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.
On Saturday Martin surprised us all by giving his ludicrous 'system' a rest and experimenting with 4-5-1. This was a welcome change because his ludicrous system was not working and 4 at the back was the obvious solution to the leaky defence.
However, we do not have the players for 4-5-1, we don't have any genuine wingers!. Martin needs to tweak things further.
For a while now I have been advocating for 4-3-3. With a full squad I was imagining something along the lines of;
...but circumstances change, personnel change and we need to put the best team out we have available. This is the strongest team we have available (on paper - Olly Cooper keeps his place in my book for the moment, he has earned his spot) now, I reckon;
The full-backs need to get forward to provide us some width when we are building an attack. Darling is comfortable on the ball and adds some muscle in midfield. He also has shown that he is a goal threat and adds extra aerial ability at set pieces (we'd then have 4 players on the field capable of competing in the air (Cabango, Wood, Darling & Piroe)...but most importantly it means that when our full-backs attack, Darling can drop into the defensive line when it goes wrong.
Patterson and Ntcham are both capable of threading a through ball or cracking one in. Both are less good at the defensive side of the game. Neither are wide players (haven't got the pace). I'd have them competing for the no. 10 slot, occasionally Ntcham could play in midfield...e.g. - if we want to rest Allen, we bring Congreve or Cooper on and switch Ntcham to CM.
If we need to sub a centre-back Darling could switch back there and Fulton replace him at DM....OR....Naughton to CB and Finn Stevens to RB.
The attacking sub I'd be looking to play most often is Oko-flex and change the shape slightly;
This would mean that we had pace up against a tired defence at the end of games. The idea would be that Piroe would lead the line but when the tie was right drop into the hole, if we could find him he is capable of turning it around the corner or turning and threading a pass for the pace down the channels. If we are building an attack with the full-backs up Obafemi or Oko-flex could drift wide to create a pacy overload and we would then have 2 strikers in the box to aim for. I'd also consider bringing Ogbeta on at left-back and Stevens on at right-back and get at them down the flanks. Both Manning and Naughton are capable of switching to either CB (although we lose in the air then, so not ideal) or at DM.
The subs at our disposal seamlessly slot into the different roles;
Fisher for Benda Stevens for Naughton Latibeaudiere for Wood Ogbeta for Manning (we need to use Ogbeta) Fulton for Darling for Cabango Cundle for Allen or Grimes Olly Cooper for Patterson or Ntcham Ntcham for Allen or Grimes Congreve for Patterson or Ntcham Oko-Flex for Patterson/Ntcham or Obafemi or Piroe Cullen for Piroe or Obafemi
Anyone else fancy helping Martin out? Feel free to add your suggestions.
These are Russell Martin's slogans/principles that he has plastered around the stadium, changing rooms, tunnel etc.
- "Be present. Stay together. Be us." - "We do things our way" - "Our history, our future, our way" - "Enjoy the journey" - "Trust the process" - "Ignore the noise"
Some thoughts I have when I read these statements include; - facile - shallow - the thoughts of a narcissistic teen. - Empty - Devoid of wisdom - Closed minded - Cult like.
...but that is besides the point.
What six slogans/principles would you have up in the changing rooms, tunnel etc. if you were the manager?
...is it right that people from poor backgrounds who went to work instead of University, are forced to pay off the debts of people from wealthy backgrounds who went to University and spent a fortune on living it up whilst 'studying' to obtain useless degrees?
Is Biden and his corrupt band of criminals simply buying votes?
What are you looking for in a football manager? ...and based on what you are looking for whom would you pick as a manger of Swansea City in an ideal world?
For me, there are 4 main ingredients of an effective leader...
1) Intelligence/character Genuine intelligence, not somebody who sounds intelligent, not somebody who puts the right buzz words in the right order. I'm looking for someone who is canny, who has nous, a schemer, somebody who knows what to say at the right time and, more importantly, knows when to shut up. Someone who understands how other people work - can see things from their perspective, understands their motivations (which might be radically different from their own). Someone capable of self-reflection, who takes responsibility for their mistakes and won't rest until they have corrected them.
2. Charisma This is harder to define but I'll have a go. Somebody who knows who they are and is so comfortable in their own skin that they exude self-confidence. Somebody who has a sense of humour. Somebody who can laugh at themselves. Somebody who understands how to have fun and bends/breaks rules sometimes (when appropriate). All of this adds up to an attractive person who other people like and will follow/give their loyalty too.
