ohmelads

17 million is a worthy price to pay for a top class holding midfielder who has shown he can hack it in the Premier League and has already settled at the club. He's only 23, there's a good chance you'd get 10 years service out of him. Spend that much on a foreign import and you have the risk he won't adapt, spend it on an English player and the chances are he'll be overpriced and not as good. The way football prices are going, and given his age, I think it's a fair price.

Haven't decided yet, mebbes Czech Republic for the fact they play decent stuff, they're plucky underdogs and Rozehnal plays for them.

A welcome change it true, but as Alex Ferguson made the point earlier today, I don't think our current issues are due to these sorts of grassroots problems nor indeed down to the current generation of players. I don't think we'll ever match the Brazilians technically. They play football all of the time, every day, from the minute they can kick a ball. Many of them play without shoes, and play anywhere they can, it is a national obsession. English kids play barely a fraction of the amount of football they do, and as a result will always be behind. In order to overcome nations like these we need to focus on the business end of things IMO, namely tactics and organisation. I wasn't citing Greece as an example to follow, far from it, but rather an example of the sheer importance of tactics in international tournaments. If a nation as poor as Greece can go all the way it shows that technique is not the be all and end all. We need to recognise where we stand in world football and look to punch above our weight if we are ever to go all the way (IMO), because I don't see us ever outplaying the Brazilians or the Italians at their own style of football.

Johnnypd you made some good points there but perhaps the most interesting was about us learning from Brazil. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. There is a great deal of soul searching going on at the moment and it is interesting to note that while many here are talking about putting an emphasis on technique over physique at youth level, the Brazilians have been doing the opposite. Here's an excerpt from one of Tim Vickery's columns for the BBC which makes the point well. "Trying to impose a pattern onto something as capricious as football results is a hazardous business. But perhaps one possible explanation can be found in the methodology Brazil have followed in recent years. Scared by the rise of the rise of the northern European game in the 60s and 70s - 'force football' as it was termed in Brazil - they sought to bulk up. Until recently former left-back Branco was co-ordinating Brazil's youth sides. He told me that right from the start of the process he and his team were looking for big, strong players. The idea was that if they could match the Europeans in physical terms, their technical advantage would tip the balance. The project has been very successful, though it could be argued that the aesthetic quality of their play has fallen as a consequence. But maybe the point has now been reached where Brazil's youth teams have a physical, and especially aerial, advantage against their South American neighbours. But they no longer have a sufficient technical advantage over the biggest and best sides from the rest of the world." Another factor to consider is that the Brazilians are increasingly looking at physique over technique because they can make good money exporting their players to wealthy European clubs. Notice how few Brazilian players have succeeded in the Premier League, because traditionally they haven't handled the conditions or the pace and physicality of the game. Remember Kleberson? Clubs in both England and Brazil are looking for players who have the pace and/or physique to handle football at the top level, though for very different reasons. We are not the only nation cherry-picking the stronger/taller/quicker kids from a very early age, the Brazilians are doing it as well.

What Premiership club is going to sacrifice athleticism for technique though? They've got to train their players up for the Premier League and anybody who isn't cut out for the pace and physicality of the Premier League simply won't make the grade. Even Arsene Wenger, who has always looked for technical players, has recognised the need for quick thinking players who are also quick and strong. There aren't many players who thrive in the Premiership on technique alone, it's no surprise clubs are looking for kids who can hold their own in that environment. Speed and physical size will always be taken into account more than in countries like Spain or Italy because these kids need to be able to handle themselves in the Premier League.

