By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I think they'd try and recruit Harriet but don't think she'd join. Harriet is clear who traitors are and is spreading Rachel's name about; if she went traitor on traitor with Rachel, only Rachel would lose.
Early on in the game, people have little to go on and will make choices based on their biases. That means minorities of that group will always be targeted first. In the first series someone was banished early because she didn't lift her glass quickly – she had a limb difference, and the glass was on that side.
I think we're defining 'playing well' differently, which is worth unpacking.
For me, 'playing well' means how you execute across the match – your touch, passing, and decision-making throughout. 'Playing effectively' means whether you deliver the outcome that matters. Kolli played effectively (two goals, match-winning impact) but didn't play well overall (one pass in three went astray, possession lost, shots over the bar, etc.).
I might be wrong but it seems people seem to be saying that the goals mean he had a blinder, full stop. I'm saying that a player can take their chances brilliantly while still playing poorly in between those moments. Both can be true simultaneously.
In context - the freezing game and a lack of match sharpness might well explain the errors. But then, it also contextualises the goals, doesn't it? We can't use conditions to excuse mistakes while ignoring them when praising achievements.
I'm pleased he scored – really pleased. I'm questioning whether we watched seventy minutes of outstanding football or seventy minutes of poor football punctuated by two excellent finishes. Those aren't the same thing, and the distinction matters if you're trying to assess what happens when he plays regularly rather than coming off the bench.
I feel for him – he can't win with the context of the stories which have been spread, and I hope he'll be able to step into the role that Burrell has crafted so successfully as a foil for the other front players. If he does, then all strength to him. A generally average performance with two great goals against the worst team in the division by a mile doesn't make him a great player overnight.
Though you're probably right - maybe I'm overthinking a match-winning performance. Occupational hazard.
I'm open to being wrong – what did you see in those 70 minutes?
Because I saw 1 in 3 passes misplaced, lost possession multiple times, and two shots over the bar. The goals WERE clinical and excellent finishes. But I'm distinguishing between taking your chances well and playing well overall. Happy to hear what I'm missing from your view of the match.
He had an awful game up until that point. Passes astray and poor touches. Pleased for his goals which he took well but don't confuse two moments of brilliance with 70 minutes of underperforming.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
