Month: October 2019

The post-debate night bump Kamala Harris has enjoyed at Joe Biden’s expense in recent national surveys abated somewhat in a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday — showing the former vice president leading the pack of 2020 Democrats and the California senator tied for third place.

The poll was conducted using different methodology than some of the other surveys released since last week’s debate. Respondents were first asked for whom they would vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in their state — without having been read a list of the candidates, as in other polls.

For that question, Biden leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders among respondents who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, 25 percent to 18 percent, with Harris and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tied for third place at 9 percent.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (3 percent) is the only other candidate earning more than 1 percent on the open-ended question, which typically generates a greater share of undecided voters, even when those who are unsure are asked toward which candidate they are leaning.

Poll respondents were then asked the question again — this time presented with a full list of the White House contenders, leading to a modest increase for each of the Democratic hopefuls. Biden still finished ahead of Sanders, 29 percent to 23 percent, while Harris and Warren remained tied for third at 11 percent. Buttigieg is tied with former Housing and Urban Development Secetary Julián Castro for fifth place, at 4 percent.

Also registering on the named ballot test: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2 percent), former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (2 percent), Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (1 percent), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (1 percent), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (1 percent), Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (1 percent), self-help author Marianne Williamson (1 percent), Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (1 percent) and entrepreneur Andrew Yang (1 percent).

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Harris had surged to second place nationally in a CNN/SRSS poll and a Quinnipiac University survey after an impressive performance at the first Democratic primary debates in Miami at which she was critical of Biden for his record on federally mandated busing and recent remarks about working with segregationist senators.

A poll of Iowa caucus-goers conducted by USA Today and Suffolk University also showed her vaulting within striking distance of Biden in the state, earning 16 percent to the front-runner’s 24 percent.

But Wednesday’s ABC News/Washington Post survey for now cements her place in the current top-tier of Democratic candidates — a sprawling field of two dozen in which she had previously struggled to supplant more hyped rivals including Buttigieg and, at times, the currently backsliding O’Rourke.

Previous ABC News/Washington Post polls have asked respondents only the open-ended ballot question. Both ABC News and The Washington Post are listed as approved poll sponsors by the Democratic National Committee for the upcoming presidential primary debates, though the DNC has excluded the open-ended results, since the other polls that determine qualification for the debates list all the candidates.

But it wasn’t immediately clear whether the listed ballot test would count for debate qualification. If so, it would secure spots on the stage for the third debate for the top five candidates — Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren and Buttigieg — all of whom have cleared the 2 percent mark in four separate polls released this week. The DNC didn’t immediately respond to a request for clarification Wednesday.

The poll was conducted June 28-July 1, surveying 460 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The margin of error is plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

An area affected by forest fires in Otuquis National Park, in the Pantanal ecological region of Bolivia, southeast of the Amazon basin.

Six volunteer firefighters use machetes to cut a path through the vines and underbrush of the Chiquitano forest in Bolivia’s eastern lowlands. They’re approaching the leading edge of a fire that’s been burning for hours.

They attempt to smother it with shovelfuls of dirt and water they carry on their backs in tanks normally used to fumigate crops. But the smoke is getting thicker, the heat stronger and swirling winds push the flames forward. Realizing they are overmatched, José Zapata, the only trained firefighter among the group, orders his men to pull out.

“The fire was coming from many sides,” Zapata explains as he leads a hasty retreat to the relative safety of a nearby road. “We could have gotten trapped.”

Bolivian firefighters, army troops and volunteers have been working nonstop for the past two months amid some of the worst fires in the country’s recent history. President Evo Morales, who is running for reelection next month, has suspended his campaign to deal with the expanding disaster.

On Saturday, regional officials estimated nearly 6 million acres of forest and savanna have been torched since August. Eduardo Forno, who heads the Bolivian chapter of Conservation International, says that is almost equal to the area burned this year in the Amazon rainforest in neighboring Brazil, a country eight times larger.

José Zapata, 28, fights the fire in the Chiquitano forest in Bolivia’s eastern lowlands on Sept. 7.

“The area impacted by fires in both countries is pretty similar. But Bolivia has less area [so] the impact is bigger than in Brazil,” Forno said.

But while fires in the Brazilian Amazon have captured the world’s attention, the Bolivian tragedy has largely gone under the radar. That’s partly because most of the destruction is taking place in the Chiquitano. This is an immense, tropical dry forest that stretches from eastern Bolivia into Brazil, but one that few people outside the region have ever heard of.

What’s more, Brazil’s right-wing president, Jair Bolsonaro, has sparked international outrage by denying climate change, promoting cattle ranching, logging and gold mining in the rain forest, blaming fires on environmentalists and refusing most outside help to put them out.

Bolivia’s president is less controversial.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

An Aymara Indian who was first elected in 2005, the left-wing Morales has long spoken of the need to protect Pachamama, an indigenous term for Mother Earth. He has also accepted international assistance such as firefighters from Argentina as well as U.S. and Russian supertanker jets that are dumping tons of water on the flames.

Even so, critics say policies promoted by the Morales government have exacerbated the fires that broke out in July amid a severe drought and high winds.

In 2016, for example, Morales signed a law that increases by fourfold — to nearly 50 acres — the amount of land individual farmers can burn to make room for crops and livestock. In July, he signed a decree allowing “controlled burns” in and around the Chiquitano forest designed to extend the country’s ranching and agricultural frontier. Authorities say many of these fires are now raging out of control.

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales (right) speaks next to Brazil’s Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo during a meeting of South American governments in Colombia, on Sept. 6. Seven countries agreed on measures to better protect the Amazon.