I agree. People who say we lack the quality players to at least be competitive in major tournaments are looking for excuses and wallowing in their own self-pity. Germany were awful a few years back, and they only got to the final in 2002 through the easiest run you could ask for. Paraguay, USA, and S.Korea were all that stood between them and the final in the knockout stages and it papered over the cracks. Two years later in Euro 2004 Germany failed to get out of the group stage or even register a win. As my German friend said, he'd rather they hadn't qualified for Euro 2004 than embarrass themselves. And yet by 2006, in just two short years, Germany were gaining widespread praise for the way they went about their football. Far too much has been said about the individuals, and how we have a deep-rooted problem with football in this country. Bollocks. We've got people talking about the lack of technique, the pace of our game and the size of 10-year old's pitches. The current European champions are Greece for christ sake. In recent history we have only come up a bit short of our potential IMO, we are not the best footballing nation in the world, not even the second or third best, so you have to say that anything beyond the quarter finals of a world cup is an achievement. We got there in 2002 and lost to Brazil, the winners. We reached the quarters of Euro 2004 but lost to the hosts and finalists, Portugal, on penalties. In 1998 we fell just short of the quarters on penalties to Argentina. These are not poor teams. 1994 was an embarrassment as was 2000 and as 2008 will be, but Germany have shown things can be turned around reasonably quickly with the right man at the helm and the desire for change. The talk about deep-rooted problems with football in England are just melodramatics from overzealous journalists, it's easy to spout that sort of crap after a setback. The problem for me lie with tactics and team selection, not the quality of our footballers. Football is a team game and the team hasn't been performing, but it seems a lot of people are having a tantrum and saying none of our players are good enough to compete with the likes of Croatia.

Team performances don't always reflect the individual ability of the players. Teams underperform and overperform, we all know that. Some of them may be overrated, but they're still good footballers, and Croatia are not Brazil either, they just played well collectively and we didn't. The England team are a poor outfit collectively, but there are plenty of good English footballers. They're not all world class, but so what? Only a few nations can field a team of 11 genuinely world class players and right now we're not one of them. What we do have is plenty of good players and a few world class ones to boot and what we need is a manager who will find 11 who suit a system and keep faith in them, even if some big names must be dropped to accommodate that. It's not all doom and gloom, and I don't believe the problem is so deep-rooted. I was talking to my German friend about this, and how they were in a similar situation a few years ago where everybody was criticizing the national team and it seemed there were major problems. But a younger generation of players were given the chance and rose to establish themselves in new German team. Players like Lahm, Podolski, Schweinsteiger, Jansen, Mertesacker, Fritz, Gomez. Not world class players by any means, but players who fitted a system and in the 2 years before the world cup a new team was formed, players who worked well together and had the chance to grow together as a team. We all saw the result in the world cup. Fair enough they hosted the tournament, but they looked hopeless just a couple of years earlier. It's just about building a team that plays tactically disciplined football, you don't need a load of world class players to go far in a tournament, that's a soft excuse. We have the quality to be holding our own in major tournaments, we just need to find a means of putting it together and building a team that is tactically disciplined. Who says we can't do what the Germans have done?

Looks like Edgar could have to play in central defence. Taylor doubtful, Faye is out, news awaited on Cacapa.

Overrated maybe, but sh*t? It's easy to kick someone when they're down, but that's the type of person Keane is.

Some of the points in that article are valid, but I think a lot of it is overstated. You have to remember that Brazilian kids growing up in the favelas often play on poor quality pitches and often without shoes and they don't play competitive games in competitive leagues until much later than English kids. Football is an expressive sport and kids are allowed to play their own way. It's a different ethos, but it isn't necessarily the "winning formula". There is more to the English long-ball game than big pitches for small kids, though I admit it's probably not ideal and the article makes some good points. The fact that it rains here most of the year makes a short passing game very difficult. Anybody who has tried playing quick one-twos on a boggy pitch knows it's very difficult, long balls work because a wet pitch doesn't bounce as much. Many foreign players from hot climates don't appreciate this until they come here and you see them struggling. Similarly, in hot countries playing long balls and closing down all the time is very tiring. I played quite a lot living in Spain and it's exhausting in that heat, there is a reason why you play one-twos and work your way up the pitch, and a reason why people aren't closing each other down at 100mph. End to end football in those conditions doesn't work, shorter passes and making the opposition do the running are quite important. In many parks in Spain there are no grass pitches because of the lack of rain, only mud/sand pitches, and that encourages the way they play the game from day to day. There are many factors which result in why players and teams play the way they do, but that article overstates one factor IMO.