3. Hard work Are they somebody who becomes obsessed with a project? Somebody who devotes themselves to their job, which they are passionate about. Physically, time wise (works weekends, starts early, finishes late)...because they have pride in themselves are competitive and understand that whether they are successful or not defines them in the eyes of the world.
4. Experience I am not saying that you can only manage a Premier League club if you have played in the Premier League or you can only grow a successful company if you have worked at one to a high level before...I am saying that your life experience and your working life, what you have spent your time doing, should be relevant. If you have intelligence you will have learned from it (Roy Hodgson and Arsene Wenger are good examples of people who didn't play to a high level but had always been involved in football...they learned from experience gained at a lower level and applied it higher up the pyramid.
...it is rare that you find all 4, most settle for 2. I want at least 3.
...we have also been told (at various times) that Hamer, Benda, Latibeaudiere, Manning, Smith, Ntcham, Garrick, Joseph, Whittaker, Cullen & Ogbeta are all not good enough.
Let's take a look in the mirror, let's be honest with ourselves and let's be really clear... the person responsible for the squad and the team, the person responsible for the way the team performs, the way we attack, the way we defend, the formation, the substitutions and our game management is...you guessed it, THE MANAGER...one RUSSELL MARTIN
The refereeing last night was appalling, it seems to be the norm.
Every game I watch as the officials tolerate multiple, cynical, yellow card worthy offences from our opposition...and then book us at the first opportunity they get.
Last night (I haven't checked) I wouldn't be surprised if we had the same amount of yellow cards as Millwall...a team that was as dirty as they come.
Who at the club is holding the authorities to account over this?
- Latibeaudiere was deliberately injured. The left sided centre-back Wallace had no intention of getting the ball, he lined Latibeaudiere up and aggressively put his whole body weight through Lati as he started to jump. I knew instantly that he was injured. I turned to the bloke next to me (who was following the ball and didn't seem concerned) and said; "that's Lati done, a dislocated shoulder I'd bet". Apparently the referee and the linesman, who was stood yards away couldn't see what I could see from the other side of the pitch though...and do you know what? I don't believe it.
- McNamara was one of the dirtiest little sh*ts I've ever seen down here. He repeatedly got away with late tackles where he missed the ball completely and went straight through people's ankles. Each of them was worth a yellow. 4 in a row. He was allowed to hobble Manning before the ref finally gave him a card. Manning continued but was eventually substituted as a consequence of not being 100% and picking up a yellow card himself. McNamara should have been sent off.
- There was another awful challenge on Grimes, it looked like it was a deliberate attempt to injure Grimes to me...I think it was Saville.
Who in management is doing something about this? Complain, make it public, put pressure on refs, talk about it in press conferences...but most importantly, when the opposition starts with this sh*te, why not temporarily bring someone like Wood into the midfield (just for 5 mins) to mark someone who is dishing it out and order him to kick the git into the stands. It would be worth a booking just to let the oppo know that we won't be standing for it even if the ref is.
Tonight was the best football Swansea City has played in ages... ...and the reason why we drastically improved shows that Martin might, finally, be learning and willing to try something different.
- We didn't have 4 in the attacking line, Piroe constantly dropped into that space between the lines, showing for the ball. Other than a couple of loose ones, one back pass in particular in the 1st half was insane, on the whole Piroe linked up the play well and helped us transition to attack at speed. I particularly enjoyed a moment in the 2nd half where Martin collared Piroe at a drinks break and talked to him about trying to turn it around the corner for Sorinola (Martin actually acted out what he meant...within 10 minutes Piroe had tried this a couple of times and one in particular came off lovely. Sorinola wasted it off course
- Grimes and Ntcham and Allen took turns to make forward runs into that space between the lines. All of them, as a result were an attacking threat at times...and we did manage to get overloads in this area with Piroe joining whoever made the run
- We mixed up the play, occasionally curling some longer passes into the channels... The Latibeaudiere open goal came from one of these situations - Grimes hung it up for Latibeaudiere to challenge, we didn't win the ball cleanly but managed to stab it back to the right where Grimes had followed up his pass with a run in support...Grimes played it first time into Piroe who had space in-between the lines (we had managed to disorganise their defence by actually giving them something to defend!), Piroe turned, shaped to shoot but instead opted to lay it square to Ntcham...this is a fluid, overload situation, players from deep sensing there is an opportunity and getting forward. This is how goals are made...and he shot, the keeper saved, Latibeaudiere somehow managed to sky it.
