Maximus Decimus

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.

Yeh something doesn't seem right to me. I didn't know him that well at GB but he seems really quite grumpy when things don't come off and I do wonder if he respects Salah and Hackett. The biggest problem for the Jets seems to be the complete lack of a running game. Twice recently they've failed at first and goalline on the 1 after going for it 4 times.

So I'm off to the Jets-Vikings game on Sunday and I'm starting to get hyped now. I've been too focused on logistics of getting there till now. It was one of those get in the queue situations and I didn't think about small issues like having work the next day... Originally, the Jets were favourites but as the season has kicked off the Vikings have shorter odds now. I'm just feeling lucky to get to see the Jets for the first time, especially with Rodgers in the team. Coincidentally, my friend who I watch NFL mostly with is a Vikings fan and it just ended up like this. The recent run of form has meant he's been able to persuade the others we're going with to root for the Vikings as well. Hoping for a decent game and a Jets win!

Falcons, Jets, Bears, Ravens, Patriots, Commanders, Colts, Bills, Broncos, 49ers, Packers, Seahawks, Steelers, Chiefs

Off the bottom!

Hmmm as a Jets fan I was looking forward to a straightforward game this week, but think the Broncos are being underestimated. They've only conceded 46 and had a couple of tight games. Here's hoping...

This is very much like me. I genuinely feel like I'd have lost something I enjoy if I stopped drinking permanently. During the wedding, I was drinking 0.0% Peroni which was easily the best non-alcoholic beer I've had. I always say as someone who has brewed beer, it tastes a bit like wort. It did feel better than say drinking Coke Zero but also had the added benefit of making it so most people didn't realise I wasn't drinking and I didn't face the usual complaints. I do suspect there were some concerned words when I drove home though!

I've recently made the decision to really cut back my drinking. The main motivation is weight and health. I want to run a marathon in the next year or so, but only want to do so a lot slimmer. I only usually drink a few beers at the weekend, but find alongside those extra calories all self-discipline goes out of the window, so I decided to knock that on the head. Also, as a teacher, I tend to be in a cycle of eating well during the term and then putting weight on in the holidays partly related to drinking. My first test of this came this week with a family wedding on Wednesday in the Lakes. Being in the middle of nowhere, we ended up staying about 25 mins away. I decided to use it as an excuse not to drink to start actually taking it seriously. It had mixed results but more positive on the whole. I obviously didn't miss the sore head, and the beer fear. It was also an expensive venue, so I probably spent half of what I would have. I even had a bit of a dance, despite many times saying I'd never dance without a drink in me! I found the day dragged more than usual, especially the bit between the meal and the party where there is usually a bit of a lull. I was sat there feeling tired and not particularly looking forward to the evening. Usually, you can drink through this bit. My next test is the NFL in London next week. I'm driving there and back in a day, so obviously not drinking. This itself isn't a problem as I've never really drank at rugby games, but I'm with a crowd that will likely drink heavily so I'll see how that feels.

Can I just check something? So if you knew nothing about NFL at all and picked the names at total random or based on something spurious like what name you liked better, what score would you expect to have by now on average? Because I'm getting 24...

Cowboys, Saints, Bears, Packers, Steelers, Jets, Eagles, Bengals, Texans, Cardinals, 49ers, Browns, Chiefs, Ravens, Dolphins, Lions

It is gone....although if he can just beat Dubois in the rematch and then Fury then he'll go down in history with one of the greatest comebacks ever! Also, there's an embarrassment factor with losing in that way to Dubois that could eat at him. I think the rematch would be a mistake, likely end quicker than this one and suspect Dubois might just be all kinds of wrong for him. But would I be interested in it? Of course I would.

That is pretty impressive tbf.