Can't say I really wanted any of them but can't say I wanted Sam either. Juande Ramos was my preferred choice but I never realised just how likely he was to leave. Knowing now that we have a billionaire in charge I'd definitely have preferred Ramos, he's shown he can cut it at the top and get the best out of players. I also think Ramos would have had a better idea of how to work with the current players and bring in his own to complement them, rather than a squad overhaul which Allardyce will probably need to do. I'm not pining for any of the others in that poll though just because Sam's having problems, I'm not sure any of them would have been able to turn these players around because as Dr Spectrum pointed out they are all more dour types of managers. I must admit Hughes is making a name for himself though, and Blackburn do play a decent passing game at least from the highlights I've seen. I think we'll need to either back or sack Allardyce next summer because he doesn't seem comfortable with the current players, nor do they seem comfortable with his system. The fact he brought in 9 players was about more than just squad building, he must have looked at our squad and wondered how they would play his football - I know many of us did. The hope was that he'd change his philosophy but I guess we have the answer to that now - he won't. If he can weather the storm he'll get the backing he wants, I only hope the faith in him isn't misguided.

Don't remember the Taylor/Young thing tbh. I do remember Roz being muscled off by Young/Agbonlahor (forget which) in the same game, which kind of proves my point. They've all dropped clangers this season, you have to judge Taylor in context. You talk about holding a high line, but we were pinned into our own half against Reading and Cacapa struggled again. He's a decade older than Taylor and he's making the same mistakes, air-kicks, dwelling on the ball, muscled off by strikers, yet you'll forgive one and not the other. "By far the worst"? Come on, that's just sensationalism. I'm not overly impressed by any of them, but I think Faye is a decent defender and like most I'm happy enough with him. The jury is still out on Cacapa and Rozehnal, you can see they've got talent but you can see they have spent their careers playing abroad. Roz is a very continental defender who likes to get involved in play and can go wandering and it's no surprise that both Faye and Taylor found they had their work cut out when they played alongside him. Cacapa reads the game very well but it remains to be seen whether he can hack the end to end nature of the English game with high balls and big forwards every week. Make no mistake, other teams will target him. I'm not on the back of the new boys, I just think Taylor should be judged in context. It looks to me like people are glossing over their errors to make Taylor stand out, to make it look like he's been "by far the worst". But that implies the others have been "much better" and I've seen little evidence of that. IMO Faye and Enrique have started well, the rest have all looked equally uncomfortable. It's high time Sam sticks with his favoured 4 (he must have an idea by now) and give them a run of games together. I think most of us will agree that Beye, Faye and Enrique should be starting every week. Taylor has been easily the worst of our centre backs this season, if you want to think that's sensationalism then fine but I prefer to judge on what I see and I wouldn't trust Taylor at the back against any half decent striker, Cacapa is clearly a stop gap signing and has only been brought in because the players Allardyce wanted wouldn't come here for one reason or another, Rozenhal on the other hand looks a better defender who will take time to get used to the pace and physical side of the Premiership, this isn't glossing over his mistakes it's understanding that few players come here and adapt straight away. As Wullie said Taylor has been a regular in the Premiership for a few years now and hasn't improved at all, do people really have any hope of him being a regular at the back for us? As a defender he's on par with Michael Dawson at Spurs and most of the board slaughter him every chance they get. You're providing reasons/excuses for Roz being poor but suggest that Taylor's performances are purely down to a lack of ability. It's not a consistent or fair way of comparing two players playing in the same team. You talk about Taylor's experience yet you know that our defence has been neglected the entire time Taylor has been here and that most centre halves are definitely not the finished article at the age of 21. I think your criticism is a bit over the top but that's just my opinion. Some people would say that a young defender who is in and out the side and shuffled between CB and RB should not be singled out the way you've done ("by far the worst", "easily the worst" etc) when highly experienced players up to 10 years his senior are making exactly the same mistakes. You can't make excuses for one then slam the other, it makes it look like you have an agenda. I know you think they should be cut some slack because they've come from abroad and I agree, but there are other factors for why they have all struggled. I think Taylor's been shaky this season, but when I'm seeing highly experienced players suffering in the same circumstances then I'm not going to single him out. Like johnnypd I thought Taylor was carrying Rozehnal for a while, just as Faye carried Rozehnal through the mackem game. I don't think we'll see any consistency at the back until the same back four are given time to gel as a unit. Roz and Taylor were pulled off after a bad game and haven't been seen together since, Beye and Enrique have been f*cked about while Cacapa was hauled off after 15 minutes. Talk about showing faith in your players. The bizarre rotation and negative tactics have made it tough on the defenders this season so I can cut them all a bit of slack, I expect you do too but for some reason you exclude Taylor from that.