Positives - Joey Allen reads the game beautifully and makes the right decision on the ball consistently. - Allen and Grimes look like they are going to be an excellent partnership - Naughton brought the ball forward with purpose, committing men, not allowing them to sit deep. - Darling, very solid citizen when defending and also brings the ball forward well. - Through balls and balls over the top a-plenty. We asked them questions. - Manning, actually gives us some go forward down the left...got involved with players inside him, linking up and making stuff happen. Excellent finish. - Ntcham, seemed to be growing in confidence, on the same wavelength as Piroe & Obafemi. Some lovely weighted passing. A creator. - We finally created enough chances to consistently win games of football. We scored 2 but it could have been 4 or 5. Create this number of chances consistently and Piroe and Obafemi will see us alright. - Despite a drop off in the 2nd half, which was disappointing (we mentally switch off and hope we've done enough...this is a theme), we then picked it back up and created a series of decent chances between 60th - 75th minutes. Players were doing what I was talking about on my thread re: our attacking flaws and how to fix them...we were playing with a freedom, a confidence.
Negatives: - Game management from Martin (his re-jig of the defence and his seeming inability to coach his players how to manage a game of football. By now we should have a plan on how to see out situations like we faced in injury time...why didn't we play keep ball after the 1st goal?
- Sorinola, not up to this level, unfortunately. Wish the lad the best though.
- Fisher, he makes some saves and he is god's gift, to some...nevertheless he continues to make bad decisions and does not dominate his box. This creates panic among his defence.
- The continuation of the ridiculous goal-kick routine.
- Having every man in our box when defending corners...you have to leave Obafemi up top. This should be obvious. He provides nothing in terms of defending the cross but should provide us an outlet when we clear the ball, either running on to a clearance or at least pressing their defence. Every time we cleared they had all the time in the world to lob it back in again, or knock it down the line to someone to lob it back in from a better angle. This happened throughout the game, we finally paid for it in injury time.
- The subs...Although I agreed with Congreve for Ntcham, I thought, given that Manning was going off and we don't have any other LWBs, a wise sub might have been to switch Grimes to LWB (he has done a good job there before under Potter)...just until the end of this game...then put Cabango at the back and move Naughton into DM role. We also could have taken 1 striker off and put Fulton into a 3 man midfield. As we were 2-0 up we could have even finished;
----------------------- Fisher ---------------------------- ---------------------- Cabango ------------------------- -------- Wood ------------------------ Darling -------- Sorinola --------- Naughton --------------- Grimes ------------- Fulton -------------- Allen --------------- --------------------- Congreve ------------------------- --------------------- Obafemi (as the pace outlet)-
...and said to Millwall; 'go on, play through us.' 3 out and out CBs would have been best for the inevitable aerial bombardment...at some point around the 75th minute I leaned into my boy and said; "they are going to put plenty of men in and around the box and bombard us with the long ball". It was inevitable, they were being outplayed, the only advantages they had was in the air and winning the 2nd ball.
...I have long since given up on Martin thinking like this though, the tactical nous to adjust on the hop seems to be beyond him as well as any imagination re: moving players around as per the situation.
The Final Irony He is finally trying to make the adjustments to the team that a few of us have been asking for and yet it all seems to be too little too late and at this point (over a year in) there are simply too many problems, problems that Martin is responsible for... - Game management - The Goalkeeper - The substitutions - An unbalanced squad. Poor squad depth in some areas, too many options in others. - The falling out with players - The blaming of players (which seems to be catching on with our fans - it is counter productive...we need our players to perform, we need to build their confidence up, not knock them down.)
The reasons why we threw away these points against Millwall are the same reasons why we have continuously thrown away points under Martin...the irony is that now those who have defended far worse performances, for 10 months-ish, will be those who will finally stick the knife in and bring his Swansea era to an end, just as he was learning something.
As we know, when the Swans have the ball our attacking shape (seemingly demanded by Martin) looks like this...
