ahemps

That is a fair point. I know we are much better in possession these days. I just think it is a bit poor to hoof it up the park from kick off and give away the ball instantly.

I could see them doing this by the way they lined up. England had the ball 3 seconds after KO. It is pathetic and the kind of thing we done with our primary school team. Keep possession, even playing it back to your defenders and drawing the opposition in to open the game.

I have never noticed it before, it was after the 2nd or 3rd time I thought are they getting away with offside because the game hasn't stopped???

I was watching the game at work last night and one of the guys happened to be a referee so he gave us good insight. Linesman don't flag for offside now even when it is glaringly obvious. There were a few occasions when an England player got down the wing and he looked offside but the linesman didn't put his flag up, nothing came of the attack but England kept possession. I asked why are they not bringing it back as they are gaining an advantage but he said they are told not to flag and offside only gets checked if there has been a goal. If there is a break in play then they put their flag up but it seems they don't if nothing comes from the play. There were a couple of English guys who also noticed this and seemed confused as to why they were allowed to keep possession despite looking to be offside. Also the fact play can keep going when a clearly offside player is through on goal and goalkeepers, defenders and attackers keep playing when there is no reason too is at some point going to lead to an incident/tackle where someone comes out injured. Seems utterly bizarre to me.

England played very well last night, Foden, Rashford and particularly Bellingham were very good. They made 6 changes from the weekend and they were no weaker for that. We didn't play as well as we could and all that makes for a pretty one sided game. I think Clarke should have made more early subs in Cyprus, we were 3-0 up in 30 minutes and were cruising so could have taken players off however qualifying for the Euros is the priority so I get that he didn't want to risk anything. He probably should have made a couple of changes to the staring 11 last night as well but that is easy to say in hindsight.

Barnes is 25yrs old and I'm sure if he declares for Scotland it will be because he has carefully considered it. I trust Steve Clarke to judge how committed he is and I doubt he will have him in the 1st team for the Euros opening game even if he comes on board for the next round of qualifiers as Clarke has been very loyal to his players. Even when there are opportunities to try new players he rarely takes it so no way does he fall for someone who just fancies a game at an international tournament.

Che Adams took a bit of time to decide to join and there is no questioning his commitment. I would trust Clarke to speak to Barnes and gauge his desire to play and also Clarkes judgement on the effect on the team morale. He has done a great job building that team spirit and I believe he has done it deliberately and it isn't just there because John McGinn is a good laugh. If Barnes wants to play international football and shows he is willing to commit to Scotland then I would take him, he is a top player. After the Euros Clarke may look to bring the overall age profile of the team down, 4 of our 8 midfielders are over 30. Barnes is 25 which is the same age as Jacob Brown and he has been in several squads so maybe he takes his spot (I know Brown hasn't made this squad).

I heard a comment that in Clarkes first game he had 3 EPL players in his squad, now we have 8. If you count Tierney and Ferguson that is 10 players in the top 5 European leagues. It can't be a coincidence that we have improved so much in the last few years if individually the players are playing at higher levels as well. The championship is a good league, I do like it and it is a good level.

So for the WC is being in the top nations league draw a good thing from a playoff point of view? I'd hope we could get closer to POT 1 but catching Sweden and outperforming Austria, Serbia, Poland and Ukraine at the same time may be a lot to hope for.

I actually wasn't that against the Super league as I (maybe naively) hoped that the big clubs would all leave and UEFA would then need to be fairer to the teams they had left and there would be an opportunity to level the game a bit. In the current climate we have all the bad bits that come with the super clubs. The 1st thing UEFA done after the super league outcry was to give the clubs more money by reducing the solidarity payments and now have increased the CL with an extra 2 places reserved for unqualified teams with high coefficients so probably this time next year Liverpool and Ajax would have got in the CL.

I wonder if the Saudi money has an effect on this in a few years. The EPL clubs are doing their best at fighting the Saudis off but they are literally taking top players from other leagues now and this might prompt them to come back to the table.

