seems a bit far-fetched

Well the point is that the men’s CL is at least on a channel I need to subscribe for to watch the PL. the women’s CL is on an additional subscription channel

not sure that’s the point

Yeah honestly them being completely unfamiliar platforms really rattles me

Yeah I watched the Man Utd game on BBC, but fancied the Arsenal one really which was Disney

FFS, I have that, I thought it was on Amazon PPV as well...

Liverpool: Fulham were really drab at Everton. I thought they'd go well this season. But 11 games in they haven't really played well once, and their top scorer is own goals. They're clearly not terrible and shouldn't get sucked in, but this isn't the season to be bad.
www.nytimes.com/athletic/679...

Manchester: really seems like Guardiola has reinvented himself, potentially in the most dramatic way left. Doku the big beneficiary. Article only makes sense if you're into Sudoku.
www.nytimes.com/athletic/679...

😂

😂😂

hahaha wow!

No

I have really given the new version of The Observer a good go but I just don't know what they're trying to do. For example: what is this article? What's it trying to be? Who's it for?
observer.co.uk/news/sport/a...

If it took 96 games to get to the round of 16 before, and now it’s 160, then by very definition the individual games matter less.

This confused me too. I assumed that was the case until the draw for the round of 16

yeah agreed that was great. Obviously England the main story (from my perspective at least) but the Scotland/France/Italy group was mad too

I disagree. You knew what was happening in each group. That involved some of them being foregone conclusions, granted. But following eight groups of four, two through from each, was fine. One league of 36, when the key question is who comes 24th instead of 25th...a struggle.