--------------------- GK ---------------------------- ----------------- SW ----- CM (dropping in) -- ------ CB ------------------------- CB ------------- ------------------------- CM (going short) ----- -------- CM ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ RWB ------------ ST --------- ST ----------- LWB
I have read on here that Martin is trying to play Man City's system with Championship players. I'll explain why this is obviously not true (Pep plays 4-3-3 for a start), he is in fact trying to play a system a bit like Ajax's under Erik ten Haag (current Man Utd manager).
Why Pep would never have his team shape like ours...
1. Pep has a rule that no more than 3 players can ever be in a horizontal line...as you will have observed, we usually have 4 in the front line.
2. Pep has a rule that no more than 2 player can be in a vertical line...as you will have observed, we often have 3 (CB, CM, ST).
3. The most important zone on the pitch to Pep (and to me, and to Laudrup, and to an awful lot of people) is the zone behind the striker, in-between the lines. Pep's whole game plan is to create overloads in this area, that is the purpose of the passing/possession for Pep. His style leans on tiki-taka (quick interchange of passing at pace) but is different as it is all about disorganising the opposition with the passing and creating overloads in the vital area of the pitch with the player's movement...the rules of where the players are allowed to be and how they are to move is drilled into his players (hence the rules on the verticals and the horizontals).
It is a system that allows the players a lot of freedom, it requires intelligence to play it, players are not stuck in one position, they can move into different areas of the pitch...all that he asks is that they move as a team; - if a full-back/wing-back tucks narrow, the winger goes wide (and vice versa) - If a defender brings it forward 1 midfielder will drop to provide cover and the short pass, 1 midfielder drives forward into the space between the lines - If 1 striker drops into the hole the other makes the forward run - If a striker pulls wide (to create an overload with the winger, either the other winger or a midfielder runs forward into the striker position.
The team is fluid, it breathes. They pull the opposition around and everybody's first thought on the ball is can I get it to a team mate in that space between the lines...that is the goal...as soon as they make that pass another player joins him in-between the lines...if the overload is not possible this time it goes wide...
Pep understands (...and this is really not complicated) that you hurt teams when you get the ball in this space in-between the lines; shots, through balls, putting the winger in behind, or simply dragging a defender out of the line with you.
Now, we are not Man City and we do not possess some of the World's best players...but we did have Martinez and Rodgers eras, so we should (as fans) understand that it is possible to play quality attacking, possession based football in the Championship.
How could Martin adjust?
I'd play 4-3-3 given the squad we have but let's see if we can tweak Martin's system so it would make more sense. The attacking shape of the team should look more like this;
--------------------- GK ---------------------------- ----------------- SW ----- CM (dropping in) -- ------ CB ------------------------- CB ------------- ---------------------- CM (going short) --------- RWB----------------------------------------- LWB ---------------- CM --------- ST ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ST -------------------------
- The Wing backs dropping deeper give the man on the ball extra short options or the ball into the space down the wing (if the oppo full-back presses)
- The CM driving forward and the ST (Piroe probably) dropping in allows defenders and midfielders the option of playing a more direct 30-40 yard pass into feet
- We have diamonds everywhere and the possibility of flicking on (to the striker) or turning around the corner (for the wing-backs to run on to).
- If we find one of the players in the zone a short lay off to a midfielder or a wing-back allows the ball in behind for the striker
- Like Pep's system, we don't have more than 2 players across any vertical or horizontal
- If, for example, a wing back drops deeper to help a defender out by taking the ball short, the CB on the right side can push into the WB position and the RWB can get right up the line or get into that space between the lines...or even temporarily switch into midfield. It depends on the situation.
Under Martin we are rigid. Our movement needs to be Fluid.
Subs: Fisher (GK), Latibeaudiere (RB/CB) or Wood (CB/RB) or Naughton (CB/RB), Sorinola (LWB), Fulton/Ntcham (CM), Garrick (RWB), Congreve (CAM), Joseph (ST
Your formation and your system should be set to allow you to get your 11 best players in the team. I've included Sorinola & Garrick on the bench so we have the option of changing the team shape to wing-backs if that's what the situation requires (Marin's 'system' is now the plan B - except I would tweak it, ditching the ludicrous tactic of the wing-backs of playing so high...it would be a 3-5-2, with an attacking midfielder whose sole job is to float between the lines, finding space and giving the 2 midfielders and the defenders the chance to play a crisp 20-30 yard pass into his feet allowing us to transition into attack...it's not really Martin's system but allows us to make some use of the time spent over the past 12 months).
