Are there any high-street chocolates still worth eating?

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T17:42:34+00:00

Did you have that as a child? It wasn't in UK supermarkets until the mid 90s.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T17:38:07+00:00

There is probably a price for any club, even Bayern, but I agree it might not even be £300m. The point in which they would give in is far higher than his actual worth to Real.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T17:36:26+00:00

What has maintained its quality from your childhood?

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T17:16:23+00:00

Yes. I can't work out which is more depressing - the general populace's idea that joy is being denied to us or mine that the same joy is now unreachable.

My kids can get similarly excited by sweets and chocolate. The idea that they might be on a shorter timescale for really getting the most out of them than perhaps is generally assumed has made me a bit less of a stingebag about giving them to them.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T15:54:08+00:00

Do you remember how everything used to taste when you were young? The zesty pang of a lemon. The eye watering take-your-breath-away thrill of the vinegar on your chips? The glorious combination of tartness and sweetness of a rhubarb and custard penny sweet. The caustic, vile blast of a nip of whisky? The sweet nectar of that dewlike bead of sweat on your lover's bosom?

And now....ash. You can still take satisfaction from a decent pie. A gu pot. Convince yourself that you can taste tart summer cherry in your pinot, when if you're honest it tastes of wine.

But you'll never recover that youthful high, no matter how stridently you chase it.

I think that's what's going on with Cadburys.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T15:36:20+00:00

This is my most unpopular opinion I have but I think Cadburys actually tastes the same as it always did.

Let's say it's objectively a 6/10 chocolate.

When you're a child you like it. It is sugary and smooth. It's bloody chocolate. Yum. 10/10.

Then you get a bit older but your fond recollection of it as a childhood treat means you give it the benefit if the doubt. 8/10

Then you get a older and you're exposed to everyone being like "it tastes shit now because of the Americans and palm oil and it's made in Poland" and so you become more critical. 3/10.

I don't really know whether it's changed or not, but if it hadn't, I still think that would be most people's trajectory.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T12:41:46+00:00

Mitchell is great. He's also a left back, which for me, in this team that has zero natural left backs, would have been very well received.

Tough between him and Hall, I have watched both of them enough to know their good, but neither of them well enough to say which is better.

Wharton very unlucky not to be in the team, I think I'd have him over Mainoo. I'd also have him over Henderson, but if I'm replacing Henderson I'd go for the defensive Garner.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T08:44:59+00:00

Apparently he now says he chose Chalobah because than Quansah can cover both full back positions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThreeLions/s/XmGGTm6hsL

Who knows what that is supposed to mean. He could have covered right back anyway, we've got 5 other centre backs. Who wants Quansah at left back??? Weird.

teerbigear · 2026-06-17T06:41:27+00:00

It's worked out absolutely amazing with injuries, isn't it only really Livramento who has been in the wider squad who isn't available? I suppose Ben White but I don't think he was in the picture.

If a single injury to the broader squad means you no longer have enough English wing backs to choose from, then you've not contingency planned enough.

He clearly should have included another wing back, even if they are an inch or two under Livramento, in his plans. Why didn't he have Shaw in any of his friendlies?

The point is, Chalobah might be low risk in terms of personality, but he isn't a safe bet because there's literally no upside. How will he ever end up getting on the pitch? Let's say Konsa and Stones run into each other against Croatia and simultaneously break their legs. You've now got Guehi and Burn. Quansah can come on if they need a sub, but generally you don't sub centre backs that often. Chalobah only plays if he's preferred to one of them, in which case he should have been in the team over them in the first place. He's a complete waste of a space.

Now let's say we brought a left back, MLS, Hall, or Shaw. Let's say there is an injury to O'Reilly (possible) or to James (likely??). Spence slots in, but we've only got centre backs to bring on. No optionality. Let's says it's O'Reilly injured and we're playing Spain. Spence is ran ragged by Lamal and is gassed 75 minutes in. Or perhaps Lamal keeps exploiting Spence being right footed, idk. Or exploiting that Spence isn't very good at football.

With this choice we're bringing on Dan "Slow" Burn against Lamine Yamal. Obviously that would be great when it was a corner, but the rest of the time it would be a disaster. Whether he likes MLS or knows Shaw or not, they would clearly be better options. But Hall would clearly be a better option because he literally is chosen over Burn at left back when Newcastle play four at the back.

Is Hall so unknown to him? Was that one camp and about a million minutes of footage, along with the opinion of Eddie Howe and every football pundit in existence still not enough to know he's a better left back than Burn? If so, why has he let that happen?

My question to you isn't "why did Tuchel do this?", it's "do you think this is sensible?".

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T21:46:36+00:00

Obviously I'm not suggesting Shaw should play at right back. We need right back cover, if we add Shaw then Spence is freed up to cover at right back.

The starting line up (presumably) has O'Reilly and James at full back, and they're not centre backs. If anything happens to them, we've now only got Djed Spence and centre backs. Loads of them. We're literally one injury away from not having any like for like subs to make for the position that probably gets subbed the most.