“Our president has managed to create an image of a defender of Mother Earth,” says Cecilia Requena, an environmentalist and opposition politician. “But he has this typical vision of what development is. And development according to this vision is bringing the tropical forest down for meat and soybeans and biofuels. He is promoting exactly the same policies as Bolsonaro. It’s maybe even worse because it is so hypocritical.”

Requena says Morales’ government initially downplayed the extent of the fires and the response has been late, chaotic and ineffectual.

Bolivian officials did not respond to NPR’s requests for comment. But they often blame the fires on global warming rather than government policy. Last month, the president’s chief of staff, Juan Ramón Quintana, declared that “fire is almost a natural child of agriculture.”

Still, Morales is running for a fourth-consecutive term in the Oct. 20 presidential election and some analysts believe that the fires could damage his prospects.

Last week, a poll sponsored by the country’s largest public university showed Morales with just 31.1% support. That’s about 6 points higher than his nearest rival but short of the 40% of the votes he would need to claim outright victory and avoid a December runoff.

Now, a state sponsored TV campaign is portraying Morales as Bolivia’s firefighter in chief, with spots showing a determined-looking Morales spraying water on the flames.

However, due to the outbreak of so many fires, the job is often carried out by ill-equipped volunteers. Last week, three volunteers died while fighting the fires in the Chiquitano forest.

Firefighter Zapata’s crew comes from all over Bolivia and includes farmers, construction workers and accountants. They wear an assortment of donated coveralls, helmets, goggles and respirators while their fire hose is full of holes. Due to a lack of vehicles, they must often bum rides to get to the fires. On a recent day this month, several of them pile into an NPR vehicle to reach the burn zone.

A wildfire blazes near the town of Roboré, in eastern Bolivia’s Santa Cruz region, on Aug. 21.

“We have no other choice,” says Zapata, a 28-year-old from the southern Bolivian city of Tarija who arrived last month. “We can’t just give up and let everything burn.”

After retreating from the earlier fire, his crew spots another creeping toward the house of a local rancher. They attack with rakes, shovels and water pumps and this time they gain the upper hand.

Crucial to their efforts are local residents, who fill up buckets of water at a pump, then form a human chain to pass them forward to the firefighters.

They manage to douse the flames and save the house and, for a brief moment, the volunteers feel like heroes. Then, it’s time to move on to next fire.

SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Joe Biden pledged to erect an "absolute wall" between the presidency and his family’s business dealings and said he has never discussed business with relatives, following an event here on Wednesday.

"I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period," he said. "And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration. There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

The former vice president’s comments, in response to a question from POLITICO, come amid allegations that his younger brother James and his son Hunter have sought to use his political connections to enrich themselves, and amid scrutiny of Hunter’s business dealings in China and Ukraine.

Most recently, on Friday, executives for firms suing James Biden said that he offered them the former vice president’s help promoting their health care ventures, including by incorporating their model in his campaign, in declarations filed in federal court in Tennessee.

Earlier this month, former White House ethics czar Richard Painter told POLITICO that Biden should ask his relatives to pledge to refrain from business activities, such as taking foreign sources of funding, that present potential conflicts of interest.

There is no evidence that Biden has taken any official actions to benefit his relatives’ business ventures. Nor, however, does the candidate mention Hunter or his two younger brothers on the campaign trail.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Biden made his comments at a South Carolina stop after he discussed his new dramatic ad concerning health care that features the death of his wife and daughter in a 1972 car crash and his son, Beau Biden’s, brain cancer diagnosis that ultimately claimed his life in 2015.

Biden said there was "a more graphic ad" that the campaign didn’t use and "that I’m just uncomfortable talking about." He decided to air the ad running now because he’s learned on the campaign trail and during his earlier book tour that the story resonates with voters.

“I wanted people to know about him,” Biden said of Beau Biden. “It’s never comfortable talking about him.”

Special coverage has ended.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg today released his long-awaited health plan, pledging that his “Medicare for All Who Want It” proposal would lead to universal health coverage while cutting costs.

The plan formalizes proposals the South Bend, Ind., mayor has touted in the campaign, like building on Obamacare and creating a new “public option” to compete with private insurers. But it’s not clear if Buttigieg’s plan, which comes months after many other candidates outlined their own visions, will extend coverage to everyone like he promises or satisfy progressives who want a more sweeping overhaul.

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

“For years, Washington politicians have allowed the pharmaceutical industry, giant insurance companies, and powerful hospital systems to profit off of people when they are at their sickest and most vulnerable,” Buttigieg said in a statement. “My ‘Medicare for All Who Want It’ plan will create a health care system that puts power in the hands of each American.”

What would the plan do?

Buttigieg’s proposal would preserve the nation’s existing private insurance industry while creating a government-run health insurance alternative. His plan, like the one offered by former Vice President Joe Biden, also would boost subsidies to help people purchase their own coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and limit the amount people pay for premiums. Separately, it would cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare.

Meanwhile, the plan would roll back Trump administration efforts that health advocates say have weakened the safety net. Buttigieg is proposing to reverse President Donald Trump’s expansion of association health plans and short-term plans, which his administration argues provide a lower-cost alternative to Obamacare plans but have been criticized for providing insufficient coverage. Buttigieg is also vowing to end the first-ever Medicaid work requirements, a controversial policy that critics say is primarily intended to cut off coverage to low-income people.

Buttigieg’s plan includes multiple provisions that take aim at politically powerful health care providers, calling for new scrutiny of nonprofit hospitals’ tax exemptions and expanding regulators’ authority to crack down on health care mergers. He’d also limit what health care providers could charge insurers, pegging their out-of-network prices to just twice the typically lower rates that Medicare pays.

The campaign argues that limiting providers’ market and pricing power is essential to lowering the costs of patients’ health plans. “Our plan isn’t just about coverage,” said a health care expert who advised the campaign. “It’s about affordability.”

How would it work?

