kaosmark2

You realise that one of the reasons Disney and Facebook have been referenced is because the exact same Saudi company PIF has a stake in both of them? Also, Walt Disney was a humongous racist, and that company is still trading on both his name and films that showcased that ideology.

Whilst I agree, I do think there is a psychological element that has made it easier for the Saudis to gain support at Newcastle than could have happened at another club. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/newcastle-united-takeover-fans-moral-dilemma-mike-ashley-saudi-arabia-1237404 I think this puts it well.

I do suspect that Newcastle fans are being more supportive of it, than if there hadn't been Ashley. If it was coming in the aftermath of Shepherd/Hall (who were also corrupt and shitty), I think there'd have been a little bit more pushback from the fans. Not much, but I think the Saudis can get away with it more easily at Newcastle, because of the last 14 years of hopelessness at the club.

Do you think the general response of Newcastle fans is better, worse, or pretty much the same as most other clubs' fans would be if the Saudis took over from a detested owner?

Also worth saying that I don't believe that this: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/08/angry-premier-league-clubs-demand-emergency-meeting-on-newcastle-deal has anything to do at all with human rights concerns at the other clubs, and entirely to do with them not wanting another team to pull above them in the table.

Anyone who is sufficiently part of the mega-rich to buy a Prem club is an evil POS. Agreed. That said, the brutal assassinations, homophobia, misogyny, etc. by the Saudi regime is a step beyond the rest of them. They are doing this for the sake of sportswashing, and everyone knows it. I dislike the narrative that Newcastle fans, as an entity, are guilty/complicit because of celebrating this, it isn't the responsibility of football and football fans to manage human rights abuses across the world. The monetisation of football is a problem, but the Saudis taking over Newcastle is a symptom of what's wrong in football, not the cause of it. As I said before, I was boycotting under Ashley and I'll continue to do so, because I'm not going to be hypocritical enough to pretend that they're better than Ashley and more deserving of support just because there'll be greater investment in the club. Following sports is a little about escapism. I don't know if I'll be able to escape into joy for any success the club gets, because I don't know if I'll be able to separate it from the Saudis' human rights abuses, but I'm definitely not going to begrudge any fan that can get some pleasure from it, fuck knows we've been through enough already.

Venkys come to mind.

Sporting ability is transient. No club, regardless of their history, has any more or less right to success. They also don't have any more or less right to investment, fuck the closed shop that Man U and Liverpool were trying to create. I'd be quite happy if another club with some vague history in the game had a big surge of investment and broke into "the big 6". Everton look like they're not going to. I can't get excited about this because of the sportswashing at my own club, but it is the nature of football.

I don't. I steal the marvel films since the Disney take over, i pay more to use local taxis over supporting uber, I've bought one thing online on the last 2 years, and only 4 things not from independent shops (exc groceries). I boycotted funding NUFC under Ashley, and I'll continue to do so under the Saudis. If someone has drawn a line saying they won't support the club under Ashley, i think they should continue that boycott. If they haven't, then i wouldn't particularly expect them to start to.

I think most Newcastle fans would take the club lingering in the Championship for a decade in exchange for the government seizing the club from Ashley. But that's because it's become a personal resentment for a lot of fans, as opposed to just bitterness over lack of success. Also, I think a lot of fans of teams outside the big boys realise there's little emotional difference to the experience of being middling in the Prem or the Championship, apart from how often you get to watch your team get thrashed by the big boys on Sky.

It's impossible to be rich enough to own a vaguely major football club without shady means. Wealth hoarding to that degree is in itself immoral.

To most fans? I imagine so, i can't think most people will give a shit. Same as easty doesn't, and same as his point about people buying sweat shop clothing. On the assumption it happens, I'll personally continue to not financially support the club under the new regime. But i boycott a list of companies that's well over 100. I'm incredibly emotionally invested in making sure my own consumer habits are as ethical as possible.

I haven't believed a takeover report in 7 years. It reads more likely but without it being confirmed i won't believe.

It's that time of year.

