That's the thing, if the ref has an unhelpful view, does it count as an obvious mistake by him? I thought the interpretation of the laws would deem it wasn't. Happy days though, would have been a big problem to go into the PNE game with one centre half (especially with JRC probably unavailable). The international break will be very welcome for a change.

I didn't take you for a man who can't count to two 🤣

Interesting, I was pessimistic because of the law about appeals having to show the ref made an 'obvious mistake'. Whilst it's obvious after you see the right replay, I wouldn't say it was obvious in the moment. You might have the right angle, you might not. I watched extended highlights today and the commentator was saying Wharton couldn't have any complaints there, until he saw the second replay I believe it was. For that reason, and the league generally sticking by their refs, I expected the appeal to be denied. Certainly the right decision has been reached though, for a change. Thankfully it didn't cost us any points.

It doesn't need to be explained, thanks. It generally refers more to blunders like Pears'.

As an overall from the last 30 years that's probably about right, but Preston had done more than Wigan probably ever will before Wigan even joined the Football League for the first time in 1978. They're a bigger club than them, they just haven't been in the Prem. I miss the days when we never gave any of that lot a second thought.

What a weird comment. Firstly he didn't throw it in the net, he fumbled it and let it creep under him. Secondly, you've presumably seen one of our current keepers do something much closer to actually throwing the ball in the net just two seasons back. And finally, there have been many, many worse goalkeeping errors in the last 60 years, including the aforementioned Pears howler.

The thing is, whilst he may very well turn out to be an exceptional goalkeeper, we don't have 5 years for that to come to fruition. We were replacing our one properly experienced goalkeeper, we should have been finding someone similarly experienced and also in their peak years (or at least on a similar level of current ability). Especially with the sum we were spending, which is not inconsiderable for us. Having two 'project' keepers is not the right model. One or both may turn out to be fantastic, but it should be one for the here and now and one for the future. They've cost us about 1.2 million between them, and they're costing us points too. That said, the shorter-term curve could still be good, and some patience is due. Wahlstedt has all the usual things to adjust to with such a move - new country, new club, new manager and coaches, new league, etc. It's unrealistic to expect these players to always hit the ground running. Maybe once he feels comfortable and confident we will see what he's really about. So far, I feel he's slightly better than Pears, but we needed much better than Pears. I think Wahlstedt has better positioning, which is a real weak point of Pears' game and something people often miss when assessing goalies. They seem similar in terms of reflexive shot stopping. Both flap at crosses and need to work on that. I think Wahlstedt needs to also work on not parrying shots into the danger area. It's unmistakeable that we have conceded less since Wahlstedt came into the team, although there are of course other factors at play too (James Hill and the change of playing approach, mostly).

I can't imagine there's any possibility of that. I'm more finding myself hoping there's no January recall clause...

Appreciate his commitment, but I'm not sure why he was kept on for 87 minutes given the scoreline and the fact he'd had to take painkillers. Not somebody we can afford to be injured.

I don't see it as beneficial to sell him for any less than 8 million, and even then I'm not sure it would be the best idea in practice. I don't care what his value is in the market. We'd be lucky to have enough left after the Venkys budget shortfall and usual running costs black hole to buy a fairly reasonable replacement (who would still probably be worse).

I think it matters in the sense that getting pasted every week isn't going to be good for the development of our young players (which is the lifeblood of the club lately). Add that to the lack of competitiveness due to no relegation, I can see our conveyer belt slowing down. Rory Finneran sounds like he's going to be a star (not that he's playing for the U21s yet as he's only 15), but I'm not hearing much fresh excitement about the approaching crop. Obviously we have the usual suspects who have pretty much broken into the squad, and the likes of Atcheson and Gamble who seem to be on the fringes (although I think that's more due to necessity than great promise). Looking at the lads who played today, there's probably only Weston who I've heard any buzz about at any point. And tbf it's going to be hard for any to shine and impress the gaffer or others if we get turned over every week.

At least Telalovic notched a hat trick, should help his confidence should he get another chance in the first team. Shocker of a result though, Stoke are no great shakes, looks like they were bottom of the 26 team league before today...now it's us. They shouldn't have been turning us over like that at home. I see they lost 10-1 to Man U back in August. Like you say, good thing for us relegation has been scrapped. Drawing on players for the first team (and having some out on loan) is making it tough for the youngsters...doubt all these pastings are going to help their growth regardless.

Surely Atcheson is next in line? He's made the bench for the last 4 league games. Gamble only for one of those (4 games ago) and the cup game (generally where players further down the pecking order get brought in). The fact Atcheson didn't come on today when we were down to one recognised CB could be telling though, especially since we were 3 up. Suspect we're more likely to see Pickering come inside and Brittain at LB with JRC at RB, if Hill is our only fit CB against Preston.

That's not what you've seen though, it's an exaggeration. He has been disappointing so far, but he has made some good saves also. If anything that goes near him looked like resulting in a goal, he wouldn't have made any good saves, or kept any clean sheets.

Don't torture yourself. If you're thinking we're getting a new keeper in January, when we have two senior keepers that I believe we've spent a combined 1.2 million on (700k of that very recently), with our pathetic budget, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. If we get any money together in January (big if) it will go on a forward first and foremost. Selling Kaminski was a huge mistake, albeit inevitable after foolishly keeping him benched when he came back from injury and Pears was wobbling.

U-21s getting bummed again. Was 3-0 to Stoke (we're at home too) after about 23 minutes I think it was. Currently 3-1, Telalovic scored.

That's a major stretch.

Couldn't watch, so I was going off what I've seen and heard this season so far. Good, he can play a lot better than he has been doing.

He's not been pulling up trees on the same level he was last season tbh, so I expect a bid will either fail to transpire or it will be a lowball.

If they pay us, and then we pay Buckley, would that not result in tax being charged twice?

This does make your predictions fairly pointless though. You might as well not make any, we already know you'd only say we'll win.

🤣🤣 I'm not watching but that tickled me

Although just seen Hyam isn't ready yet and Szmodics won't play, so it's not gonna happen tonight.

Depends what figures some of our signings really cost, but looks like it. Brittain - I heard it was about 1 mill or just under. Hyam - 1.5 mill (transfermarkt, converted from Euros) Szmodics - heard everything from 1.8 mill to 3 mill (although best guess from what I've read is 1.8 up front, rising to 2.5 with add ons) Wahlstedt - 700k (though transfermarkt gives a fee of 1 mill in Euros, or about 850k in quid) Ignoring any possible loan fees, I think those are the only players who cost any money who could play without Gally fit. Well, there's Hedges (200k) and Pears (about 400k), but both are injured. So anything from about just under 5 mill, to 6.5 mill, from those 4 players. Oh actually no, there's Markanday too, who I think was reported as about 500k. So yes, we could field one over 5 mill without Gally. Chelsea will have a ton of players who cost more individually than our entire squad (fit or unfit) though.