Don't remember the Taylor/Young thing tbh. I do remember Roz being muscled off by Young/Agbonlahor (forget which) in the same game, which kind of proves my point. They've all dropped clangers this season, you have to judge Taylor in context. You talk about holding a high line, but we were pinned into our own half against Reading and Cacapa struggled again. He's a decade older than Taylor and he's making the same mistakes, air-kicks, dwelling on the ball, muscled off by strikers, yet you'll forgive one and not the other. "By far the worst"? Come on, that's just sensationalism. I'm not overly impressed by any of them, but I think Faye is a decent defender and like most I'm happy enough with him. The jury is still out on Cacapa and Rozehnal, you can see they've got talent but you can see they have spent their careers playing abroad. Roz is a very continental defender who likes to get involved in play and can go wandering and it's no surprise that both Faye and Taylor found they had their work cut out when they played alongside him. Cacapa reads the game very well but it remains to be seen whether he can hack the end to end nature of the English game with high balls and big forwards every week. Make no mistake, other teams will target him. I'm not on the back of the new boys, I just think Taylor should be judged in context. It looks to me like people are glossing over their errors to make Taylor stand out, to make it look like he's been "by far the worst". But that implies the others have been "much better" and I've seen little evidence of that. IMO Faye and Enrique have started well, the rest have all looked equally uncomfortable. It's high time Sam sticks with his favoured 4 (he must have an idea by now) and give them a run of games together. I think most of us will agree that Beye, Faye and Enrique should be starting every week.

I like Cacapa and I hope he makes it here, he started out very well but let's not forget his performances against Reading and Derby. Against Reading he was awful, it's quite a surprise we only conceded two in that game because they had plenty of chances. Sooner or later someone was going to take the constant chances we were giving away and Portsmouth happily obliged. If Portsmouth was just a bad day at the office then what were Reading and Derby? Cacapa brings qualities to the table but he has some notable weaknesses. He doesn't look that comfortable with the pace or the physicality of the game here and both Reading and Portsmouth targetted him. Other teams will do the same, it's a question of whether he adjusts to how the game is played over here.

Could say that about any of them though. It was Rozehnal, not Taylor, who was muscled off the ball at Villa. And you have Roz's no-show against the mackems, his performance against Man City was dreadful as well. And Cacapa had his moments before the Portsmouth nightmare, including more than one air kick in the penalty area and a dodgy backpass. Cacapa and Rozehnal were all over the place at Derby. Even Faye, who's been the pick of a poor bunch, directly set up one of Portsmouth's goals with a ridiculous pass and his error led to sunderland's quick corner which put us a goal down. If Taylor had done these things he'd get slaughtered, but people have glossed over the new players' shortcomings. I think you're being hypercritical of one player. They've all struggled, because there's a different team out every week and the pressure on the defence has been huge. IMO only Faye and Enrique have come out of it so far with their credibility intact, the others have looked decidedly rusty, Taylor included. I'm not Taylor's biggest fan but I do think he has good potential. He gets hammered on here, people seem disappointed that he's not the next Nesta, Puyol, Terry etc, and point to where Ferdinand and Woodgate were at his age. It's ridiculous. He won't be world class like them, people should just get over it. I think he'll become a good solid Premiership defender like Lescott at Everton for example, who is not world class by any means but good at what he does.