Patterson would be given free licence to roam, he must find space in-between the lines. Piroe is free to drop into the space in-between the lines too, if he sees fit. Obafemi needs to be constantly making forward runs looking for the ball in behind. We could take Patterson off if he is not performing, put Piroe in there and give Joseph half an hour up front with Obafemi.
The Full-backs provide some width after some patient build up in midfield, if the play is developing on the right, Manning needs to get forward to provide width on the Left (and vice versa).
The defence explains itself, but I'll have a go anyway... - Manning is a solid left-back, he is good defensively and looks comfortable in midfield (rather than as a Left-forward in Martin's system). - We have one big ugly, solid centre-half who is good in the air in Cabango (Bennett would be fine here also, but that would require somebody with some brains resolving his situation) and one ball-playing centre-half in Darling (Latibeaudiere or Naughton could fill in here when required). - We don't have a right-back, Garrick could be taught to play this position I'm sure but I have gone with Wood. Wood has pace, has impressed some with his defending (I wasn't impressed yesterday - was the wrong side of his man for their 2nd goal and was then shrugged off by the striker)...Martin and his staff should be able to coach him to improve as a right-back, that ir job after all. Latibeaudiere would be more comfortable as a right-back rather than a right-forward too, so he is an option. Of course, Naughton can play here and remains a good option but has lost his pace...it would depend on the opposition who gets the nod.
GK We should be developing Benda, he is a better keeper than Fisher.
The bank of 4 midfielder take it in turns to assist the striker, pressing...then sit in whilst we pass it around the back knowing that we will never play that long ball forward so our front 4 can have a go one-on-one....even if we did, the DM would drop in to assist the defence.
Sometimes a team plays 2 strikers (to really chase down our back 3, with a bank of 3 midfielders doing the pressing (1 at a time).
They are happy for us to have the ball back there for 70% of the time, they are controlling the game and are satisfied that when they have their 30% of the ball they will be stealing it in our half with a 5 v 5 situation (if we're lucky, more often than not they have an overload because we lose the ball unexpectedly with our players too high to get back)
This is why they score so many goals against us with so little of the ball.
- With the emphasis on possession one of Fulton or Grimes inevitably has to drop into the backline to help the defenders keep the ball.
- The other shows himself, dropping short to make a ball into midfield possible.
- Ntcham usually pulls wider, trying to find some space but usually he gets marked or the defender on the ball rejects playing a risky cross field ball to him which might get intercepted and instead goes for the safe options of Grimes or Fulton.
- Grimes too be fair, whenever he gets enough space to turn and bring forward, plays with his head up looking for a good pass...but usually there aren't any good passes on BECAUSE NOBODY IS IN THE SPACE BETWEEN THE LINES...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAY CRISP, FORWARD, PASSES THAT TAKE DEFENDERS OUT OF THE GAME IF NOBODY IS MAKING THE RUNS INTO THE SPACE TO RECEIVE THEM.
So, why do we have this problem? We have this problem because our clown of a 'manager' insists that our "wing-backs" ... (who are actually centre-backs playing as wingers at this stage...he got shot of Bidwell, played Manning at Centre-back for a season, and refuses to give the likes of Joseph or Garrick a shot at playing wide right...he also brought in an extra centre-half, when we already have Bennett, Latibeaudiere, Cooper, instead of prioritising a right wing-back) ...play high up in the attacking line, as wingers. There is always a line of 4...this is not an accident, it is regimented, so why?
Martin believes that by having that line of 4 high up the pitch, it forces the opposition to have 4 flat defenders marking them. The clown believes that this creates space in midfield for our players and their possession game. In reality of course, all this tactic does is hamstring the likes of Grimes (who has nobody playing between the lines to play to) and ensures that we play keep ball between the centre-backs and the midfield, out to the "wing-back" who is tracking back from his high position to offer the pass...only when we look in trouble...and of course plays it back to a defender again...as he has a full-back up his arse, not allowing him to turn.
The only way this system could make any sense whatsoever is if the midfield and the defence were given licence to play long balls over the top every now and again...so our high front 4 could scrap for it, get a cross in, win a corner, even score god damnit(!)...but it is very clear that they are not given permission to do that (they never play those long balls behind the full-back or into the channel, ever!) because they are being instructed to keep ball until the opposition gets tired.