Buttigieg’s public option would be targeted to three groups of Americans: low-income people who meet eligibility standards and would be automatically enrolled; middle-income people who can’t afford to purchase coverage in the individual market and qualify for subsidies; and people who opted out of expensive employer-sponsored health insurance and could be eligible for subsidies.

A campaign adviser said undocumented immigrants would be allowed to buy health coverage through the ACA exchanges, but a campaign official declined to offer further details and said a specific proposal to cover all undocumented immigrants would be coming in a separate plan.

Meanwhile, Buttigieg’s plan would restore an ACA subsidy program that helped insurers offset the cost of their low-income patients’ medical bills.

What are the weaknesses in the proposal?

Buttigieg’s plan can’t guarantee universal coverage
While undocumented immigrants would be allowed to buy in, it’s not clear how many would be able to afford the ACA’s health plans without a government health subsidy. Some Americans also might find that coverage remains too expensive, even with Buttigieg’s proposal to cap premiums at 8.5 percent of income.

The plan props up the existing health care industry
Some progressives — and particularly the supporters of presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — have called for more sweeping reforms that would essentially eliminate private insurance.

How much would it cost?

Campaign officials declined to provide an estimate of the plan’s cost, but a campaign adviser said that new federal spending would be in “the ballpark” of an Urban Institute proposal that includes similar provisions. Urban Institute analysts estimated that their plan would cost $1.2 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, but also cut state health spending by $422 billion, for a total cost of about $790 billion.

How would he pay for it?

Campaign officials said the plan could be paid for through tightening corporate taxes, but declined to offer further details.

What have other Democrats proposed?

Sanders has spent years pushing his "Medicare for All" proposal, which would virtually eliminate private insurers and require all Americans to enroll in government coverage. Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) this summer unveiled a hybrid universal coverage plan that would phase in changes more slowly than Sanders’ proposal while allowing private insurers to sell tightly regulated plans.

Biden has proposed a public option to expand coverage and enhanced subsidies. His campaign estimated that his plan would cover 97 percent of Americans.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she supports Medicare for All, but has offered few details of how her plan would differ from Sanders’. She also has supported more incremental coverage expansions.

Who would it help?

Buttigieg’s campaign said his proposal would help Americans who have been priced out of purchasing health coverage, hit with surprise medical bills or faced other financial pressures because of inadequate health coverage. Nearly 28 million Americans were uninsured last year and tens of millions more are “under-insured,” according to national survey data.

Who opposes it?

Health care providers have successfully fought many of Buttigieg’s ideas to limit their market and pricing power. Providers already have worked to slow congressional and administration proposals to tackle surprise bills and boost price transparency, which closely resemble policies in Buttigieg’s plan.

The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, an industry-backed advocacy group, also has decried every Democratic candidate’s proposal to expand government-run health insurance. Government health insurers generally pay lower rates to hospitals, doctors and other health care organizations than private insurers.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said Monday that she would be open to serving as the running mate to the eventual Democratic presidential nominee should her faltering White House bid flame out short of a primary victory.

“Of course,” she told the Washington Post’s Robert Costa of accepting the No. 2 spot on a Democratic ticket. “I will do public service in all its forms.”

Gillibrand’s campaign has struggled to gain traction since it began earlier this year, and the New York senator is in danger of failing to qualify for the third Democratic debate, scheduled for next month in Houston. She said Monday she was still about 20,000 donors short of reaching the grassroots fundraising threshold to make the debate stage and and that she had registered 2 percent support in one qualifying poll, three short of the four required.

Though she will have another month to meet the same requirements for the Democrats’ fourth debate in October, Gillibrand expressed confidence she would be on the stage in Houston next month.

She did not let on whether she would reconsider her candidacy if she’s not on the stage, responding to the hypothetical by saying those considerations differ from campaign to campaign.

Gillibrand also did not rule out a different role in a prospective Democratic administration if her campaign sputters out, telling Costa that “I’m here because my faith has really inspired me to serve, to make public service my life’s mission, and if I am called to serve in any capacity to serve I will do it.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

The 2020 Democratic field has settled on a position that is sure to please journalists.

Nearly everyone in the race is pledging to restore daily press briefings in 2021 at the White House, State Department and Pentagon, which hasn’t held an on-camera question-and-answer session with a spokesperson in more than a year.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said in a speech last week that, if elected president, he would bring back the traditional briefings for all three press corps, reversing a trend throughout President Donald Trump’s administration of eschewing such on-camera events.

Twenty-one Democratic campaigns, including those of Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, said this week in response to a survey by POLITICO that they would do the same.

Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Fla., and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard didn’t respond.

The vow from Democrats to bring back on-camera briefings comes as the current White House hasn’t held one since March 11, a historic drought that started during the tenure of former press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, who began his one-year term as White House Correspondents’ Association president this week, told POLITICO that he has encouraged new press secretary Stephanie Grisham to resume the daily practice, saying “the briefing room has been dormant for too long.”

“My sense is that Grisham would like to bring them back in some form once she gets settled into the job,” Karl said.

Grisham declined to comment on her plans.

Once a common occurrence, on-camera press briefings with spokespeople have been scaled back throughout the Trump administration. The State Department recently resumed the practice after a hiatus, while the Pentagon hasn’t held one with the department’s spokesperson since May 2018. The Pentagon has held a few on-camera briefings this year with other officials, including on Wednesday.

White House briefings became more sporadic and shorter under Sanders, whose tenure was also marked by hostile interactions with reporters. In August 2018, she refused to say whether she agreed with the president that the media was the “enemy of the people.” Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report also revealed that Sanders lied to reporters in the briefing room about the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

A Trump campaign veteran and spokesperson for Melania Trump, Grisham made headlines last month after being appointed both White House press secretary and communications director. She was bruised in a scuffle with North Korean security officers while pushing for press access to the president’s meeting with Kim Jong Un, an incident that drew some praise from reporters.

