Cronky

Sterling is nothing yet. What's he done to suggest he's good enough for a team like Liverpool? Moses is class though. Another who Chelsea have loaned out when he should be at least on their bench. Fair point about Sterling, in that he's very raw. But overall, that team was more than good enough to beat Hull. He shouldn't be bleating about injuries.

The goals you mention are interesting because they were against teams who had the onus on them to attack us. Champions League contenders and/or home teams who we had space to run in behind. Norwich, and WBA are not going to commit to attacking away from home at SJP like any of those other teams we scored prettier goals against. The space for us to attack is much more limited. True about the away games, not entirely true about the home games. When we went 2-0 against Norwich, they came at us second half. Instead of immediately changing our formation to counter attack them with pace, we took Remy off and sat back, when we could have exploited that. There was a slight improvement in attitude against West Brom, and although we conceded, we didn't let the panic set in. we know he can't react well to changes during a game though don't we? the counter-attack thing is bang on the money too, it should be our plan b and worked on very hard in training, we're well set up for it A counter-attacking game is undoubtedly missing from our armoury. We've got a strong, well-organised, and hard working side, but not a particularly pacey or skilful one. The two players you might want to bring on late on to hit teams on the break both have their flaws. Obertan is quick but isn't great at keeping the ball and lacks heart. Ben Arfa is great at running with the ball into space but he's a bit of a liability defensively and if you're under pressure the nightmare scenario is him trying to do something clever near our own box and losing the ball.

Rodgers shouldn't really be complaining about the quality of his squad. For one thing, Moses and Sterling aren't exactly sub-standard replacements, and for another it's not very encouraging to those two to hear that your manager implicitly doesn't rate you that high.

I don't really buy into this 'in form' idea. Cisse doesn't offer a physical presence up front and doesn't create anything for his team mates. Shola does, and that's why he's rightfully in the side.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/alan-pardew-good-run-traces-6360123 so basically our turnaround this season is down to...............Mike Williamson?! He's made a crucial contribution, yes. If you're weak at centre back, that saps the confidence of the whole team. He's an organiser and he gets his head to the ball. We were lacking in those basics and he's plugged that gap.

Dangerous to criticise the great man, but that looks dodgy. Against Southampton, should you weaken your midfield?

Joey certainly knows how to put the world to rights. If only he'd made the same efforts with himself, he'd have had a far more successful career.

He got the Remy one wrong but it was a difficult spot. You can't expect a referee to see everything. As for the one at the end, most of the time, refs will give a pen, but I tend to think the benefit of the doubt should go to the defender.

Weird game. Santon crosses with his left foot. Shola lasts the 90 minutes. Next thing you know, Willo will score. There's a method to our play that suits the players and really I thought it was a comfortable win. Remy was a bit selfish at times, I thought. Shola's physical fitness - which has long been a problem area for him - seems to have moved up a notch. He wasn't just laying the ball off, he was opening things up for us. It's great to see.

Despite the fact that he talks a lot, it's hard to tell what Pardew's thinking, most of the time. Colo's not been on great form, he wants to leave the club and the other two have steadily improved as a combination. As CD says, it ought to be a no-brainer. Against West Brom, I think we could also do with Mapou's pace at the back.

I think you're being a bit generous to him there. I'd say he left at that time because he had that offer from Man City and he was worried that if he waited till the end of the season, they'd have moved on to target someone else. A bit selfish, but in his position we'd all have been tempted to do the same.

Hmm... In the days when just about everyone thought Willo was useless, I don't remember him being cut this much slack about his lack of ball skills.

Agreed. They are not a great passing side like someone suggested. Good at keeping possession aye but rarely look dangerous. I'm surprised to hear you say that. I'd say that if there's one area where they excel it's their passing. I'm inclined to agree with Ian W - that there's been a bit of an over-reaction to a few bad recent results. Man City have the best squad in the Premiership and on their day they can give anyone a good hiding. As for our victory, we had a bit of luck and a keeper that was saving everything. Spurs are trying to put together a new side so there are bound to be teething problems and failed experiments. But they probably haven't yet solved the striker problem. And the price for a really top class striker now seems to start at £40m.

They play with a lot of flair, but for some reason they're not putting the ball in the net. I've not seen enough of them to judge for myself, but the opinion of Messrs Carragher and Neville was that Soldado was the wrong striker for their system - a finisher rather than someone who could lead the line. Which is a problem if you're just blown £26 million.

Three statisticians go duck hunting on a lake. They spot a duck. The first one fires, but misses six inches to the left. The second one fires and misses six inches to the right. The third one shouts 'Got him!' Please yourselves.

Long looks a decent all-rounder. West Brom are a good side, but it'd be interesting to see how he'd do with a better one. As for Villa - two big centre forwards do not a striking partnership make.

Not particularly going by this game, but I wish we were better on the counter attack. Defending a lead and getting the opposition to over-commit is okay if we can then hit teams on the break. Generally what seems to happen is we either lose the ball and the pressure on our defence continues, or we take too many passes and the momentum is lost. When we had Dyer and Bellamy, we could really hurt teams that way.

Suarez should have got one of his team-mates to say they were a ventriloquist.

I can't see him getting picked tomorrow. Neither Willo nor Mapou deserve to be dropped, and certainly not for someone who says they want to leave. If his personal life is in a mess and he's hankering for a change, we can't expect him to produce peak performances anyway.

I've said this for a while. Probably ever since Hungary beat us 6-3 in 1953, this debate has been going back and forth. It seems clear to me that if we really want to be persistent challengers for the major tournaments, we need to develop a more technical style. And that is starting to happen, at long last.

Based on what exactly? The rest of your post? Based on the fact that his touch on the ball seems reasonably good, and so he has the potential to adapt to other attacking roles. I don't think he's solely reliant on his pace, although in the last few internationals he's clearly been instructed to use it to full advantage. Walcott, on the other hand, looks like an athlete who happens to have chosen football, and although he's worked very hard at developing his game, in the end I think Townsend is the better long-term bet.

I actually think Townsend has the potential to diversify his game and become a more rounded player. In fact, I think Hodgson has been instructing him to just concentrate on getting his head down and taking on the full back. All right against Poland and Montenegro. Not enough against Germany. The trouble is, once good defenders double up on him, not only does he find it difficult to get past them, he finds it difficult to find any team-mate with a pass. He gets trapped, like most players would. We need to persist with 4-3-3, with players who are versatile enough to work the ball down the middle as well as the flanks. I think Townsend could adapt in time. Oxlade-C is already there. Walcott - I don't think so.

I've often had the feeling that we have a tendency in this country to associate skill with individualism - with a player (usually a winger) beating his man or several and laying on a chance. Other countries tend to rely more on intricate, one-touch passing movements to open things up. That was a striking difference last night between us and the Germans. Several times, when Sturridge had the ball, he chose to advance towards his opponent, as though he was going to try and get past him, even though it was never really on. Most of the time, he had to check and lay the ball off elsewhere, but it made it difficult to build an attack with the sort of rhythm and mutual understanding that you see from the best continental teams. It was like either he, or the team, lacked other ideas. I saw a bit of the U21 game, and Sterling seemed to suffer from the same pattern of thinking. It's a longstanding problem, but I do think the situation is improving. We do have players coming through - Wilshere, Barkley, Oxlade-C - who are a bit more versatile.

When Ronaldo has space to run into, like last night, he's devastating. Tie him up and it's a different story.

Sturridge looked a bit out of his depth tonight. He doesn't always use his brain. I don't think we can go into the difficult games relying on Townsend to produce something. The better teams will stifle him.