I think it might be better to play Duff on the right wing, both for his own good and for the sake of keeping N'Zogbia in the side. Besides, Milner is struggling on that side and doesn't look his sharpest (he played through the summer for the U-21s on the back of a long season). Duff's always been a bit one-footed IMO but it was never a problem when he could run rings round defenders. He looks painfully one-footed now he's lost his pace which means he struggles to beat his man. In the days when he could skin the full back he could put in crosses all day on his left foot but now he has to cut inside onto that right foot where he's a lot less confident. This usually results in him deciding to play it safe and pass it sideways/backwards, stalling our attacks. Not really what you want in your winger. I know he's been pretty crap when he's played on the right for us, but he's hardly played any games there to be fair. He's going to cut inside more as he loses his pace, at least on the right wing you'll see him cutting onto his left foot. His control on his right foot is actually good but you'll rarely see him trying anything on that foot. It's impossible to say how Duff will be when he returns, but he's never had a chance to find form here due to injury (a familiar story with Owen, Emre, and many of our signings in recent years). We can only hope he stays injury free, because I think given a run of 20 games he could find form and be a decent player for us. It's a big IF though, I wouldn't put my money on him staying injury free for that long.

There was a time when comparing Owen and Martins would have been laughable. But we have to come to terms with the fact that the Owen we have now is not the same Owen who scored a hat-trick past us or scored that wondergoal against Argentina. When he first came here and scored 7 in 10 games or whatever, he still had that burst of pace which made him so dangerous in and around the box. For a few months it was starting to look like money well spent. That hat-trick against West Ham showed how difficult he was to defend against, and we were poor in that game as well. But after pretty much 18 months out of the game he's come back and he's easier to defend against, he hasn't got that burst of acceleration to nick half a yard and get a shot off. We need to be feeding him balls he can hit first time but we don't seem capable. He'll still get goals because he's a world class finisher with excellent movement and I dare say for a team like Man Utd who set up chances and get the ball in the penalty area constantly he'd bang loads in if he stayed fit. But he can't stay fit and he's in a struggling team. An injury-prone goal-hanger like him looks increasingly like a luxury a club like us just can't afford. Martins has some shocking games where nothing goes right for him, he's an awkward player there's no doubt about that. But he's willing to work the channels, come deep and link up with play, he has that burst of pace which worries defenders and he is very strong for his size. You get the feeling Owen has been picked recently on his reputation alone, and we've been waiting on him to hit form. The service has been absolutely awful and it's not that our strikers are misfiring but more that there is noone supplying the bullets. But despite all that, just watching his general play it's sad to say but he will never be the same player he once was. Two major injuries in a row have taken their toll. Some people rightly predicted that his transfer was a risk and putting all our eggs in one basket, but nobody could have predicted that he would go missing for 18 months and would suffer more injuries than he has ever known. We've just been f*cking unlucky, us and Owen. Nobody could have imagined his transfer would go this badly. Martins nowadays looks more likely to carve a goal out of nothing when the service is so poor, because he can beat defenders to loose balls and use his strength to fend them off. In a team playing good football I'd rather have Owen but in this team I'd rather have Martins.

2-1!

Don't really see your logic there. Does that mean world war two should never be mentioned or given reference to in anything other than WWII films? What about 9/11? It seems a bit of a strange line for the scriptwriters to come up with on a London-based soap, but we should remember that they make references to real tragic events all the time in fictional programmes and films. Do you think a storyline in Eastenders slagging off the victims of auschwitz would be acceptable in order to get ratings? References to controversial, real-life events and issues appear all the time in fictional storylines on TV. This is a character whose views represent the views of plenty of people, as right or wrong as those views may be. It's not condoning those views, it's a fictional character, it's a story. Would a film such as American History X be condoning racism, or just presenting a fictional character and a story? I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but I don't see the difference with what was said on EastEnders and what you see on thousands of films, tv progs etc. If your point is that the content wasn't appropriate for a daytime soap opera then I can have some sympathy, but you seem to be suggesting the programme was "slagging off the victims" ?? 'Slagging off the victims' may have been the wrong phrase to use but they are still being used for cheap ratings. I'd also like to add that major storylines are frequently pulled from soaps if they coincide with a major news event, so there is some degree of sensitivity in the soap world. I won't comment on films as TV operates to different standards to those of the cinema. All fair enough comments. Far be it from me to defend soaps (I can't stand them) but when I read the article I was expecting the comments to be a lot stronger.