While that seemed like an early sign of better White House relations with the press, Grisham has taken jabs at the media too. On Monday, she tried to shift the controversy over the president’s racist swipe at four congresswomen of color into an indictment of the news media. “So typical to watch the mainstream media and Dems attack @realDonaldTrump for speaking directly to the American people,” she tweeted.

Trump will surely have the final say in whether briefings return. The president has already cycled through five communications directors while effectively serving as his own, setting the day’s agenda on Twitter and regularly taking impromptu questions from reporters.

While the formal, on-camera briefings have been curtailed, officials have taken questions in other formats, which the administration argues should be sufficient to satisfy the press.

Sanders and counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway fielded questions in a less formal manner on the White House grounds. (Conway stunned journalists Tuesday in one of these Q&A’s by asking about a reporter’s ethnicity).

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin used the briefing room Monday to discuss cryptocurrency, though Grisham did not join him in taking questions.

Reporters generally see value in having a chance to question press secretaries on a variety of topics on camera, and the White House Correspondents’ Association has advocated for more such opportunities.

Democratic candidates who vowed to resume them if they win in 2020 include Sens. Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet; South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg; former HUD Secretary Julian Castro; former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; Montana Gov. Steve Bullock; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; Reps. Seth Moulton and Tim Ryan; former Reps. Beto O’Rourke, John Delaney and Joe Sestak; author Marianne Williamson; entrepreneur Andrew Yang and businessman Tom Steyer.

Ryan additionally pledged to hold a press conference every two weeks if elected. And several of the campaigns told POLITICO they understood the need for more transparency in government.

"Donald Trump does not believe in the freedom of the press and has failed to stand up for this core American institution time and again — whether it’s his inadequate response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi or the lack of transparency in his administration,” Bennet said in a statement. “A strong free press is vital to a strong democracy.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

David Moyes says he is “really close to Everton” despite avoiding speculation over a possible return to Goodison Park.

Marco Silva has come under pressure in recent weeks with the Toffees only picking up ten points from their opening eight fixtures.

Everton did grab all three points on Saturday when they beat West Ham 2-0 but there are still rumours that Moyes would be a possible candidate to take over if Silva left.

Moyes told talkSPORT: “I’d never talk about a job while there is another manager in it, because it’s difficult enough without everybody speculating and talking about your position.

“But, look, I’m really close to Everton; I was there for 11-and-a-half years.

“I’m really glad [they beat West Ham], because I think they’ve got a good team.

“During our time at Everton we were nearly every year finishing in Europe. After we got under way and got things going we were close every year and competitive.”

Owner Farhad Moshiri has spent around £450million on new players since February 2016 and Moyes knows the Everton fans expected better results on the pitch.

“That’s where the disappointment comes because I think the supporters would have expected more with that [the investment],” Moyes continued.

“But money doesn’t always guarantee it. Sometimes building a team and gaining momentum means a lot.

“There are other things that come into it – not just the money.”

 

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

Send your mails to [email protected]…

Emery out
I didn’t even watch the game, mainly because I was playing footy myself but I just knew that we were going to lose.

Emery has no plan. He still after a year doesn’t know who our best team is. Why Xhaka? Why is he the first name on the team sheet? Has he got Emery’s sex tape or something? Auba must look at the dross behind him and get depressed. Why does he not play Torreira?! An actual DM! I also feel bad for Guendouzi too.. only one who looks like he has heart.

Why are we not starting Holding, Bellerin or Tierney?! Are they not fit for purpose?! This was a game crying out for someone like Ozil, who can bloody hold onto the ball, but Emery just because he couldn’t deal with the egos at PSG thinks he can waltz in and just pick on the Wizard.

Think I’m done with Emery and his brand of football. He’s been backed by the board. Wenger out is what people like Stewart Griffin wanted and this is what we get. This particular brand of directionless football relying on one player to bail us out week in week out.

Be careful what you wish for.

Kind Regards,
Jimmy (Can you tell I’m angry)

 

…It has been a long time coming and yesterday’s capitulation against Sheffield United is the culmination of a trend of inexplicable team selections and cowardly tactics that Unai Emery has seen fit to employ since the start of this season. What is even more obnoxious is the utter lack of acknowledgment on his part that his team can do better, his players can do better, and of course, he can do better. The treatment of Mesut Ozil (who I don’t believe is blameless either in this entire mess) is now a case-study in the hilarity of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That ongoing feud has led to the likes of Bukayo Saka and Joe Willock being overexposed and being asked to carry the creative burden of this side. Lucas Torreira must be having serious thoughts about where his career is going and I won’t be surprised if he’s gone by the end of the season, if not January.

As per Emery, Granit Xhaka has been performing perfectly well and any criticism directed at him is unfair and hateful. It doesn’t matter that the captain offers practically no vertical penetration and is wont to giving away stupid fouls and straying into no-man’s land (as he did yesterday when he had the utmost respect for Lys Mousset’s personal space). What is even more infuriating is that Xhaka, as captain, seems to be the perfect extension of the Emery philosophy – denial. According to both, Arsenal were unlucky and if chances were taken, would have been runaway winners. There seems to be no contrition for the fact that this expensively assembled squad wasn’t able to trouble Dean Henderson beyond a long range shot put squarely in the middle of the goal. No acknowledgment that when the players find they’ve played themselves into a little cul-de-sac yet again, they repeatedly resort to pushing the ball out to the wing in the hope that Calum Chambers will divine a half decent cross all of a sudden.

