Ken vs Gary Neville and Chris Sutton
I'd say the guests for the big show will have been well established with dates locked in long ago at this stage. Doubt that will be impacted at all by a second show.
That'd be torture, especially as Ken seems to really value his opinion
I would love if they did Ken vs Marcotti. Just them and a ref, really small table, like they do with the boxing.
Id prefer wilson, i could listen to him and ken talk all day
Ah, the Liberty Hall show is so tiny, I expect that to be the ordinary people (Johnaton Wilson etc.). The National Stadium show should have a very big guest you would imagine.
Saying that, I'm always happy to listen to the normal contributors at a live show.
Second show is great imo as I can't go to the Dec 1st show.
I'd hoped there'd be only one show, now they've to spread the guests across two.
Liberty Hall is tiny. They'll sell it out in minutes.
I'd much prefer to go to LH over the National Stadium. Frankly, It's embarrassing. I feel sick to be part of this.
And they've announced another show! this one a week later in the Liberty Hall. Must have a lot of confidence there's demand for more.
Sold out now
Do you check every day or what?
Just checking tickets, still some available.
Really enjoyed the interview with Neil the amputee footballer, seems like a decent fella
Ken is an intelligent guy and knows that most of these controversies are ephemeral. However he has to find content to interest people on an almost daily basis. Call it a persona perhaps…
I don't even know if it's a persona: I think he genuinely let's himself get carried away sometimes. But, sure, it's entertaining like you said.
I can remember just four weeks ago when he was hyping up the Luis Diaz disallowed goal like it was a watershed moment for football: it was never going to be the same.
Ken never takes into account that football always forgets, it just moves onto the next storyline/controversy. Things that happened four weeks ago may as well have happened four years ago.
I think there is an element of that alright. I'm not saying the podcast wasn't entertaining by the way. It absolutely was.
Does Ken say these things just to get a reaction. Feels like he's putting on a persona at times, not that it's a bad thing as its entertaining
You're second paragraph is probably a fairly balanced view of things. Ken's criticism was completely OTT as far as I was concerned. What was the phrase he used early on? Was it "credibility shattering" or something similarly ridiculous?
Chelsea should have scored about 10. The fact Dier almost put them in front is more a reflection on Chelsea and Poch then it was on Ange.
Saying that, it almost worked and its hard to criticise Ange for it. If they went 2-1 down earlier, we have no idea how they would have reacted. If they sat back, they almost certainly would have lost the game too. He tried something different and it didn't work.
They were also repeatedly inches away from conceding another goal
Yeah, would find it very very hard to disagree with Ken on that one in fairness - like, it was absolute suicide, and removed his own teams impetus in the game. The only possible way they could've gotten anything is if Chelsea were so bad as to not take the repeated easy chances being given. The chances were such that simply making the right decisions would remove any possibility of the keeper doing anything about it - had Cucerella gently rolled an easy ball to Sterling for instance, they'd have been ahead even earlier and there's nothing Vicario could've done. And even an attack as rubbish as Chelsea's managed to knock in 3 eventually.
Disagree with Delaney as well, saying there was no chance of holding out by sitting back - this Chelsea team have struggled really badly against stout defending. There's a reason they were averaging about a point a game. Whatever about a bit of fatalism when it first happened - but when it had gotten to 70+ minutes, having been carved open time and time again at that point, then surely you say "ok, enough of that, lets now try and hang on for 20 mins". And I'd say they'd have had a much better chance of scoring by hitting Son on the break as Chelsea commit bodies forward too - like, in that situation there's not too many lads in football that you'd want to have more on the break than Son.
It was great to watch, and I thoroughly enjoyed, but it was a bad decision.
To be fair to Ang, Dier was inches away from equalising and Son came very close too. Had they equalised, they could have held out and he'd be the greatest manager of all time
They're finally talking about Spurs, eh? :D
I thought it was one of the funniest episodes in a while.
Confused as to why anyone would admire Ange's tactics last night, it was ridiculous to watch. Much better chance of getting a result against that Chelsea side whilst parking the bus.
Only about 12 mins into today's episode, but by jaysus Ken is talking some nonsense about Ange.
Anytime I hear his name it reminds me of:
'They're all just headphones'
The Chris Waddle chat made me think about The Fast Show
Disagree about the Aoife Moore one.
I understand why they can't/won't, but I would like them to cover more Irish contemporary politics too, but I could see that driving audience away...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
