cowl

Aye, I expected a really tough game today and that was precisely what we got. Röhl set us up positively though and I'll not fault him for that - I'd prefer that anyway to just setting up to defend for 90 minutes. I do think he was perhaps let down by some of the individual performances today - even though it was in the second half that we conceded most of the goals, it was our passing in the first half that was particularly poor, for the few occasions we managed to get the ball into their half anyway. We gambled. It failed. That's football.

Bernard started more-or-less as a right back against Preston in our last away game, so I imagine it'll be the same again. Johnson at left back and Palmer in midfield.

Official?

I think the likelihood though is that we just won't be able to send either of them back anyway so it may just come down to whether Chansiri is willing to pay their wages as well as that of their replacements, even if either or both Hendrick and Fletcher aren't even registered to play - and all that is assuming this could be done while remaining within FFP.

It was always going to be less about merely ‘sending Hendrick back’ than about helping to find another club to take him, such that the financials aren't going to leave Newcastle out of pocket compared to the deal they have with us.

The Star article only mentions Hendrick and says nothing about Fletcher.

I think folk are taking too seriously what a young player says in an interview. That a player should talk up their ambitions when fed questions that are practically leading him there is hardly surprising. In fact, it would be more surprising if he simply said that the Championship is his level and that he foresees no further progress for himself.

I think we're seriously under-selling ourselves here.

Fans do quickly let go of attachments though whenever a player is actually replaced by better. We have the debates about the up-coming out-of-contract players every year, and every year some of these players indeed move on or are let go - but the problem is when we don't replace them with better, or even worse in some cases, when we don't replace them at all. Should Röhl be here long enough for the next three or four windows, I doubt any fans will lament for too long the replacing of any of our current players, long-time favourites included, so long as we improve on what we had.

This has long been a pet-hate of mine too. I hate it when the opposition do it to us, but I even hate it when we do it to the opposition. Jack Hunt was always at it! Can't stand the ‘taking-one-for-the-team’ fouls and yellow cards either for that matter. It's cynical and unsporting and could be curbed in no time by simply sending players off for it.

Aye, it's an upward trajectory at the moment. We make the right type of signings this window and I'd like to think we'll have enough to continue towards safety. Relegation would certainly be a disaster. I think sometimes teams can get relegated and there's the argument to be made that it could be a blessing in disguise, giving them a chance to reformat the whole squad and build back stronger - perhaps this could've been said when we were last relegated. But that was then and a relegation this time round would only be disastrous for us.

How? Dawson - much maligned though he is for some of his handling - has gradually improved with the ball at his feet in the last couple of months. In fact, the whole defence have improved their decision making with how to deal with the ball successfully in the tight areas when trying to play it out from the back. Röhl has also learned which players are better able to deal with the ball in tight areas and especially when on their wrong foot - Diaby, for example, was asked to be the main ball-player at the back for a few games earlier on, looked particularly uncomfortable and so the role was given to others instead, mostly Bernard. It's not the whole truth to say that we don't have the players to play out from the back as though it's a simple binary matter and not least because it doesn't allow for the possibility of players improving at it the more they do it, as well as the level and quality of coaching they're receiving. We've quite simply improved at playing the ball out from the back, and I expect we'll continue to too. It takes time to implement with players, and though you refrain that we don't have that time, I'd say that Röhl is proving that we absolutely do have the time because we've clawed our way back towards being within touching distance of safety.

Okay. This is how I opened the particular post you seem to be referring to: Seriously, what's your issue with this? It must surely be implicit in absolutely everything that you've so far said against the merits of playing out from the back. I'm merely echoing your own view back to you. I've both heard and read coaches talk frequently about the various tactical approaches they make that have their very validity in there being a statistical advantage to employing said approach. They aren't my statistics but the statistics the coaches themselves use. I'm saying only what they themselves have said - and only what you yourself are clearly aware of because you're saying they're wrong - and how many coaches are we talking about here? Well, by your own statements ‘the entire football psychology in the coaching World’. We surely agree then that this is precisely what coaches are doing? But now you're asking for ‘adequate evidence that playing it out is effective’ ahead of time. You'll just have to be patient for that. The data just isn't in yet. Well, at least, that is, as the data pertains to us. I suppose if you want the data as it pertains to other teams then that's another matter. Nevertheless, we have one incident in one game for now, at least. An incident that, all other things being equal, meant we took 3 points instead of 1. Furthermore, I can't think of any points that we've dropped this season as a direct result of playing it out from the back. So that already seems to be a +2 points from playing out from the back. Ah, but ‘it's boring’ you say, and we don't have the players for it, you say. Okay. No problem. As you say yourself, it's just ‘your view’. We'd be on 2 fewer points right now, but you're welcome to your view, of course.

No, it isn't. I'll tell you the truth here; I suspect you're just purposefully obfuscating. It's your claim I've made ‘sweeping generalisations’, not my claim - and so it falls on you to show me what these sweeping generalisations are.

Humour me and point them out to me then.