Results matter and “one game at a time” is useful mental conditioning to avoid players feeling overwhelmed by the rigours of the league season. However, it would be foolish to ignore the larger trends that are emerging at Arsenal under Emery simply because we don’t find ourselves in the bottom half of the table. The warning signs were there in the final run of games last season. The hope then was that a strong transfer window and keeping key players would lead to improvements. Aside from losing Ramsey, the summer was, on the whole, very positive. Despite that, this season has started worse than last season ended. The manager is scared of losing and would rather play for draws than actually go for it. The tactics he chose to employ at Anfield were a disgrace to everything Arsenal stands for and all the tactical geniuses of the world cannot convince me that playing a 4-3-1-2 and allowing their full-backs to run amok was in any way coherent. We’ve come unstuck against much lesser teams (with all due respect) and Emery’s management just doesn’t justify the massive transfer outlay that the club has incurred during his time here.

He’s tactically clueless. He’s arrogant. He’s scared.

He needs to go.
Pranav, AFC

 

…No Arsenal fan was surprised about us losing this game. It was not an upset. This is our normalcy, and what many of us anticipated after seeing the line-up.

I’m just hoping Emery gets sacked by Christmas, and at least there seems to be a possibility that Raul would be willing to do so after the encouraging signs this summer. There’s no possible way Freddie could serve up anything worse than the dross we’ve seen so far this season.
Greg Benham, AFC

 

…I’ve firmly been pro-Emery at Arsenal since he was announced. Even when he benched Ramsey and Özil last year, I was ok with it, as we still played well, and the new signings, Leno, Sokratis, and particularly Torreira and Guendouzi, slotted in well and did a job in midfield different to Ramsey and Özil.
I’m still not “Emery Out”… but it’s getting harder to understand, explain and defend. Tierney has well and truly been bedded in the Europa and Cup games, he’s fit and ready, but the inferior Kolašinac is starting. Torreira, our most important midfielder, the anchor who the midfield should be built around, is benched or played right behind the striker!
Emery obviously didn’t like Ramsey and Özil last year… I didn’t agree, but I thought “back the manager.” But Emery still left them in the squad! Ramsey came off the bench so much last season to score, assist, change the game. I don’t understand why he doesn’t do so with Özil this season. Have him on the bench as an impact player, a “luxury” player, better than playing the young, teenage pair of Willock and Saka this much. They are both exciting and promising players, but this becoming infuriating.
Imagine playing Xhaka, Guendouzi and Willock (in the no. 10 position) whilst leaving out Torreira, Ceballos and Özil? Ceballos or Özil need to be starting every game in the attacking midfield position, our other midfielders are not attacking enough/good enough for a race to finish in the top 4.
Pick the quality midfielders to support our great frontline. Everyone always talks about Arsenal’s defence, but I’m more worried about the midfield. And the longer Emery persists with Xhaka the joker (at fault for the Sheffield goal AGAIN), the more Gooners that will become vocal in wanting Emery out.
Andrew M, AFC (Xhaka offers nothing but long-range passing and shooting, and even then only if he is given ludicrous amounts of time and space), Australia

 

…Good Ebening,
Looking on the bright side, only 14 away matches left to go!
Rick, (#WengerIn?) Belfast

 

…Unai Emery is a 67 point manager.

He would get 67 points with Brighton.

He would get 67 points with Liverpool.

He will get 67 points with Arsenal

The only question is – is that good enough to finish top 4 this year ?

Yet again – even after massive turnover – Arsenal find themselves more dependent on others than themselves. Been that way for 7 years now.
Johnno

 

Arsenal summed up in one quote

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey

“Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.”

― Kevin Durant
(and my Dad on numerous occasions over the last few years)
Richard
OGS as DOF
United’s game against Liverpool showed the team has a lot of heart and effort but still no style that can dominate opposition teams. Ole has done a great job in realigning the culture, taking bold decisions in letting players leave and trimming the squad, promoting from the academy and buying damn right! But beyond attacking with pace and hitting teams on the counter, I really can’t see much more to his game plan. The coaching team is doing ok but even Sir Alex would have needed to upgrade his skillset to compete against Klopp and Guardiola (who he never beat), talk less of his protege. United need a world-class coach who can build a team that would have torn Fergie’s to shreds, a coach who can go toe-to-toe with Guardiola and Klopp, one who would make former players keep quiet at their obvious lack of tactical knowledge, one who gets into intricate (but not boring) passing and positional techniques to outwit opposition defences, and one who goes into home games with Liverpool looking for a one-two jab (and maybe a 3 – 0 uppercut lead) and not one hopeful KO punch. OGS and his team have done well and I recommend bumping him up to Director of Football after this season (or the next) and doing what Ed promised to do before hiring him but didn’t – a proper search for a truly world-class coach (maybe someone in the mold of Erik ten Hag or Leonardo Jardim)

Side Rant: The decision of United players not to put the ball out of play when James was down but expecting Liverpool to was plain despicable. Ashley Young showed that he’s a poor captain with that act alone
Isimeme (Lagos, MUFC)

 

United’s priority isn’t a centre-forward
I know all the focus has been on United needing a CF this Jan, but I dont believe this should be our first priority. The Liverpool game showed that if we play to the strength of the our forwards – pairing them and using their pace and movement rather than designating one of them to be more central and not playing their natural game we can any defense problems. Van Dijk and Matip both had a torrid time dealing with Rashford and James, rotating Rashford James Martial and Greenwood for these two spots should serve us well.
What we are missing more than a CF is a true CDM, someone who can break up play and initiate attacks. Matic is so past it, we need his replacement now more than ever. Someone in the mould of a Ndidi who can break up play. Without Pogba our MF has looked incredibly light and we need reinforcements here more badly than in the forward line. Would be interesting to see if OGS will give Axel some games at CDM.
Going ahead I think a 3-4-1-2 or even a 4-4-2 diamond would be interesting to watch. Would allow a combination of Rashford, James, Martial, and Greenwood to dovetail and can even push Pogba to the tip of the diamond to maximize his attacking outputs. With Scott McTominay in the B2B role we would just need a true tackler. Although I want Fred to settle in he has not been able to show he’s up to the level yet. He’s not a true CDM and I feel he’s just being shoehorned into the team right now.
Yash, MUFC