As top seed 2nd should be a minimum. Betis are tough and realistically finishing closely behind them wouldn't be a disaster. Both the Prague teams easily beat the OF about 3yrs ago so they could be tricky as their league is probably overall a better standard, they were also one of the worst picks from Pot 3. Aris should be 6pts or 4pts if a draw away is good enough when the game is played.

You would have handpicked Feyenoord from Pot 1. Pot 2 is always tough, arguably never getting an easy one there but Leipzig or Porto may have been kinder. Pot 3 Lazio is about middle of the road, you'd want to avoid PSV and Milan but may have preferred Copenhagen or Braga. I'm sure last year I thought the same though as Leipzig and Shaktar were the 2 you'd have chosen from their pots and even Real who always give up points in the group stages unlike say City, Bayern or PSG who steamroll theirs. Celtic have a bigger budget than Feyenoord and Lazio's is greater but not by a great deal so they have to be competitive in this group. Finishing last with 5-6pts wouldn't be a disaster as that would show you have challenged.

I get why this is exciting for Celtic fans but if you have to pay a good 30-50% of his £120K a week wages then would that not be way above anyone else at the club? For what is in reality an injury prone left back. If you are willing to pay someone £60k a week would that not be better on a semi proven exciting 21yr old striker who can get you 30m in a few years?

I know this may be meant or seen an insult but if it is in an internal forum between Villa fans then maybe it is not. Hibs income and wage bill would place them as a league 1 club in England. Derby, Bolton Reading, Blackpool, Barnsley etc. would have much bigger revenue but Hibs may have bigger revenue than Cheltenham, Shrewsbury or Stevenage so on average if Hibs played in England they would probably be a league 1 club. Do you think this is an unfair comment on their forum?

I think this is a true point. It is a real shame for Tierney but I don't think he can play 30+ games a season.

Burnley were still using the excuse their 2 early Europa league qualifying rounds had a detrimental impact on them in March the year they were in Europe (they stayed up that year but got relegated the next without Europe) In the SPFL Rangers and Hibs lost their opening games, Aberdeen drew while Celtic were not as convincing as you'd expect on their opening fixtures. When the difference between the teams isn't that big I think playing teams who have already had some competitive fixtures can be a bit of a disadvantage. The EPL complain about the fixture scheduling a lot.

Is this true? There are lots of top players who had loan spells at lower levels, Callum McGregor went to Notts County and played with Grealish there. Robertson and McGinn spent time lower down in Scotland albeit not on loan. Gilmour stayed at Chelsea and wasn't getting much game time. Aaron Hickey has chosen his moves for playing time when 'apparently' there were bigger clubs in for him, leaving Celtic and turning down Bayern B team. I think there is a debate for both dropping down a level for consistent game time and staying at the higher level training but with less game time.

Gary o Neil is getting the job, this was mentioned yesterday as well. Wolves likely had him lined up. There would have been nobody else under consideration if it is done this quickly. Amazing how poor the reporters are in Scotland yet there will still be Rangers fans saying he's turned them down for a 2nd time to stay with The Rangers.

Then they will look at their bank account and accept it as part of the job.

I think it is close, look at the teams who finished 3rd and even 4th in the Europa groups last year and as the bottom seed do you think you could finish 3rd? Then look at the teams who finished 2nd in the conference leagues as well. I think it would a huge achievement to get through either group. More chance of a real big name in the Europa like Liverpool, Roma or Sporting but more chance of points in the conference. Money wise you would need a win and a draw to at least break even in the conference with the Europa money.

I imagined Genk to be the tougher game. Don't know enough of either and didn't watch their games so it is totally without knowledge but I think this is possibly a better tie for you.

Does the Saudi league and the money they are now paying mean this European Superleague will rear it's head again within a few years?

It is the early rounds though, still not really giving much hope for football to be more competitive is it? The conference league has been a good addition and I think from next year there is no more drop downs after the group stages which will help the Europa and Conference winners be a bit more variable.

Some sort of wage cap.