RicoS321

You don't need to live there to know that the majority of political violence is, factually speaking, right wing. The majority of political violence occurs on behalf the state. The current state is run by Republican Trump, the previous, Democrat Biden. Both right wing, just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan before them were. Beyond that, there may be some individual left wing people causing violence, and a couple of marginalised groups, offset against the invariably right wing school shooters and other assorted weirdos. I'm not particularly against political violence as it happens, I think it's inevitable in a corrupt system such as the one we've designed, and sometimes essential. I wouldn't class myself as left wing either. I wouldn't really give much of a shite if right wing violence did outweigh left, I was attempting to be objective, and objectively speaking it isn't even close. Unless Fox news are burying a large cache of left wing organised violence that nobody in the world is hearing about, or seeing.

You'd have to be fairly mental to believe that. There hasn't been a left wing government in the US in at least fifty years, and given that the overwhelming majority of political violence comes from the state, there is zero chance of the left ever surpassing right wing violence.

Ricky Hatton, 46. Shame. Met him once, don't remember much about it, but seemed nice.

I think we should start by sacking everyone, and then play the previously sacked u19s.

We do know that your President and many republican representatives did immediately blame the "far left" (basically nonexistent in the US), in an attempt to make political capital, without waiting for any confirmation. Anyway, rather disturbingly, the childish US culture war has been successfully exported worldwide, and the pub I was in today, in fucking Aberdeen, was showing English grifter news channel GB News, with live coverage of a march organised by assistant chief grifter Tommy Robinson (funded by US backers). Hilariously pathetic.

That seemed to be what he attempted to a degree when Clarkson came on. Palaversa was quite central, with Armstrong and Clarkson ahead. Whether that was deliberate or not is debatable.

Aye, that was gash. That was a Livi team that didn't come just to sit in too. They, justifiably, felt they could match us. We were dogshite. First half we were fine, working our way into it, but Aouchiche was gash. Keskinen winning the ball well then proceeding to make the wrong decision every fucking time is a bit tedious, as is Jensen being Jensen. Nilsen and Shinnie were fine, Gyamfi fine. The subs were of a manager who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. Just a fucking mess. Complete disarray from the first inexplicable sub onward. Just throwing players on for the sake of it. Palaversa was exceptional in his shiteness. Lazetic very ropey. Nothing good about this team at present, and nothing to suggest otherwise from the new signings. Disagree about Karlsson, thought he looked distinctly average. Could come good, but looked like a guy who could be easily marked out the game in our league. Gyamfi is a unit, unexpectedly. Armstrong coming on in midfield (as opposed to the McGrath role) is a massive worry.

Can't get the team to post, but it's like mine, but Aouchiche in for Lazetic and Dorrington for Milne. Decent lineup.

Too soon

You were doing so well until you transformed into Dave Cameron

I think he might go: With Lazetic where the empty space is, as he wasn't in the database

Aye, obviously not including football forums of course.

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

Yep, and Ferguson wasn't a box to box midfielder at that point either. It was really only in his final season and then his move to Bologna that he started covering the whole pitch. Him and Ramadani were the top two in terms of yards covered in the Italian league a wee while back, so it's not an easy role to replace!

We've got a long history of it. From James Wilson, to Nicky Maynard, I'm finding it harder to think of one who wasn't an instant success and fans' favourite.

I don't think we'll see a 19 year old going box to box, which is what we need. I'd like to see him though, but I suspect he'll get <10 games this season.

Agreed, but Palaversa hasn't remotely shown himself to be a heavy lifter at all. I'd love to see stats on coverage for the two, as I suspect Clarkson puts in a lot more yards. Bar a couple of games, Palaversa has generally just been a player that should be a box to box midfielder, rather than actually being one. He's a frustrating lad. He certainly hasn't earned his place.

Should get decent odds on Yengi or Shinnie to score.

The problem with that is Cooper Masson is nowhere near ready for our first team, hence why he's at Kelty. He's among the best in that age group (involved with Scotland setup). If the English teams are coming in at 16-17, then we've got little hope. Boyd looked like a fantastic prospect, but this season is the first where he's looked physically strong enough to get in our first team, and it was obviously known to the club that he wasn't willing to stay by that point. You're really looking at 19 before most players will be strong enough these days, with only a handful of exceptions. Wilson at hearts is an example. Lauded everywhere, but in reality was nowhere near good enough to be playing every week and physically weak. He's now warming the bench. Bowie at Hibs has bulked up and is now showing the talent matched with the athleticism. I don't think that can be rushed through. I'd like to see more young players, but I think that the club will have to publicly set a quota so that both manager and player get a bit of breathing space to implement. I've said it before, but these young lads don't owe the club anything. We are fairly quick to ditch players we don't want, so we have no right to expect loyalty on the other side. If we can announce that we will be taking a minimum of two academy players into the squad to be playing twenty games (including subs), then players might begin to take note. We've currently got Duncan (not good enough), and Lobban (needs game time now) filling a quota for European football in what appears to be detrimental to their development.

Not picking Gunn enough?

Decent performance and a comfortable win. Thought Adams was very good, also McGinn, Gilmour and Doak. Subs again were a bit poor. Clarke is playing this campaign ultra safe, and I can see why, but we could have pushed it tonight again. Adams was very good as I said, but that absolute sitter he missed was because he had been running himself into the ground. Bowie deserved 15-20 minutes to show what he could do, and I suspect he'd have buried that. Wouldn't have minded seeing Doak switching wings for a spell too, and obviously Miller on instead of McLean. Clarke made little attempt in the last campaign to transition to the future, and he's doing it again. If Dykes isn't playing much before the next game then we might want to give Bowie a chance, so why not give him a taster? I don't think Dykes as a sub is going to grab a goal against tiring defenders. Again, taking the chances when they arise is vital, and goal difference is also vital. Clarke is really putting his faith on taking everything at Hampden. It's high risk.

Good side. Should have enough to batter them.

Aye, that seems reasonable. Could probably even find room for Lennon Miller alongside Ferguson, but think it might be Gilmour. McKenna has to start ahead of Hanley, as we need to carry from defence (Hanley was excellent otherwise, but it's not his type of game tonight). I'm wondering if McTominay might be rested for tonight, as that looked a sore one late in the game on Friday. I'd consider the 4-4-2 with Bowie alongside Dykes if so.

I did mine on Friday, it was no bother. Although it was just uptake of season ticket seat so might be different.

Last time I watched Wales, they fluked a draw against North Macedonia, with some dirty Hun cunt scoring for the latter. I don't think we see ourselves as inferior to any of the teams you mention, more on a par with them. Which means that when you're the away side, setting up to contain and break isn't ridiculous. The only issue I have with the performance, and Scotland performances more generally, is that we don't react and change during games. I think it was an opportunity missed, as they were flat and so was the crowd. Another way of looking at it, though, is that Clarke saw the draw as enough, because he believes that we're good enough to beat both Denmark and Greece at Hampden. There can be little other way to interpret it. I think we are good enough to beat them both at Hampden, but I'm also aware that a bird in the hand is worth two in the tree, and that we might have injuries or suspensions and we end up dropping points come the home legs.