 

Old Trafford mental block
The Winners & Losers column mentioned Liverpool’s Old Trafford mental block. Now I always assumed it was Arsenal that had a mental block playing MU away, but it seems I was wrong. Here is the data for all games played at Old Trafford, split post-Fergie (note: it includes all games: league, FA cup, league cup, European ties):

The Fergie years (Nov 1986 – May 2013)
Chelsea P32 W8 D11 L14 -> 35pts -> 1.09ppg
Liverpool P32 W6 D7 L19 -> 25pts -> 0.78ppg
Arsenal P35 W5 D10 L20 -> 25pts -> 0.74ppg
City P24 W3 D6 L15 -> 15pts -> 0.63ppg
Spurs P33 W3 D6 L24 -> 15pts -> 0.45ppg

Since Fergie left (from August 2013)
City P7 W4 D1 L2 -> 13pts -> 1.86ppg
Arsenal P8 W1 D4 L3 -> 7pts -> 0.88ppg
Spurs P7 W2 D0 L5 -> 6pts -> 0.86ppg
Liverpool P9 W1 D4 L4 -> 7pts -> 0.78ppg
Chelsea P7 W0 D4 L3 -> 4pts -> 0.57ppg

No surprise with City and Spurs low ppg (points per game) during Fergie’s time as they were whipping boys then (“lads, its Tottenham” and all that). Surprising to see Chelsea surpassing Liverpool and Arsenal during that time, but OK. Even pre-Mourinho, they were doing OK at OT.

Post-Fergie, it gets interesting. MU has gradually been worse and worse under a succession of managers, but Chelsea and Liverpool haven’t really taken advantage, with Liverpool’s record being exactly the same, stuck at 0.78 points-per-game. Arsenal has slightly improved but not much. Spurs have almost doubled their points per game, but it’s really City who, with their new wealth combined with a declining MU, has benefited the most.

If I may define arbitrarily the mental block in this context as being an inability to put down a waning, blundering, weakened opponent, then it looks like Chelsea and Liverpool are indeed the ones with the OT mental block.
Mike, NZ CFC

 

…John Collins’ email complaining about Klopp was strange. Apparently Klopp should aim to behave more like Nuno after poor results. This brings to mind the Vince Lombardi quote, “show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser”. (Whisper it but Nuno Espirito Santo’s managerial record is actually quite mediocre prior to getting the job at Wolves. 2 wins from 9 league matches this season suggests).

Turning to Klopp’s comments themselves, forgive my Liverpool bias but I don’t see the controversy. This is probably helped by listening to Klopp’s post-match interviews, rather than reading them through the prism of a journalist’s interpretation. Listening to him speak on previous occasions about weather conditions, you can hear that he is describing the circumstances Liverpool failed to overcome, rather than saying “well, how could we possibly be expected to win with all this wind?!”

Same with his comments yesterday. Hypothesizing that the referee didn’t call the foul on Origi because he figured the VAR would overturn it if a foul had indeed occurred is not making excuses. Its highlighting a potential systemic problem with how VAR is being implemented in the Premier League. If you read Klopp’s comments rather than listening to him speak, you perhaps didn’t see the part where he also discusses at length a penalty that Manchester City should’ve been given Saturday. Nothing to do with excuse-making, as I see it.
Oliver Dziggel, Geneva Switzerland

 

City’s advantage
Dom Littleford. “it is undeniable that the teams above lift their games and put their bodies on the line against Liverpool in a way they don’t against City”.

(Sigh). Out of the nine PL games played so far Wolves, Norwich and Spurs would like a word. Or did City “Roll over” against them? I’m confused. You may also have noticed that City are currently 6 points behind ‘Pool?

You can’t be worried about ‘bottling it’ in October surely? Sorry mate but lame excuse for a reason if you are.

Mark (The noise in the background you can hear is the deepest bit of that big old barrel being scraped) MCFC.

 

…You know you were in for some bizarre hot takes after Liverpool dropped their first points of the season but the one from Dom really is extraordinary and demands a response.

Little old City with no one playing intensely against them and gifting them easy points. Like Sheffield’s keeper chucking the ball in his own net. Or Ings getting in the miss of the season to inexplicably gift the away team the win. Or players somehow actually getting penalty calls for fouls against them in the box. Would never happen to good, honest Liverpool who have absolutely not have some extraordinary luck this season already.

City are just so little, what with their 4 titles in the last decade. The club was only formed 10 years ago anyway, still some ways for them to go before they can step out of “obscurity”. Wonder how many titles they are allowed to win before they can be deemed to be worthy enough not to be little, plucky underdogs.

The whining isn’t just bizarre, its pathetic and blatantly untrue. The whole “bodies on the line” nonsense is basically every game City play. Every team looks to sit deep against them and defend for their lives with their backs against the wall. Sometimes it works (Wolves, Palace, etc.), mostly it doesn’t. It has nothing to do with opponents looking to gift City the win and more to do with City are a ruddy brilliant football team that win against those performances anyway. Liverpool have only recently become really good again so perhaps some of their fans have forgot that every team aims to bloody the nose of those at the top with a “bodies on the line” performance.

What’s with this inexplicable need to always paint Liverpool as the underdogs anyway. Liverpool are European champions for heaven’s sake! And are coming off their strongest league season in the history of the club. Liverpool have played poorly in games this season and have still managed to take something from the match. City have played some great football in games this season and have still managed to drop points. All of this should be filling Liverpool fans with confidence. Instead we get these ridiculous digs at City about how they’re so little and obscure and it doesn’t even matter if they win anyway.

