Scouse_Mouse

Exactly. From the first round you could see Whyte wasn't about to make the same mistake, he clocked Povetkin early then stayed cautious. A rematch probably on the cards but I can't see Povetkin getting away with its again, he got lucky last time and now Whyte has his number.

Great performance. Nice tribute to Marvelous Marvin. Shame we won't get to see him fight Joshua or Fury any time soon.

Not surprising but a big blow nonetheless, it would have been a boost to have him back before the season's end. Ahhh well, hopefully he won't be involved with England and we can get him back fit and ready for the start of next season.

You make good points Dan and in all honesty I can't really disagree with most of them. VAR has its flaws there is no doubt about that but I truly believe that these flaws can be rectified. Stoppages for reviews were always a concern but it really hasn't been too bad and most reviews that have taken longer than they should you could almost always put down to officials trying to make a call based on millimetres, something nobody wants. Let the officials officiate, if they miss something that is obvious let the VAR official let the ref know, if it's something not obvious then let the refs decision stand.

Obviously the NFL is a lot more stop and go, but they do seem to have this sorted. A play get's made, ref makes his call then actually explains via his mic what that call is for. Sounds so simple.

Exactly. It's not about being a VAR apologist or a ref apologist for that matter. VAR isn't working right now, that doesn't mean that it's completely broken though and beyond repair. And it certainly doesn't mean that doing away with it would solve our problems.

I wouldn't say VAR has increased or decreased my confidence in the ref, they have been making mistakes since footy began, and that is never going to change. I just see VAR as a safeguard against the more glaring errors that they make. We are probably pretty much on the same page here mate, I don't want goals ruled out either, I've always maintained that if there is any doubt about a goal then I'd like to see refs give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player. I see no reason to scrap VAR, I don't want multiple reviews, I want the game moving smoothly as we all do. I'd just like to see the most obvious errors corrected by the VAR official, if it's not immediately obvious then let the refs decision stand. Nobody wants games slowed down or stopped, Kane's goal at Dortmund eg, if it's close and you need slow motion or multi coloured lines then let the goal stand.

You make it sound like we didn't have many refereeing fuckups before VAR came along. There have been bad decisions that have ruined games for as long as I can remember. There wasn't anything that could be done about it years ago, the technology didn't exist. Now new have the technology there is no reason whatsoever that video review can't be used effectively. Will it eliminate every mistake? of course not, it should eliminate clear errors though. I don't want refs poring over slow motion replays or drawing lines, a look or two is all that's needed, if it's a call that is clearly missed then correct it, if it's not immediately clear then let the refs call stand, the offside rule was never intended to be about a millimetre here or there. It is fixable, review and correct the obvious mistakes, if it's not immediately obvious let the refs decision stand. It sounds simple because it is simple.

Of course it's fixable. We just need stop trying to use it to determine if a player is 1mm offside or onside. I don't see any reason why it can't be used solely to overturn clear errors, like a player who is clearly offside, if it's not clear after one look on the monitor then let the original decision stand. Why? That is what VAR is there for, if a ref makes a mistake then review it, once at regular speed without drawing lines, if it's not clear to the VAR official straight away then let the refs decision stand. There is nothing wrong with having another pair of eyes, the ref is fallible but VAR shouldn't be used to overcomplicate something that isn't complicated.

And that is the problem, it doesn't need to be clinical at all. Correct the obvious errors, if they need multi coloured lines or multiple slow motion replays then leave the call the way it was.

No I don't think they were. VAR should be better, the way it's implemented is beyond frustrating, it should be to correct clear errors not to spend minutes poring over multi coloured lines and slo-mo replays. I'd still take it over the situation that we had before with goals not given when they were a yard over the line or players not flagged who were a yard offside. VAR needs fixing not replacing.

And replace it with what? Things were hardly great before VAR was introduced.

Did you read Grisham's recent "Sycamore Row"? It catches up with Jake Brigance the lawyer from "A Time to Kill" another good read. I've read most of the others you have listed at one time or another. Stephen King though still my favourite though.

That's exactly why I don't see him winning this, if Fury wants to win he has to "mix it up" with Joshua and I don't see that ending well for Fury. If it goes the distance I can't see Fury racking up enough points to be ahead on the cards. My money is on Joshua outboxing Fury, and winning on points, if Fury tries to mix it up I think it's going to be curtains for Tyson.

No I am serious. This could go either way but if it comes down to pure boxing skills I think Joshua has him beat. Fury is big, awkward and as you say can switch from a leftie to a righty, I'm certainly not dismissing him, I just don't see him beating Joshua. Then again I didn't think Fury had a snowballs chance against Klitschko but he proved me wrong then too.

It might have helped if you'd read Camino Island first John. I love the Grisham books, although you can only read a couple in a row as (to me me at least) they always seem similar plots and characters. We all must be reading more these days, I'm enjoying the Harlen Coben books right now.

Really? better in what way?, I love the way Fury gets the best out of what limited skills he has but if it comes down to boxing skills in the ring Fury has no chance whatsoever.

I don't think it mattered much to most Bostonians one way or another when they bought us, we are on another continent and not in direct competition, I just don't see FSG buying a rival of the Celtics. But as you say, no NBA franchise would come cheap.

You would think if FSG were going to buy an NBA franchise they would be limited to the Celtics, which would cost some serious change in excess of $3B.

So naive, I bet you think OJ was innocent too?

Nah, unfortunately you are probably right mate.

Awww cute, you rarely see this much naïveté in adults these days.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a level playing field with the oily Sheiks and dodgy Russian crooks but I'll believe it when I see it.

Ya reckon? They bought us for 360M, we are worth in excess of 1.4B today. They have averaged around 20M per year invested into the squad over the last decade. They ain't dumping nowt into the club sunshine.

Does this mean we get to inflate our sponsorship deals by 1000% too?