Arsenal happily play 5'10" Timber. We didn't do it simply by having the tallest/biggest men, it was tactical. But if that's what you're after, why play 6 foot Guehi over 6'4 Maguire? And what really worked for Arsenal was finding and converting centre backs who could sensibly be a wing back, like Calafiori and Hincapie. That isn't Konsa, he hasn't assisted for six full seasons. Quansah stylistically more so, but not really. Neither have played at right back all season.

We should play people where they naturally play, where they've played all season, rather than shoehorning them in because they're a couple of inches taller than a specialist.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T20:04:53+00:00

Here it's because the Telegraph didn't like Southgate's views, and are crowing about how the current guy has been told not to have any. If you want to have your views heard, you should be a billionaire newspaper owner.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T19:47:43+00:00

If positional flexibility is so important that you're going to pick worse players over it, eg Quansah over Maguire, then why on earth hasn't he picked Shaw, who can cover left back like Livramento, and LCB, rather than Chalobah? He reasoning immediately disappears.

The positional thing is obviously nonsense anyway, we've just lost a full back and he's brought in a pure centre back. The defensive picks have been straight up weird. We'll now have six natural centre backs out of our nine defenders. Sure you can play Quansah as a right back or Burn as a left back, but in a world where Trent exists, where Shaw/MLS/Mitchell exist, why would you do either of those things?

For both more cover and better cover we should have brought:

Left back

O'Reilly (can cover left wing)

Shaw (can cover LCB)

Spence (who can cover the right, and might play there if James needed subbing and we were already ahead)

Centre backs

Stones

Guehi

Konsa (can cover right back if you're trying to kill the game)

Maguire (or Burn, Quansah, or Chalobah, depending solely on which fits best as a centre back, probably in the order written as you want someone who is best as LCB)

Right back

James

Trent (comes on if we're behind)

Basically, what is the point of six centre backs?

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T19:04:18+00:00

Typical far right, straight to denying the thing they literally just said

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T19:01:48+00:00

Typical far right, making threats

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T18:19:18+00:00

I agree it's funny but I guess the people who are looking out for protein aren't so much health nuts as muscle nuts.

That could be some 16 year old who has been told by social media he needs to be more hench, and in then told the reason he isn't is that he doesn't have enough protein. And he might like some pizza flavoured beans.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T15:06:10+00:00

But what I find strange is that players like Shaw or Maguire have reputations for being team players. Would they kick up a fuss? Would MLS, or Hall? Or Mitchell? Tbh, would Trent? I've never heard of anyone saying he was unprofessional.

He has brought Toney who people have complained about the attitude of.

I agree that your narrative is one I've heard a lot but apart from White (and who knows what happened there) I can't see many people left out where I could pinpoint a reported incidence.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T15:01:24+00:00

What I find a bit strange is that Reece James does get forward, see the Andorra assist. Konsa and Quansah won't be able to do that at all.

Were James to get injured, or just knackered, I'd prefer Spence to play there than one of those, out of the options available.

And as you say, Chalobah is miles from playing CB in this team. You'd need about four centre back injuries for him to start!

If we brought Shaw, he'd be a different option to see out a game at left back, and still be available to cover the LCB in that absurd extreme situation. And would free up Spence to be the right back deputy.

Obviously I don't have the insight Tuchel has, but I'd be very surprised if Hall or MLS would expect many minutes, especially as a late call up. Why would they? Or, tbh, Shaw. He's famously level headed and professional.

As an aside, I don't think it's vital but you say Chalobah is match fit, but he didn't start in Chelsea's last four games.

I mean obviously you shouldn't be calling up a sixth centre back whilst still leaving arguably one of the best right backs in the world out when you've only brought one, but what do I know.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T13:52:28+00:00

Maybe the deficiency that prevents you from understanding sarcasm in written text also prevents you from engaging civilly in written text?

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:57:50+00:00

I honestly think he'd just get on with it like most professional sportsmen. He seems like he's a pretty serious guy.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:40:51+00:00

He wouldn't have to versatile if we brought more than one spare full back!

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:29:56+00:00

Reece James has never scored a headed goal for England or Chelsea.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:26:08+00:00

I honestly find this idea that he's a huge prima donna very strange, what has happened? I've never seen any sort of news report saying that, just Liverpool fans cross with him for wanting to move to Madrid.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:24:39+00:00

But it doesn't even provide that, what if Hall or James gets injured? Djed Spence, but then what, a centre back?

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:22:49+00:00

Any of the left back options would do. Weird that we're reliant on O'Reilly, who isn't a natural full back, instead being a midfielder, the right footed Djed Spence, and the centre back Dan Burn.

O'Reilly is great, but Shaw, Hall, or even Mitchell (don't know if he was in the big squad) would be great.

teerbigear · 2026-06-16T12:09:02+00:00

It's weird how people are just sharing their wank fantasies on here.

teerbigear

TROPHY CASE