The only players I saw making a run in-between the lines today was Fulton...who has the brains to see that this is necessary (God love him, understands more about the game than his clown of a manager) and Patterson, when he came off the bench....and when they made the runs, if the ball didn't come (because a centre-back was on the ball and didn't fancy himself to pick that pass out) these players also ended up in the front line, of now 5 players.
With 4/5 players high in a line (all marked) the opposition need only leave 1 defensive midfielder to marshall a ton of empty space, and everyone else gets to sit in (closing passing lanes) and pressing...eventually our 3 centre-backs and 2 midfielders cough up the ball...this is inevitable, it is not individual players' fault...at this point the opposition counter attack us at pace.
When Wood/Darling/Naughton/Grimes had the ball, facing a chasm of space...and ordered not to play long balls...the only option they have to create anything is too drive at the opposition at pace, beat a man, drag another defender to them and then give...but the players are clearly terrified of doing this because they know that the moment they lose the ball they are allowing the opposition in against our 3 defenders (with the wing-backs playing so high)...this is where the goals against come from and good players, like Grimes, get castigated by idiot, know nothing, fans who hold them accountable instead of the clown we call our manager. Martin is not averse to talking about individuals' 'mistakes' in post match interviews either...as we all have to keep pretending that the problem is that he hasn't got good enough players instead of his stupid, brain dead, deluded tactics.
Russell Martin, if you're reading, learn something and make changes or prepare for your coaching career to come to an end. You are fast becoming a joke across the football league.
On October 1, 1949, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong declared the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The announcement ended the costly full-scale civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), which broke out immediately following World War II and had been preceded by on and off conflict between the two sides since the 1920’s. The creation of the PRC also completed the long process of governmental upheaval in China begun by the Chinese Revolution of 1911. The “fall” of mainland China to communism in 1949 led the United States to suspend diplomatic ties with the PRC for decades.
The Chinese Communist Party, founded in 1921 in Shanghai, originally existed as a study group working within the confines of the First United Front with the Nationalist Party. Chinese Communists joined with the Nationalist Army in the Northern Expedition of 1926—27 to rid the nation of the warlords that prevented the formation of a strong central government. This collaboration lasted until the “White Terror” of 1927, when the Nationalists turned on the Communists, killing them or purging them from the party.
After the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, the Government of the Republic of China (ROC) faced the triple threat of Japanese invasion, Communist uprising, and warlord insurrections. Frustrated by the focus of the Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek on internal threats instead of the Japanese assault, a group of generals abducted Chiang in 1937 and forced him to reconsider cooperation with the Communist army. As with the first effort at cooperation between the Nationalist government and the CCP, this Second United Front was short-lived. The Nationalists expended needed resources on containing the Communists, rather than focusing entirely on Japan, while the Communists worked to strengthen their influence in rural society.
During World War II, popular support for the Communists increased. U.S. officials in China reported a dictatorial suppression of dissent in Nationalist-controlled areas. These undemocratic polices combined with wartime corruption made the Republic of China Government vulnerable to the Communist threat. The CCP, for its part, experienced success in its early efforts at land reform and was lauded by peasants for its unflagging efforts to fight against the Japanese invaders.
Japanese surrender set the stage for the resurgence of civil war in China. Though only nominally democratic, the Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek continued to receive U.S. support both as its former war ally and as the sole option for preventing Communist control of China. U.S. forces flew tens of thousands of Nationalist Chinese troops into Japanese-controlled territory and allowed them to accept the Japanese surrender. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, occupied Manchuria and only pulled out when Chinese Communist forces were in place to claim that territory.
In 1945, the leaders of the Nationalist and Communist parties, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, met for a series of talks on the formation of a post-war government. Both agreed on the importance of democracy, a unified military, and equality for all Chinese political parties. The truce was tenuous, however, and, in spite of repeated efforts by U.S. General George Marshall to broker an agreement, by 1946 the two sides were fighting an all-out civil war. Years of mistrust between the two sides thwarted efforts to form a coalition government.