Honestly, it just sounds like deep down in certain Liverpool fans, there’s a part that doesn’t really believe they deserve being here and are getting their excuses in early to protect themselves from the disappointment in case they throw it away. Suck it up and embrace the “favorites” tag. After all, little old City with no history have no issues playing as favorites and it hasn’t seem to have stopped them winning title after title.
Falooda in NY

 

VAR box
Please, please, please can there be a separate mailbox for VAR mails? The mailbox has become a mimicry of actual football, whereby the enjoyment of the general mails (see the football) has been watered down and punctured by asinine missives about VAR (the VAR in the matches). The mails about VAR being right are sh*t and boring, the mails about VAR being wrong are sh*t and boring. I sure as sh*t don’t have anything interesting to say, but 10 years of reading the mailbox has told me that there are plenty of other people with humorous, interesting things to write that do, and the lengthy VAR diatribes have become replacements for great content comparable with the substitution of Rafa for Bruce.
Rich Malb@lls

 

…The real problem is not VAR, it’s the average football fans inability to accept that a judgement call decision has gone against them. Far too much time is wasted in football punditry discussing referee or VAR decisions. Ole and Utd deserve more credit than they have received for an almost superbly executed tactical plan. One that even caught Mourinho out for God’s sake as he didn’t see the 2 pronged attack of James and Rashford when he was discussing the starting line-up pre match. Everyone before the match was questioning Solskaer’s tactical ability and whether he can cope at this level. THAT was the bigger story from Sunday.

I would have preferred to hear the pundits dissect the formation and demonstrate how it restricted Liverpool to long balls from deep (although I actually believe that was also one of Liverpool’s planned tactics before the match) and poor midfield transitions/passing rather than have them all bleating on about why an on field decision wasn’t overturned when most people feel it was a clear foul. It wasn’t given, the goal stood, the game carried on, get over it. Better to debate the quality of the ball from James and what the defence should have done to prevent it than waste time showing 5,000 super slow motion angles of Lindelof kicking Origi’s calf! Better to debate the poor quality of Alexander Arnold’s passing and assess why that happened than to argue about why VAR is not encouraging referee’s to go to the side of the pitch to review a questionable decision.

None of this will change until we stop discussing whether or not it was the right call. I would love it if those covering football would just take a stand and simply not discuss referee decisions. Leave that to the fan down the pub or the work colleagues giving each other stick for a good/bad result. Let’s have more intelligent debate on these vastly expensive tv programmes about the tactics or performances rather than arguing an opinion about something that is not going to change.

This is how we ended up with the VAR mess. All the fans and pundits wailing about poor refereeing decisions and how we need technology to fix it. No. You were wrong. It’s changed nothing because the problem was never really about the quality of decisions. The problem always was and still is this childish refusal to accept what has happened in the game whether right or wrong and to just move on from it.
Adam LFC (and don’t get me started on all the mailboxers writing in claiming to know exactly what Martin Atkinson was thinking!)

 

…Sigh! For weeks on end, I’ve scrolled past every single mail mentioning VAR’s problems because it seems more than half the people writing in about it do not understand why/how the system works and I don’t have the time to waste reading that crap. (Ffs, just Google!)
From the premier league website, and I’m quoting: “…is constantly monitoring the match but will be used only for ‘clear and obvious errors’ or ‘serious missed incidents’ in four match-changing situations: goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents and mistaken identity.”
The page continues: “…In the Premier League, there will be a high bar for VAR intervention on subjective decisions to maintain the pace and intensity of the matches.”
“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the ‘clear and obvious error’ test.”
And, very important, “The final decision will always be taken by the on-field referee.”

For state-side viewers, you notice Arlo White often repeats how it was described to media a priori: “the purpose of the system is NOT to re-referee the game.” The VAR hardly ever overturns the on-field referee’s decision.
There’s more links that go into detail on the system. One mentions that “Real-time speed replays will be used initially to check for intensity. Slow-motion replays will be used to identify point of contact.” Also, “VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a ‘clear and obvious error’ has been identified.”

From Sunday’s game, the decision on whether Origi was fouled was subjective (see above). Referee deemed it not a foul and that’s it. If you think otherwise, your problem is with the on-field ref then, not the VAR. Mane’s handball was a rules issue, VAR got it right.
Smdh? Please RTFM!
Patrick (Could we please have VAR-less mailboxes back so my bathroom breaks at work can return to being 15+ minutes?), Across the Pond

 

…I’m sure the mailbox isn’t quite done with VAR related emails yet, but what on earth went on with the shirt pull on Sokratis last night? We all applauded loudly when VAR was used in the world cup and immediately cut out and punished one of the most annoying aspects that had crept in to the game – the repeated cheating by defenders on set pieces and corners. With all that goes on in the box, with so many challenges and players to look at I don’t blame a ref for not spotting a shirt pull, but to then not even go to VA|R to see if they missed something is completely arrogant, who was the ref – Mike Dean of course! So is VAR only called for if the on field ref asks for it? That is ridiculous in itself. David Luiz was rightly called for a penalty for pulling Salah’s shirt at Anfield earlier in the season and this was no different. VAR should give us consistency, especially with something as obvious as a shirt pull, so much more black and white than contact between players and having to decide if that contact warranted a foul. There is no doubt that refs have been told to move heavily towards not over-ruling any on field decision except with offsides and handballs that lead to goals, how do you explain that no penalties have been given by VAR all season? Every week there are 3-4 utterly ridiculous VAR decisions. Mike Riley and refs have sought to protect themselves and in doing so have made themselves look incompetent, weak and selfish.
Rich afc

 

…With all this hate pouring in for VAR, I’m (largely) writing to defend it.