I'm incredibly gutted, and feeling even more robbed by the lack of the last India test given that he'd have played. His interviews are really telling, I do completely agree that he never fulfilled his potential with the bat, and could have been so much more there.... if England hadn't been so flush with all-rounders that he bounced around the order a lot. I don't think he'd have done well in Aus, albeit I do think his record on the last Ashes tour was badly marred by that finger injury, and I'm not at all surprised he's decided to call it a day. I was there for his rescue mission century against Sri Lanka, and I can't help but feel that in many ways that's emblematic of his career. Agonisingly close to something remarkable. In terms of the long-term future of the test team, it's probably for the best that Leach/Bess/Parkinson get to play more, all of whom I'd also say are better suited to Aus pitches (if the Ashes happen), but I just love watching Mo, always entertaining, and I've loved seeing his joy on the pitch when he contributes.

Seemed much more consistent than previously, which was probably an unfair criticism to make given his record over the last 2 summers (and not watching him live in that time), but there still wasn't anything to make him stand out I think. I was there for Curran's debut test and he was very erratic then, but that's true of a lot of young bowlers. I had more hope that he'd improve and that's not quite panned out yet. Although I did see the stat that his bowling and batting averages are better than that of Woakes/Stokes/Broad at the same stage of their test careers. Dunno, a big thing for me with Overton is that I just think Gregory is notably better and it's that he's getting further test caps when other good players still haven't had a chance yet. Mahmood and Gregory being the standouts to me. I'd like to see one of Woakes/Wood come in for one of Curran/Overton. I worry slightly that Anderson might need a rest after his general 2nd innings record this year and last game in particular, but I'd also be worried about bringing in 2 bowlers off injuries. Exciting series though.

Anderson, Broad, Archer, Woakes, Stokes is an incredibly good first 5 fast bowlers. There's also Wood, Stone, Mahmood and other 90mph bowlers who are around as offering an extra edge with pace. I have no doubt that there's plenty of county bowlers who can take wickets in home tests, Toby Roland Jones had a great time in his only test series and after his injury he's not been back in contention. Porter and Gregory have been around the squad before, and for some reason aren't any more. I don't think my getting a game is even an indictment on them, just the quality of the established bowlers. Archer and Robinson are the first bowlers in a decade to really break in so impressively that they've forced themselves into regular contention (and we'll see on Robinson). Even Woakes never completely managed to nail a spot. It's testament to the high standards set by Anderson and Broad. But... If you're going to blood another player into the side, there's no need for it to be C Overton. He's played a few tests already, and to me shown he's not good enough. I don't think his improved record over the last 2 seasons is indicative of his improvement as much as Somerset overall. Poor Hameed.

I would go with either me or you as much as I'd go for Craig Overton. I don't think I've ever seen a supposed all-rounder look as irrelevant as Craig Overton with both bat and ball. 81mph dobblers combined with a lack of consistency, passable batting performances, and a vague concept of "having the right stuff" do not make a test all-rounder. I'm a Somerset fan and I genuinely think he's the worst player to play for England since Simon Kerrigan, and even then I'm not sure he's much better. He tears it up in the county championship because of the brilliance of Gregory/Leach/Van Der Merwe at the other end, and batters going after him because he's the least canny bowler. I don't rate him, I don't think he should have a future, and I think his borderline passable batting gives him an extra excuse to be picked instead of a genuine reason. If you're looking for a no8 bowling all-rounder I'd much rather see Lewis Gregory in the test team. If looking for an 81-83mph line and length bowler who takes wickets in the county game I'd much rather see Jamie Porter. If wanting someone who can extract wickets with pace and bounce on a Taunton pitch I'd rather his brother (even if he's moved to Surrey). I think Sam Curran is very much a bits and pieces not-quite-masterful enough cricketer and who's had a test cap or two too many, but between his left arm variation and actual genuine batting capability, I think he's 4 times the cricketer Craig Overton is, and he's been the worst performer this test so far!

I don't think Wood's Lords record reflects how good a bowler he is. Similarly, I do think it's indicatative of how the pitch doesn't suit him at all. I would play Mahmood over Wood for the simple reason that I don't think the other attributes that Wood brings over pace are relevant at Lords, and that's a fairly decent explanation of his mediocre record there. I also think his record in England overall is marred by him being overpicked for Lords pitches that are naturally unsuited to his game.

Bairstow holding his place annoys me, and I'd have gone with Wood over Mahmood because of that poor Lords record, but I'm pretty happy with that team, it just looks better overall than any other this summer, possibly this year. Given that the selection issues are actual injuries, I'm much happier with this attempt at solving them than creating their own issues.

