Maximus Decimus

When I went to the NFL in Chicago we got talking to this older couple at the airport and they couldn't believe that we knew about the NFL but also things like college football etc. I was really impressed with my one experience and would definitely do it again. I suppose I was too into the game to notice too much about the rest of the crowd. That said, I was sat next to about 6 young French lads across 2 rows who all came out carrying a set of 4 beers. They lasted the first quarter so they got another 4. Safe to say they were hammered and one was even being given ice to stop him puking up. It was the most British acting I'd ever seen our French cousins.

Very pleased with the Bears performance yesterday. After a slow first quarter, they dominated and easily won a game that they were slight underdogs for. I have a mate who went both the last two weeks and he said while there were probably more Bears fans than Vikings fan last week, it felt like less of a home game.

What with the GF being on, I missed the most controversial moment that being the Ben Whittaker draw. From what I've seen, he was struggling against a fighter he was expected to beat and then they both went head first over the ropes, where Whittaker was injured and had to retire. The fight went to the scorecards and it was scored a draw which most see as fortunate for Whittaker. Not only that but he's being accused of faking being hurt and effectively quitting.

They were pushing this at the game last Sunday without explaining much about who either side were. Just looked it up and De la Salle won 31-9.

I think it's that old thing about what judges prefer, the cleaner shots or the aggression. I was rooting for Bivol, and think he did really well but there was always an inevitable feeling that Beterbiev was going to come strong. I actually put a bet on after round 2 for Beterbiev because the odds had Bivol as the favourite, but I thought he was going to find it hard to keep up. I'm OK with the result but it could've gone either way. While the cleaner shots came from Bivol there were also longer periods where he did very little but cover up. On the DAZN coverage, they had it very close and the last time I remember seeing it thought Beterbiev would win if he could get the last 2 rounds. The main reason I was surprised, was because betting wise they seemed to think Bivol had got it. I only stuck a tenner on Beterbiev and the whole fight they were offering me about £9 to cash out. By the time of the decision it was like £4.50. The whole aggression vs clear shots seems to be about the fighter and pre-fight expectations a lot of the time IMO. The classic example of this is Mayweather. When he fought, it didn't seem to matter that the other guy was more aggressive because Mayweather did the better work.

I'm not even joking, my 10 year old came in as I was watching that and asked whether it was WWE.

Until the decision.... don't agree with that.

Safe to say it was worth it. What a fight!

A real shock and very disappointing. I only got the PPV because I saw that fight and the last one was a classic. Hard to argue with his power, but I didn't like the way he caught him after he'd been turned round. Hopefully, the big fight lives up to the hype. Either way, it hasn't cost me anything because I made a deal that if I won my GF bet I'd get the PPV!

Apologies if you haven't heard it and now will, but whoever is doing that incessant tap-dripping drum beat needs a kick in the balls. If anyone at the game is near, I'll pay your legal fees if you do any damage.

I'd love to see Hull KR do it, but my head says a comfortable Wigan win. It's just about the occasion and how often Wigan have been there. KR we're lucky to get through Wire last week while Wigan breezed through. Hoping for a good game and something to shout about.

I think you've just outlined the whole issue. He's only the interim manager and as such a stop gap. I think your arguments would make sense if he had been made full England manager. If he had I would have agreed it was an overreaction to a friendly and that he needed time to he judged. My point is simply that to make the jump from interim to full manager, you have to impress in the role. Because it is such a limited time, one very poor performance is very damaging to his prospects, and I suspect probably too much. He only has a few games to prove himself, and if one of them is a game where Greece at home got the ball in the net 5 times, you can hardly expect the FA to announce they're giving him the job full time. I can't see Guardiola taking the role, it's one of those too-good-to-be-true things and a huge risk for him. He's only 5th favourite anyway. At this point, it's looking like Tuchel is the front runner.

I think you're making the mistake that Carsley is the presumptive heir to the England job. He's the interim manager, which carries no expectation that he'll be given the job and is often simply to hold the fort while a new manager is selected. Obviously, it would be naive to think that interim managers never get the job, and often if they impress while being in the interim role they'll get the job. Southgate was seen as having steadied the ship (from a very low ebb) and unlucky not to have beaten Spain. My point about Carsley is simply that he probably won't get the job now because he hasn't impressed in his short time on the job. Whether or not this makes sense long term isn't really the point, because he isn't the full England manager and as such doesn't get the benefit of time to change the system. There's got to be some justification in promoting him from interim manager to full manager, otherwise why not just make him full manager in the first place? Edit: I also meant to say that it's actually his third game and other than a decent start against Ireland, the other performances were underwhelming.

The difference is that this is like an extended job interview for Carsley. Trying things is one thing but he also needs to impress and this just looked bad. I think he's likely blown it.

I've played a bit of NFL VR and one of the things I love is seeing the different stadiums. The most impressive I've seen is the Minnesota Vikings. I've watched a lot of videos on US stadia, and it's striking not only how much they cost but also how short a shelf life they're expected to have. When I went Chicago last year, it was at a stadium that had undergone a $600m refurb in 2003. Now, it is viewed as one if the worst stadiums in the NFL and in desperate need of change. I thought it was nice enough. Don't get me wrong it wasn't as nice as Tottenham but it was light years ahead of say Goodison Park or Elland Road.

It's unfathomable that they would move out of Kansas City, especially after their recent run of success. Any other moves of this nature have been for largely failing or mediocre franchises.

I'm pretty sure they get to watch almost all of their local team games on FTA TV along with a few games across the Thursday, Friday and Monday? I think there are teams for which moving city would never happen but play this game with different local areas (say the 49ers and the Bears currently) and those that would even be willing to move to another state if the opportunity came up, like the recent moves of the Chargers, Rams and Raiders.

