Montey

No argument from me on whether we played better than against Liverpool, of course we did. Did we play well...... 3 - 1 says it all!!!!! I think we have 4 major issues destroying our game: 1. Injuries (again). Our defense was cobbled together from spare parts. 2. Width. We play so narrowly these days that opposition defenses just stack the center corridor and we just run in to a wall of shirts. However on those rare occasions when we do get wide the players that are trying it just don't have the skill set (crossing, holding up the ball, etc...) to make it work. 3. Strength. So few of our players can hold off a tackle. I have been astonished this season just how easily our players seem to get muscled off the ball. We need our guys to put on some muscle so they don't get so easily shoved about. 4. Finishing. One of the few shot takers (Oba) can make the hard ones but seems to have a psych issue with easy ones (probably panics slightly or something). Meanwhile the other players just seem to get too indecisive when in the box. They just spend a little too much time looking at the options rather than what forwards would normally do and just instinctively shoot for goal. Anyway, thems my thoughts.

Michael Owen, you are the weakest link....... Goodbye!

We need to take Barton off, move Milner to the right, bring N'Zogbia up on the left of midfield (to give us our width and midfield service back) and bring a substitute in to the left back position.

I think we lost this game from the mid-field. We were incredibly narrow for all but the last few minutes (after Milner came on) and Barton & Geremi were pretty crap (IMHO). Bringing on Smith and Nzogbia was the right choice, but it should have been on for Barton and Geremi, putting Emre out on the right, with Nzogbia on the left with Smith and Butt in the centre mid-field. Then bring on Milner for Emre and we would have had Owen & Martins forward with Milner, Butt, Smith & Nzogbia in the mid-field, we would more than likely have won this then (I think, anyway). Our defence was doing a reasonable job given how they were being pommelled. We were totally out classed through the midfield area, and we ran the ball so narrowly up the centre of the pitch Reading's defence basically just had to stand in the middle, hold hands and we'd just run the ball in to them. Poor substution choices cost us this game. (p.s. this is not an Alardyce bash, just my thoughts on what went wrong)

What roles that, I can't seem to work it out? Milner is playing both left and right wings, whilst Smith just seems to be ambling about like a hippo with a bong shoved up his backside.

- Geremi really is one of our weakest players. - We are suffering quite badly having N'Zogbia in LB. Its not that he's the worst person for the position, but the combination of him getting outplayed in LB and missing his abilities on the wing is causing us a lot of issues. - w.t.f is going on with Smith? He seems to be spending so much time just ambling around the pitch, its like he's on acid and has just spotted a seagull!

Ah... ok. That makes sense then.

I am still trying to work out why Sam sub'ed Viduka off for Ameobi. Shola was complete shite, where Viduka's only trouble was that every time he got the ball he was mobbed by the Wigan defence.

Comment from Australian post-match analysis. Wigan played Anti-Football.

I'll bitch about not scoring 3 or 4. But not at the players. The reffing in this game was appalling!!!!!

<sarcasm>Hasn't Shola been brilliant this game!</sarcasm>

I look at the way Heskey flails around with his arms and I think back to the number of times Shearer used to get fouls against him. I mean, what does Heskey have to do before he gets carded. When you think of the craptastic cards given so far, how does he keep getting away with it?

Another yellow... this ref is insane!

YES!!!!! wait.... no whistle..... YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once upon a time there were three robbers. These robbers were known throughout the land for their daring and flaunting of the laws. In private life no one knew who they were, but when together they were known as the Bandits in Yellow.

Why the heck do these wankers keep getting groin strains? Oh, hang on... wankers... groin strain... hmmmmm.......

Well that rules Owen out then doesn't it? Seems like it. <tongue align='in cheek'>Viduka doesn't have a buy-out clause and he's an experienced captain</tongue>

Of the possible viable candidates I think Owen could be OK, but that's on one condition. I would only make Owen captain if he signed a new deal, with no buy-out clause, and that locked him in to the club for 5 years. A captain is a long term position designed to help build and lead the team. You can not have someone in that role who may be gone in 6 months time because either his contract is about to run out or he can get bought out for a puny 9mil.

Graham Arnold is showing why he should not have got the job after Gus. When we left the world cup we had dramatically improved respect for our game and were taking it to the best in the world. Now we're reduced to scrambling a 90min equaliser against Oman. Yeah there are lots of reasons why things could have been going against us (including the b.s. tactics of Oman) but that's football. At worst we should have been 1-1 by half time, we shouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as that outcome! Viduka was getting shut down, as everytime he held the ball up there was no one running up to provide support and someone to pass off to. Kewel was hopeless. Emerton was getting plenty of the ball, but did nothing particularly useful. Am very disappointed with that game.

What we see here is a demonstration of how US cultural practices are applying more and more influence over Australians. As happens with the average ill-informed American he is mistaking his own country (Australia) for the whole world, and forgetting that other alleged countries (i.e. Liechtenstein) are not in fact the product of Dr Seuss's imagination.

A question: What assurances can Sam provide the fans that no future player signings will have a buy-out clause in their contract and how much effort is being undertaken to remove existing buy-out clauses from players we wish to retain?

A question that just occurred to me over this whole Owen saga. Has Freddy broken the law by misleading the share market? Wasn't Shepherd denying all existence of an exit clause/fee in Owen's contract, and if it does in fact exist isn't that misleading the market such that investors may have invested in NUFC Plc shares due to the information provided by the Chairman? I am pretty sure (in Australia at least) that if your company is publicly listed and you provide false or misleading information to the market you can be fined quite heavily by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.

2 points... Point 1: This just shows (yet again) what a complete schmuck Shepherd is. I mean, what other club administrator in their right mind would buy a player for so much money and give him a contract that says someone can take him away for a 40% loss? Point 2: I think Sam is being very smart here. I think he is placing a "put up or shut up" to the market, such that if no one does come forward he can to back to Owen, offer him a contract extension for slightly less money and no get-out clause, having proven no one else is coming in for him.

Being cautious and taking little steps is not incompatible with a large budget. It would be quite sensible to spend the first large lump sum on building a super reliable squad that is not initially based on super stars, but is based on guys who can at least guarantee UEFA qualification (top 6) each year. If this is achieved in year 1, Sam could easily then focus from year 2 onwards to get the genius players needed to start competing for the Premiership and CL contention. This would very much fit within any such proposed timetable and would create a good solid team that will build a strong supporter-base due to consistent European performances.

Sure, and Shepherd runs NUFC with far less than 50% as well. That's because the shareholders collectively voted to make that the case. But in both cases neither Shepherd nor Ellis could have made the decision to run their clubs themselves without other shareholders voting with them. That's because they individually do not own 50.1% of the shares, they needed others to vote with them to achieve a 50.1% of the vote in favour of the motion for them to run their clubs.