I've already said what I think of the word "hid", but while I agree his numbers regressed in comparison to those 3, Kohli hasn't scored a century since 2019 despite his home batting being on much more favourable batting pitches in India, and Smith openly said his ban gave him a break that enabled him to become a better player, and also plays more on batting-friendly pitches. Centuries also aren't the whole story, while the landmark is a simple (and largely effective) way of measuring decisive innings, India won in Australia off Pant scoring 80s and 90s, and a number of Root 70s/80s have been at least as decisive as say, his double hundreds in Sri Lanka earlier this year.

Considering he's batted a not insignificant amount in the top 3, despite his natural style being that of a test 4/5, I think he's done brilliantly and not "hid" at all. Tendulkar, Kohli, Pietersen, ABDV, Michael Clarke, Bell, all batted most of their career at 4 and 5. Kallis averaged a whole 12 runs higher at 4 than 3. Considering half his career has been batting in England during a decade where the general average in the country has been below 30, even if you only include the top 7/8, I think he's done amazingly to average around 50. That low average is partially due to the brilliance of Anderson/Broad/Woakes, and our own other batsmen being poor in that time, but I still think it's indicative of how much he stands out. Cook is an absolutely outstanding player and deserves to be considered one of the greatest test match openers of all time, but for all the reasons TGT has said and more, Root is better.

It's pretty much based on lack of a better option in the squad. I do think Crawley has a future at 3 for England, but his form is atrocious, and I think he'll develop better outside the side again. I'm less sure that's the case for Sibley, but does it hurt him/Hameed to bat 3? If you're not pushing an opener down, or sticking with Crawley, you're pushing someone up. I think of the middle order players, Lawrence has most to gain, and least to lose, both personally and for the long-term structure of the team. Gutting that Broad is out for the rest of the series, and very concerning about Anderson. Excited to see Mahmood, and really hope he gets the nod over COverton

I want Hameed in the team, and I want Crawley out right now (I do expect to see him again in a year or two). That said, I wouldn't want Hameed at 3, so I'm going to promote Lawrence/Pope to 3 as I think that's still better than sticking than sticking with Crawley. I still think Sibley is better than Burns overall, but given contrasting form this season, and ages, how do you get the most runs out of players right now, and long-term? I think if Sibley is dropped, and told he's still going to be in the squads and that he has a future, he'll come back a better player. Bairstow is, IMO, a servicable WK/bat at 7, but notably inferior to Buttler and Foakes, and probably inferior to other keepers. If he's at 6/7 when at least 2 other keepers aren't available, fine, that's recalling someone with experience in case of injury, but I'd rather play any specialist bat in the top 5. Apparently Broad pulled up in training today, and if he's as low as 90% fit I wouldn't play him. That said, I completely agree that Wood isn't suited to Lords (both in terms of averages, and his style of skiddy high-pace bowling). I'd still rather give him overs than Craig Overton though (why Mahmood wasn't called up with Archer and Stone injured I don't know). Ergo: Burns, Hameed, Lawrence, Root, Pope, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Robinson, Wood, Anderson If Broad's fit, very happy he's at Lords over Wood. If Pope isn't fit, I'd bat Hameed 3 and keep Sibley in over playing Crawley, retaining Lawrence over Bairstow. To me Wood possibly plays Headingley and definitely Old Trafford, probably in place of Curran, who comes back in-between for The Oval. I'd also be open to Malan coming back in for Headlingley. Not going to make comments on Woakes for the rest of the series until I hear more about how fit he is.

I feel like Sibley only needs possibly one more scoring shot. It can even be something he just regularly gets singles off to rotate a little more. The scoring rate doesn't bother me in the slightest, but a string of maidens 20 overs into the innings is a bit more worrying. I'm absolutely a fan though, more convinced by him than any top order we've seen for England since Hameed's first tests. While I think Crawley has the highest ceiling as a test player out of the current top 3, his form is clearly shot, and surely it's better for him to just get a break? Lawrence can stay or go IMO, my biggest thing with the current crop is that when/if they are dropped, they're told that they can still play their way back into form and into the side. Of the players who've batted 3 for England since Trott, Malan is the one I'd go back to right now, and that's mainly because he's in excellent form, and his Test century was in Aus. Vince might have shown snippets, but he's had 3 runs in the test side already. Bairstow is the 3rd or 4th best keeper/batsman in red ball. With Foakes injured I get why he was called up, but I'd also have been happy to see Billings or someone else. He has changed his stance for this series, and at least is getting towards 30 again instead of ducks, but he shouldn't bat top 5.