in front of them. From memory, there was slightly less of a reaction when they had to announce the real death of Owen Hart.

From memory, they were really, really different to each other. The first one was quite dark, protagonist being the usual shuffling, gravelly-voiced "honest I'm a hacker, not an action hero". The second one really changed up and put a lot more humour and light into the game. The core of both is largely unchanged though, and it's an Ubisoft open-world game, so you can already predict what you're getting. In terms of whether you need to play the first one? Nah. Second one is probably a better game, and they're not direct sequels. I'd skip it, unless you want to sink in the hours to get through it. I enjoyed both of them.

Bodying the Irish league on some kind of International Waters based aircraft carrier? Count me in.

Hard to get excited about that kind of pack, particularly if it is 82 or 83. That would be too high considering some of the rubbish that will be in there.

That Belotti card...hell, even that Verdi card. Fucking ooft. Wonder if I really hammer it whether I can complete any Serie A objectives and finish this game the way I started it as a Serie A side.

The Horror Show at Extreme Rules Apollo Crews (C) vs MVP for the WWE United States Championship. Match result - Apollo Crews Bayley (C) vs Nikki Cross for the WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. Match result - Bayley Rey Mysterio vs Seth Rollins in an Eye for an Eye match. Match result - Seth Rollins Asuka (C) vs Sasha Banks for the WWE Raw Women's Championship. Match result - Asuka Braun Strowman vs Bray Wyatt in a Wyatt Swamp Fight. Match result - Bray Wyatt Drew McIntyre (C) vs Dolph Ziggler for the WWE Championship. Match result - Drew McIntyre

I finished Last of Us 2 so decided to play a few games last night. In about 5 games, got the usual mix of people far, far too good for the level they were playing at, antagonistic replay watchers, and first-thing subbers. Like slipping on a warm coat, but it's warm because of all the pish.

It's all very well putting out phrases like "build the team around them", but how does that work in practice? It might work if you're building a team around a Messi, a Lewandowski, Ronaldo, de Bruyne, but we're not. Not even close. None of the players you mentioned are really "out of nothing" types, except maybe Griffiths at set pieces. What about when this player misses chances (because at international level, I doubt any would reach the 1 in 2 you're asking for) or, more likely, when the players you've got behind them are being utter shithouses and not providing the chances? What about when the ball's going in the other direction? When we get a player gifted enough that can do what you've said, or perhaps that and a few players behind him that can give him what he needs, I'll be the first to agree. I'm not convinced we have that though. Very true. Sometimes only takes one though. Particularly that Russia game, as he looked so desperate to impress that it boiled over into him having a much poorer game. Both definitely different styles though, and if there was a way we could play to his strengths without sacrificing elsewhere, he could be great for us ("great" being very relative for us)

Griffiths had a rocky start too, often looking pretty lost. I'd take these performances if it means McBurnie's going to have a game like that England one. If every player is playing to his absolute best, Griffiths would be the choice. But at the moment that's a massive ask unfortunately.

It sounds like we can write off the prospect of him properly living up to his potential. The Leipzig admission that their big money experiment failed was quite damning, and I doubt they would have done so if they had any impression that they could get it out of him. His moves since have echoed it. But, we don't need him to live up to anything close to what was expected of him. If he can just find the technical ability to ally to his very, very good physical ability, there's no reason why he can't play a specific role very well. If there aren't 4 or 5 forwards better than him, he should be in the squad anyway, and it doesn't matter if his only contribution in a campaign is a 97th minute winner off his arse after he's left a defender in the dust pace-wise before falling over.

Steven Fletcher was regularly pilloried for his goals being against diddies. Almost like the argument is malleable depending on the player's supposed shiteness. Would be lovely to consistently have someone who can utterly sword every supposed diddy we come up against, rather than the alternative.

I think that's a wee bit unfair with the Russia game (I don't remember much of the other two, so you could well be right on those). The Russia game came after his ill-advised comments/joke on getting called up, to the point he got some boos on being announced, but at the start of that game he looked very much like he wanted to prove a point. Fast forward to us scaring ourselves by taking the lead, and then the second half happened. I was front row, probably about halfway into the half we were attacking, so got a much closer view than I would have liked of him, and he looked utterly frustrated. He was poor, absolutely, but a lot of it was stemming from EVERYONE else being poor too. He lost the head a wee bit as well, clearly annoyed at not getting the sort of balls that he needed, and when he did, having no-one around him to profit. There are a long litany of forwards that would look far better for us if we played to their strengths. That's not to say we necessarily should, of course (Rhodes would've been a great finisher, but a passenger otherwise) but we do really struggle to link the midfield with the attack. Have done for years now. Unless you've got this well-rounded complete forward who can take what he's given and create something out of nothing (ha...nae chance) then we need to start finding a way to either set up with a 2 up top that doesn't leave us short in midfield, or set up our midfield in such a way that someone can link well with whatever lonely fucker we have up top, again without leaving us short further back.

I just finished it last night too, spoiler free review, I really enjoyed it. I'm glad I didn't look into the maelstrom of hate it was getting as that might've affected my enjoyment . I also take back arguments on the length, as with how it ended up boing, I actually think it should've been longer. Spoilers ahoy...