As the civil war gained strength from 1947 to 1949, eventual Communist victory seemed more and more likely. Although the Communists did not hold any major cities after World War II, they had strong grassroots support, superior military organization and morale, and large stocks of weapons seized from Japanese supplies in Manchuria. Years of corruption and mismanagement had eroded popular support for the Nationalist Government. Early in 1947, the ROC Government was already looking to the island province of Taiwan, off the coast of Fujian Province, as a potential point of retreat. Although officials in the Truman Administration were not convinced of the strategic importance to the United States of maintaining relations with Nationalist China, no one in the U.S. Government wanted to be charged with facilitating the “loss” of China to communism. Military and financial aid to the floundering Nationalists continued, though not at the level that Chiang Kai-shek would have liked. In October of 1949, after a string of military victories, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the PRC; Chiang and his forces fled to Taiwan to regroup and plan for their efforts to retake the mainland.
The ability of the PRC and the United States to find common ground in the wake of the establishment of the new Chinese state was hampered by both domestic politics and global tensions. In August of 1949, the Truman administration published the “China White Paper,” which explained past U.S. policy toward China based upon the principle that only Chinese forces could determine the outcome of their civil war. Unfortunately for Truman, this step failed to protect his administration from charges of having “lost” China. The unfinished nature of the revolution, leaving a broken and exiled but still vocal Nationalist Government and Army on Taiwan, only heightened the sense among U.S. anti-communists that the outcome of the struggle could be reversed. The outbreak of the Korean War, which pitted the PRC and the United States on opposite sides of an international conflict, ended any opportunity for accommodation between the PRC and the United States. Truman’s desire to prevent the Korean conflict from spreading south led to the U.S. policy of protecting the Chiang Kai-shek government on Taiwan.
For more than twenty years after the Chinese revolution of 1949, there were few contacts, limited trade and no diplomatic ties between the two countries. Until the 1970s, the United States continued to recognize the Republic of China, located on Taiwan, as China’s true government and supported that government’s holding the Chinese seat in the United Nations.
Since 1949 the regimes on both the mainland and Taiwan have agreed that Taiwan is a province of China–the principal difference being that each has asserted it is the legitimate government of the country. Tensions were especially high between the two entities in the first decades after the split, marked by periodic artillery duels between batteries on the Taiwan-controlled islands of Matsu and Qemoy, just off the coast of Fujian province, and those opposite them on the mainland. The ROC’s claim of legitimacy was dealt a serious blow after 1970 with its loss of UN representation and diplomatic recognition by most of the world’s countries. Still, Taiwan remained viable and emerged as a global economic powerhouse, its security guaranteed by a commitment from the United States and backed by U.S. military presence in the region. The continued American involvement in Taiwan affairs has at times been a source of friction in U.S.-China relations.
Through all this, economic ties improved considerably between the mainland and Taiwan. Taiwan has become one of China’s major trading partners, Taiwan-based businesses have invested heavily on the mainland, and large numbers of people from the island have come to live and work on the mainland. Beijing has continued to press for reintegrating Taiwan as a province of China under mainland administration. However, there has been a sustained movement on Taiwan advocating that the island become an independent sovereign state and not continue to be considered a part of China. Tensions escalated after the pro-independence Chen Shui-bian was elected president of the ROC in 2000. Nonetheless, discussions continued between the two sides, and in 2005 high-ranking Nationalist Party (KMT) officials traveled to the mainland, the first such visits since 1949.
Tensions between China and Taiwan eased significantly after the Nationalists regained control of both Taiwan’s legislature and presidency in 2008. Talks, often at a high level, continued and increased between the two sides on both economic and diplomatic issues. A notable accomplishment of these discussions was a trade agreement, signed in 2010, that would gradually reduce or eliminate tariffs on a large number of goods and commodities exported from one side to the other.
Remember when they launched and people on the Left claimed it would be a 'far right channel'? Remember the orchestrated campaign against it, the boycott?
I'm watching Carolyn Harris (Labour - Swansea East) on there right now being given a fair hearing...no arguments, no silliness, no bias from the presenter trying to shut her down...just a grown up, mature, exchange of views.
If your wife/husband/partner were to give you a free pass...mine would be more likely to rip my testicles off to be fair...but if they were to give you a free pass, which celebrity would be top of your list?
Is it important to you or is it a case of you can take it or leave it?
If you think it's important... Does it matter whether it is a traditional roast? What's your favourite? Or does the food not matter, more about sitting together with extended family to eat and catch up? Are your Sunday dinners multi-generational affairs? Do your family all get on?
If it is not important to you... Why do you not put much (chicken) stock in it? Do you have better things to do? What are they?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.