Funny, I came away thinking I was very like the demographic of the sort of people who were at the NFL in the UK. It did make me wonder what was so attractive about a very foreign and American sport to this particular demographic. I think it's part indulging in Americana, part rejection of more negative British sports and because it's a fun experience overall. As for the Vikings, I completely agree. They came within one game winning drive of losing to a team who didn't get a first down for something like 25 minutes. Once their star RB went off injured, they were pretty ineffective. Still I'd love the Jets to be an overachieving 5-0!

49ers, Bears, Buccs, Ravens, Packers, Titans, Texans, Eagles, Chargers, Steelers, Falcons, Cowboys, Bengals, Jets

I knew he was under pressure but wow that was quick and has been almost universally panned as a decision. The defense has obviously been great but the offense was dire on Sunday for almost a whole half. I always liked the guy, but it's a brutal business.

OK, apologies for the clickbait title! Like most people here, I'm a fan of multiple teams across multiple sports. However, as a very awkward person, I sometimes find it hard talking with other people about them and it basically comes down to pronouns. I often think with being a sports fan, there is a certain level of willing suspension of disbelief involved. For instance, we often develop an intense relationship with a sports club as if we are an active part in it. We cheer a try or a goal as if it really matters to us on a personal level. The reality of course, is that we contribute absolutely nothing to the performance of the team and other than maybe contributing in a small financial and vocal way, all we have to demonstrate our effort is in loyalty to that team over years and years. When talking about Widnes RL or England in a number of sports, I have no problem in saying something like 'we've been rubbish today' 'that ref had it in for us' or 'our kicking game has been dreadful' (note the negatives...). After all, I'm a Widnesian and I'm English, I didn't really choose these teams, they represent where I'm from. On the flip-side, I recently rediscovered a love for the NFL and one of my two main teams of choice is the Jets who I've followed for about 4 years. There is no way I can say 'we' for the Jets, it just doesn't feel right. I rarely even say I'm a fan or supporter really, and tend to use the term follower. I think I feel like I could get caught out as a fraud. However, I recently saw a video of a UK Jets fan and he had no problem with this. In theory, I could see a time when I'd followed them for so long that I felt comfortable switching. My most difficult example is with Everton. I've been an Evertonian since a child, I've been to games and at times it has been my main sporting club. Even with this, I find it difficult saying 'us' or 'we' and tend to use a more passive 'they' most of the time. I think this is because I don't follow it really closely and I'm surrounded by very passionate Liverpool, United and Everton fans who do and don't like the idea they could be thinking I'm not a real fan. When do you feel comfortable going all in and saying 'we' for a sporting team? This is not a judgement by the way, I'm definitely not saying people should or shouldn't do it at any point. As I said, I'm quite an awkward person and this isn't something I'd consciously noticed I do until I watched that video.

As for the event, I thought it was fantastic and much much better than I anticipated. The stadium was great and the atmosphere was too. The people that I went with seemed to be of the impression that it was night and day with the Wembley game they attended the previous year. I had anticipated that it would be a very neutral event with a lot of different clubs represented and as such a pretty subdued crowd, maybe akin to a RL international outside the heartlands. Instead it really felt like a Vikings home-game and I hadn't ever thought that I would feel like an away fan like I did. I do think that maybe this was unusual for a London game. There were a lot of Americans, and according to some data I've seen it's usually only about 3%. There were plenty of Jets fans, although they were outnumbered. Next most was the Packers which may be down to the Rodgers link. There were only two shirts I didn't see - Panthers and Jaguars. I know they have two games of their own, but I suspect it is likely a poorer atmosphere is because the Jaguars just aren't very popular over here. As for the game, well for 28 minutes of the first half the Jets were dire and at 17-0 I thought I was going to witness a massacre. From that perspective, I was pleased just to get something to cheer about and a bit of genuine tension at the end when it looked like they just might pull it off. Rodgers didn't have a great game, but I think he's really hampered by the complete lack of a running game. They're constantly 2 & 9, or 2 & 11 and then playing catch up. There was a genuinely poor decision at 10-0 down not to go for an easy 3 on 4th & 2 when they had barely made a yard with the running game. From that (and by benefit of some fortunate calls) the Vikings were suddenly 17-0 up. It wasn't a classic, but it was decent enough. I'm gutted now that I didn't get tickets for the Bears now. As they are my other team, and are the home-side next week I'd have been really interested to see what that looks like and whether there are a lot of Bears fans in the stadium (there was a good smattering yesterday). I'll defo try to go to Tottenham again, but I'm not sure how much not being a fan of one of the teams will affect my experience. Even as a regular watcher of the NFL, the number of stoppages can be a lot at times.

I was talking about this yesterday. When it first started in 2007, they would have one game a year and it wouldn't quite sellout, although it was highly attended with the first game getting 81,000. In 2011, they 'only' managed 76,000. Usually, with things like that you would expect the novelty to start wearing off. However, the opposite has happened with the NFL and I think it might have actually contributed to the growth of the NFL in the UK. Now, it is akin to something like the Oasis ticket fiasco where there are hundreds of thousands in a queue waiting to see if they will get a chance to get tickets. Yesterday, was a sellout but they all are now.

That moment when you reluctantly put a bet on Wire at +4, you win your bet but Wire still lose!

After 6 games, there are 5 teams still without a win in the PL, including all of the newly promoted sides. Sign of a growing gap or just a statistical anomaly? By contrast, out of 32 teams in the NFL only 1 side hasn't won a game after 4 rounds. Totally different systems of course, but it does seem a bit mad.