Eggy McMuffin

It was actually this which got me wanting to read Brave New World.

I didn't know that, but it does make a lot of sense. Although I find that Huxley's ideas are more poignant, although once I've read it, I aim to read Brave New World Revisited, so it might be a while before I give those a go. You'll probably be ashamed to learn that I didn't even know that it was based on a book. What can I say, I guess I'll just have to stick to science and computers. :P

Bad financial planning sir. f**k me, not a good start.

A Gem of a collection! :D Brilliant work, not just on the collection, but having the patience to upload and share them all with us is a great effort! I always feel that saying this stuff sounds patronising, and I really hope it doesn't come across that way because I mean every word! Top work Gem.

If it helps, they are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson (book on the origin of football tactics), and an Introduction to Biomechanics.

It is that film, and it's excellent, so hush Moi. :P I am indeed a student... well, I'm just at college as a mature student and working part time, should be going to Uni next year at the ripe old age of 22. I do read, but I like lazing in front of the TV. In fact at the moment I have about three books on the go (short attention span, probably caused by the films). :blush:

I'm sure there are better works on the subject, but it's always less effort to watch a film, and I like many others living in the modern age am quite the lazy git. Incidentally, I'm currently rewatching Children of Men, one of my all time favourite films, and it happens to be on ITV (one of my least favourite TV channels).

Personally, even though I didn't think it was particularly good, I would say it is worth watching, but for the concept, not the execution. Probably not at the Cinema though, as it's a bit pricey just for a concept... probably wait for it to be on TV.

When I get it, I will challenge you to a game. Actually, we might have to set up a mini league between us all?

I wasn't meaning build around them, I was meaning replace them, or at least fill their roles in the team.

I'm sure Kakuta doesn't take it personally. The thing about Pato, is that I have never felt that he's who we need, although that may change when Drogba retires (unfortunately he'll have to one day). I see Pato as a player in the style of Torres. Works on the last man, and uses his pace and skill to get in behind and finish, and has other qualities too, such as being decent with his head, and being able to create when he drops deep, but preferring to play further up the pitch. Aguero on the other hand is someone who prefers to play deeper and run at the defenders, which is far more suited to the Anelka role in the side, although we have got into this debate before as to whether he can play there, but I'm still adamant he can and would be excellent. What he can also do though, is if he's playing as one of two strikers, is drop off and play in the area where Lampard now plays, but of course Lampard won't be here forever. Aguero playing there gives us a slightly different option, with his differing abilities. He can take players on far better than Lampard can, and create opportunities in a different way to Lampard's passing and long shooting, not to say Aguero can't shoot from range, but his passing although inventive, isn't as accurate as Lampard. I see the issue being as to who retires first as to which I'd prefer. Whether Anelka and Lampard go first, or Drogba does. Pato is better as a main striker, a poacher if you will, but Aguero is more of a creative, deep lying forward, or even advanced midfielder depending on how you look at football. It also depends on who comes through the youth too... because if both Kakuta and Tore make it, all of a sudden we don't need someone to play in the hole or on the right, just as if Borini makes it we won't necessarily need Pato. On Higuain... yes please, but I doubt it'd happen. I see it as even less likely than Pato, and he'll take something special to get him in. Higuain is a little special, he's practically Aguero and Pato rolled into one. He can do either job (although probably isn't as strong as Pato, or as good with his head). I would see him as being one of the greatest around, but I doubt it would happen.

I will have to wait a few weeks to be able to get it, but I too can't wait for it. I will have to play you online when I do get it, though.

I think the problem is that Zhirkov doesn't enjoy playing centrally, and that's why he looks disinterested. Against City (I think) he was used on the wing and all of a sudden livened up. I think that's all there is to it, if I'm honest.

I second that.

Ah, well, I haven't watched that much Italian football to be honest, and I rarely see him go as far forward, but I will take your word for it!

