Cronky

Eddie Howe was MOTM for me. Tactically he had it spot on, and we smothered their attacking play very smell. I can't believe it when some supporters and pundits talk about needing another manager to take us to the next level. Utter bollocks. Our man is second to none. Great to see Lewis Hall playing with such confidence, but Bruno stood out as well. We take good performances almost for granted with him, but he barely put a foot wrong all game.

I do worry whether Tino is actually going backwards at the moment. Hall seems to have responded well to the coaching he's received, but I don't see the same development in Tino.

This does feel a bit like a flavour of the month signing. The Premiership is full of excellent managers that he'll be competing against. I doubt whether that's the case with the Portuguese league. We'll see.

Well obviously I don't know for sure, but one of the hazards of a 2-0 lead is that the team in the lead can relax a bit and surrender the initiative. If the opposition then score, it's game on, they get fired up and the team in the lead suddenly faces pressure and the need to raise their game again. It felt like one of those games, that's all.

We looked the more likely winners from the start - perhaps we wanted it more. If Chelsea had scored in the second half, they'd have probably got more, so it was never entirely comfortable. But a good effort by the lads.

I had to turn the sound off after 20 minutes. He and his colleague just didn't stop talking - often about other games - literally. Just tell us who's got the ball and shut up. We can do the rest ourselves.

That's what I thought. He's well-built for a 17 year old.

I'm a bit surprised. Tuchel has a bit of a reputation for falling out with people and this is a job that needs someone with a bit of tact. He has to work closely with the club managers and he has only a limited amount of time to establish trust with the players. That incident where he shook hands with Conte after a game and then wouldn't let go is fresh in my mind.

After his first two games, I'd have been quite happy for Carsley to get the job. However, he seems to have lost a bit of confidence. This is a high-pressure job and if he lets it get to him, then he should be ruled out. If he doesn't believe in himself, no-one else will. Our best football came when he was using Grealish in a free role, but he seems to have abandoned that idea. He did better than the other candidates - Foden, Bellingham and Palmer. Bellingham tends to show off. I would use him in a simpler, box-to-box role rather than further forward.

I think this time Carsley was just a bit too bold. The team looked defensively flimsy on paper, and so it proved. It was also asking a lot to try an unusual, striker-less formation with so little time available to coach it properly. And I know I'm a broken record (or vinyl as they say now), but Rice doesn't offer us enough at international level.

Bellingham is such a good all-round talent, but I can't help thinking that we play better as a team without him.

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before. The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends.

City are saying that because the APT rules were found to be illegal on certain grounds, everything has to change, and not just the grounds that were found to be suspect. That sounds absurd to me. They seem to be threatening further legal action to try and prevent the Premiership from making the particular changes that the tribunal pointed out are needed. The likes of Martin Samuel seem to hail City's arrival on the scene as a way of opening up competition and liberating the clubs from the tyranny of a cartel. In practice, it's nothing of the sort. They are out to destroy the competition and establish a dominant position. Through all the years of investigation that that have taken place, they have been unco-operative, aggressive and selfish. Jumping on their bandwagon in the hope that somehow we will benefit is to invite further chaos.

Now that makes sense, thank you. The rule about interest in relation to infrastructure projects still seems a bit unfair. The clubs with the wealthier owners wouldn't need to provide the money in the form of a loan.