It seems ludicrous to say that we need another striker, given we have 5 already (Martins, Owen, Viduka, Shola, Smith), but we probably do. Viduka seems to be a short-term stop gap, he's getting older and slower and he's injury prone. Owen will probably be off in the summer, Shola's days here may well be numbered as well. Smith should be nothing more than a utility player in my eyes. So while there's 5 bodies there, there's nothing resembling a long-term strike partnership. I think we should be looking for a long-term strike partner for Oba, and accept that Viduka is a stop gap, Owen's on his bike soon enough and Shola and Smith aren't ever going to be good enough to be regular starters up front. It's yet another area of the pitch where we find ourselves with plenty of depth but an abundance of mediocrity.

Don't really see your logic there. Does that mean world war two should never be mentioned or given reference to in anything other than WWII films? What about 9/11? It seems a bit of a strange line for the scriptwriters to come up with on a London-based soap, but we should remember that they make references to real tragic events all the time in fictional programmes and films. Do you think a storyline in Eastenders slagging off the victims of auschwitz would be acceptable in order to get ratings? References to controversial, real-life events and issues appear all the time in fictional storylines on TV. This is a character whose views represent the views of plenty of people, as right or wrong as those views may be. It's not condoning those views, it's a fictional character, it's a story. Would a film such as American History X be condoning racism, or just presenting a fictional character and a story? I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but I don't see the difference with what was said on EastEnders and what you see on thousands of films, tv progs etc. If your point is that the content wasn't appropriate for a daytime soap opera then I can have some sympathy, but you seem to be suggesting the programme was "slagging off the victims" ??

Our home form has been pretty good, we've played a handful of decent/good teams here. (Villa-draw, West Ham-win, Everton-win, Spurs-win, Portsmouth-loss). You're our first big test of the season though and on the back of our worst run of form, so confidence in this camp isn't high. We escaped from Reading/Pompey/Mackems with one undeserved point, our goals coming courtesy of two OG's and and a cross, so it's not the best time to be playing you lot, but it could be a real morale-booster as well if we take something from this game. If Sam picks a positive team, maybe it'll give everyone a lift to see the team actually trying to win a game and believing in themselves. But I think he'll be terrified of another hammering and when the manager has no faith in the players, it obviously affects the mood of both the players and fans. He seems to be trying to lower expectations at the club, but it's created an air of negativity. Look at the number of fans on here who believe we have a squad of rubbish players and that Portsmouth are miles ahead of us. Sam has more or less said that players will be dropped on the back of one iffy performance and he dragged Cacapa off after just 15 minutes. He has changed the spine of his team all season, and last week he dropped our only full backs and played people out of position instead. Basically he has made a pigs ear of it and what you see now is a squad of players who don't seem to have the confidence of their manager nor the confidence in themselves, and a bunch of fans who aren't even sure if the team is setting itself up to try and win the game any more. Liverpool have dropped points to some poor teams this year when Rafa has dropped Torres and fannied about, and I'll be hoping for the same here. I just really hope we give Liverpool something to think about because if we just play a game of containment, we will lose by a respectable scoreline but we will lose. We have to go for the 3 points and I hope Sam agrees.

Doesn't look like he's trying to, if you're on about the post before yours. Looks pretty honest to me.

Ditto. One bad game and a player is embaressing? We have some of the worst "supporters" in football. He said "Cacapa was embarrassing." I think our manager agreed tbh, taking him off after 15 minutes.

Now that Owen is out of the way and they're the best side we've faced this season, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sam revert to his 4-3-3. Personally I think we've f*cked the players about more than enough, but Owen's out for a month which gives him ample time to pursue his 4-3-3. Given that Viduka plays at almost walking pace he just can't play that lone front man role so I don't see it as a viable option. But Allardyce would see it as a way of "keeping the score down" and "maybe nicking something". If we play like this we will lose by a goal or two, Liverpool will get their 3 points, we'll avoid another embarrassment at home, you almost get the feeling Sam would take that. Please prove me wrong Sam.