I'd agree with all of that. I feel he's going to be more of a player as a backup for Essien and Mikel, or actually competition for them. Next year, or the year after, with him Essien and Mikel we won't be short of options to play alongside a more attacking midfielder, who would hopefully be Lampard, Benayoun, or possibly if Kakuta starts to show signs of being an option there, or McEachran. Actually, thinking on it, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Ramires becoming competition for Mikel, and McEachran for Essien, as I see McEachran as being a deeper playmaker, rather than an advanced one. Who replaces Benayoun as a backup to Lampard, f**k knows, but I'm sure Carlo has a plan.

You see, I noticed something different about him, I felt he was just going deep to collect the ball and work it forward. Against Newcastle he was far more advanced too. It may have been that he was deeper against City because he felt crowded out up field with their 2 DMs and Yaya Toure slightly ahead of them.

I'm starting to get a different vibe from McEachran and talking to some people... and I think he's more a Xavi than an Iniesta... he doesn't seem to play in the hole between the midfield and defence of the opposition much, preferring to come deep and collect the ball and keep it moving. For him to try and be Lampard would be a waste for me. He very rarely gives the ball away, and plays it simple more often than he tries something audacious (not that he doesn't try those things). I'd say that it wouldn't be far off to have him alongside Lampard in the side, with Mikel or Essien behind him. Shooting doesn't seem to be his thing, although that may be nerves, I think wanting him to be a Lampard-esque 20 goal a season midfielder might be the wrong direction to push him.... Not that I'm an expert on this sort of thing, mind you.

If there is no one ahead of him in space, who the f**k do you expect Mikel to pass to? It's his job to keep the ball and keep the team moving, which mainly involves sideways passes... f**ks sake man.

The reason Cambiasso wasn't picked by Maradonna was that he'd been simply awful for Argentina whenever Maradonna had picked him previously, so he didn't trust him enough to have him in his world cup squad.

Isn't he more Irish than Scottish? I was thinking that, but I also didn't want to set the bar of expectation that high for young Josh. I think he'll get 5 appearances at most throughout this season (all as a sub from now on), and we shouldn't expect much more. The year after he may well get more, closer to 10 or so, and we can slowly build him up as he improves.

You see, I'd even suggest that they were problems in the midfield. The first one, Ferreira was alone against two Newcastle players, so couldn't close down. He needed cover from either Ramires, Benayoun or Studge. Bruma needed Ramires to screen closer in front of him, so he could drop off a little more. Ferreira's pass was just awful, but Alex did what he should have done, Ramires should have been a little closer to him. The last of course is just bad (or no) marking.

I agree that Carlo got it wrong, it's just I disagree as to what he got wrong. For me it was the shape, for you it was too many changes. I think we've reached a fair point to disagree on?

I don't think Ramires was bad. He wasn't great, but seeing as he effectively had to gain control of the midfield on his own, it's quite harsh on him.

I think that we just needed a better balance in terms of players playing their positions. I think that's what affected it more than players not being used to playing with one another. There was a lack of balance in the side. I think rectifying that and having a stronger bench, so for example if we played Mikel in with Ramires and Benayoun, but keep the rest as they were, with a bench similar to Cech, Alex, Ivan, Kalou, Drogba, Chalobah, McEachran, maybe Kalou in for someone on there. That way we can make the changes to force the issue if we have to, and with a midfield, already close to full strength we would have far more control over the game and allowed the youngsters to blossom. One thing I disagree with though, I think it's better to see how a player does when they start. The full match experience. Let them experience the preparations, trying to make an impact from the start is a different prospect than coming on half way through the second half... especially for players like Kakuta, and it's very difficult for defenders to do well in those circumstances in any shape. So Bruma and Van Aanholt would struggle. I just think it was a problem with the shape of the side, more than a problem with the youngsters... in fact I think it's doing them a disservice (other than Studge, who was quite poor) to blame them for the loss.