While it might not be the most compelling or resounding endorsement, I think its use has been a net positive. The idea that because of areas of confusion or poor application we should burn the whole thing down is (to me) baby and bath water nonsense.

As Klopp noted yesterday, offside calls are now super tight, but the system making the judgement is consistent. Handballs are often objective: Mane handled it prior to scoring and it was correctly ruled out. If you want to argue about the rule change that says any contact with the hand directly preceding a goal is a foul then obviously do so, but that’s not VAR’s fault. I happen to agree with the rule – in the aggregate I think it prevents more injustice than it causes.

The area that causes the most aggro is the most subjective area in football: foul play. As much as it’s easy to give into cynicism, I do believe the “clear and obvious error” rule makes sense from the perspective of maintaining the important “human element” to our beautiful game, and it does protect the power of the referee to an extent. And we really do need to do that. For those outraged about controversial situations like yesterday – unless you’ve literally just started watching football this season, you should remember that we had rather a lot of those before VAR too.

Nevertheless, I think the application could be refined in this area.

Option 1, you remove foul play from VAR’s purview, and keep it to the more objective decisions. I have no idea if Martin Atkinson considered VAR when he didn’t give the foul on Origi, but this would remove that notion from everyone involved. Refs would definitely make that call one way or another and managers would have no grounds to insinuate that they might be leaning on VAR.

Option 2, you offer a third VAR response (beyond error or no error): “I advise you to review the footage”. This may slow the game a touch, but how many goals are actually going to be reviewed this way in an average game? Not many, that’s how many. Goals change games, and we want them to be clean, don’t we?

I lean towards 1. I’d also be comfortable with 2, which would, for example, have allowed the ref to more clearly see Callejon’s execrable dive in the Napoli game against my beloved Pool and reverse the penalty decision. Yet – which illustrates the point perfectly – I’m not sure that Martin Atkinson would have overturned United’s goal, as (and I’ll likely be excommunicated for saying so) the contact on Origi was minor and I can see why it wasn’t given.

There will always be opinions, and we have to accept that. But we might do better to remove such subjective calls from the purview of VAR.
Rich Wells, Boston (the American one).

 

Hats off to Chichester
As I get older and more sceptical about pretty much everything football related the story I saw this morning has put a smile on my face.

Chichester United, who play in the 9th tier, were the club given a bye into the next round due to Bury being thrown out of the competition. The reaction of the players to being the last team left in the hat was great, but the club itself had promised to make a donation from the £36,000 prize money they receive to Bury.

That’s lower tier football at its best. A world away from the Premier League and a great display of comradeship to another club. Well done all and bigger clubs take note.

Thanks
Chris (CFC), Surrey

 

Belated non-league day
This is a belated non-league day mail because I couldn’t make my team Marine’s game, so I settled for the next game which was on Saturday against Marske United (due to rescheduling this is actually the team we’d played away to the week before). We lost 4-1 away to them on non-league day, but from what I heard it was closer than the scoreline suggests. Nevertheless, they are a very strong side who were unbeaten in all of their first 8 league games. The game got off to a good start with James Barrigan putting us ahead after 5 minutes, the first time Marske had been behind in any game this season. They equalised from the rebound of a brilliant save by Shamal George (Liverpool fans might recognise the name, he’s on loan). Shortly after that we scored again but the flag was already up for offside. It was level at half time and remained that way until the final 15 minutes, when debutant Craig Pritchard stepped up to score twice and give us the win. It was a great game, not least because we had an attendance of 418 (if I remember correctly, our highest since a huge 585 on August bank holiday and second best in the league this weekend, only 1 behind City of Liverpool). There were some great young fans in the Crosender Road end chanting and singing throughout. Josh Woods, the first player to step up from our new reserves team, also made his debut. It puts us 3rd, with 2 games in hand over league leaders Workington who are 5 points ahead, a promising position as we aim for promotion after our first ever relegation last season.
Lucy, LFC

Joao Cancelo believes Manchester City are well placed to win the Champions League.

The Portugal right-back swapped Juventus for the Etihad Stadium in the summer in order to be part of Pep Guardiola’s glory quest.

He feels the team he has left are still capable of winning the competition, but the opportunity to work under Guardiola was too good to turn down.

Speaking at a press conference ahead of Tuesday’s Group C clash with Atalanta, the 25-year-old said: “When I came here, I came here also to learn. Pep, I think, is the best manager in today’s football.

“I came here to learn from him, and I think that when I play for him I will always learn something and that’s exactly what I’m doing.

“City are one of the teams that can win the Champions League – no doubt about it.

“I’ve been aiming to win this competition since I was a child. Juventus also want to win but I came here because this is my type of football.”

Cancelo, who has also played for Benfica, Valencia and Inter Milan, joined City in a £60million deal in the summer.

It has taken him time to reach the levels of intensity demanded by Guardiola and to claim a place in the side but he has started City’s last three matches.

Cancelo said: “It’s true it took me some time to learn but what is important is that the club wins.

“I chose to come here. I was happy to wait for my moment and when I finally had an opportunity to play, I did well and the team won.”

City have begun their Champions League campaign with convincing wins over Shakhtar Donetsk and Dinamo Zagreb, both of whom have beaten Atalanta.

Yet the unheralded Italian side are currently third in Serie A and finished in that position last season.

From his experience of playing against them in recent years, Cancelo expects it could be a difficult encounter.

He said: “They’re a strong team, a physical team. Atalanta press very well.

“They have players that are technically skilled and I believe it will be a difficult match. We will have to play well because they have some quality players.

“It will be a lively, interesting match. I hope we will get the three points because obviously if we get to nine points, we will be in a more secure position in the group.”

Click Here: liverpool mens jersey