Cronky

Looks classy.

He'd be a useful option to have around, but if we only sign one striker I wouldn't want it to be Bent. At Villa, he's been displaced from the central role by Benteke, and Weimann and Agbonlohor are far better suited to the secondary roles. I don't think we can necessarily assume that his form has plummeted that much. But as people say, he has his limitations.

Centre back looks a weak area, despite the fact that we've got four. We need a strong, imposing, forceful kind of defender. I don't know Douglas, but if he's that kind of player then he'd be a good signing. Colo and Mapou I wouldn't see as a partnership - rather competing for the same place. Mapou I think will need time to adjust to the English game, but of course it couldn't have helped that he joined the club when the team was playing without much confidence. Williamson is much better than most people give him credit for, but he isn't a good enough athlete for where we'd like to head. Taylor has the physical attributes but doesn't have the confidence to really impose himself on the game. On balance, I don't think there's much to choose between them. Assuming Douglas is a kind of Samba-type, he and Mapou could end up as a really good pairing.

It'll be interesting to see how things go now that Arsenal supposedly have more money to spend. If they can land a good all-round striker and possibly a midfield anchorman, I think they're real title contenders.

Cabaye covers the ground okay, but he's not what you could call a quick or a strong runner. His passing is great, but he rarely gets past a man and is vulnerable under a physical challenge or when in tight spaces. So he tends to operate as a playmaker, behind most of the midfield and attack, where he has time and space to pick a pass. When he does get forward, again it's not often into the crowded penalty area, but a bit further back where he looks for a long-range shot. Ideally your playmaker can also defend a bit, because they're operating behind the midfield, but Cabaye's tackling is very poor. So there's a problem in finding his right role in a side.

Interesting set of views. I'd agree about Marveaux, Haidara (what I've seen), and Ben Arfa - esp the bit about him needing a free role down the middle. Sissoko - good but not great because of technical limitations is fair enough. However, he's the only real box to box midfielder we have so he's an important squad member IMO. When he played well, the team played well and vice versa. Cabaye - I fear he's right. He struggles a bit with the physical demands of the Premiership. Cisse - I agree that he doesn't work well with a single strike partner. But I'd say his poor link up play also creates a problem when he's a lone striker. Yes, he'd score more in a better side, but you could say that about every striker.

Sorry, Papiss, but you're not that important. It's no more money and wear the same shirt as everyone else. If you don't like it, leave.

Indeed, if anyone froze or bottled anything, it was Man U two seasons ago who were seven points up with equal games played with just seven games to go. In those seven games they managed to draw a game they were winning 4-2 with ten minutes to go, and put in an insipid and honestly timid performance against their nearest and dearest in their derby. They barely managed a shot on goal in that game. The remaining points were lost against Wigan of all people. They lost the title on goal difference, but ironically goal difference lost in the first derby where it looked like suspiciously like they had given up at the 90 minute mark. The whole point of this is that the above happened with the players experienced at winning and the most successful manager of the modern era. Do not fall for simple narratives from journalists that paint everything in absolutes, if not in black and white. Well Man City very nearly bottled it as well. The two clubs seemed to be taking it in turns to falter. There's always going to be more pressure on the front runner, and less on the chaser. But over the years, despite the odd slip, Fergie proved himself better than anyone at closing a lead out, or renewing the energy and motivation of his side after they'd won a title. Despite all the success, he managed to send his teams out with the mentality of a battling underdog.

If this is true, then either a) Cisse wants a move and he's using this as an excuse to force it or b) he's got a bit big for his boots. I noticed towards the end of last season, on the pitch Cisse was doing a lot of complaining about his team mates, so b) might well be the explanation here. That's not good for team morale and I don't rate him that highly anyway, so as far as I'm concerned he can go.

He doesn't seem to read the game well, and wastes a lot of the situations that come his way. Let's look elsewhere.

Think about it. How many players leave Wenger's Arsenal and improve, and how many leave and go backwards?

I was impressed with Redmond. He looked much better than the more fancied names of Zaha and Ince, and would be worth a bid.

He's been given every chance at Arsenal, and if he can't perform for them he won't be any better for us.

Sooner or later someone's going to declare that we actually won the title in 96.

It sounds like his agent is actively looking for another club for him.

2003?! Shearer was still banging them in then. It was only after the following summer it slowed. Good management is spotting the early warning signs and acting before it becomes a problem. That was the secret of Fergie's success. Bob Paisley once said that if a player's legs are going to give out, make sure it's with another club and not yours. The day Shepherd failed to back Sir Bob in moving Shearer on was the turning point. The club, and most of the supporters in the end, backed the wrong man. But that summer preceded one of Shearer's 4 best seasons for us, I doubt moving him on that year would have improved us, much more likely harmed. A year later possibly. Ideally what would have happened at that point would have been Sir Bob saying to Shearer that they were going to have to blood in his replacement, and that Shearer would be used more as a squad player over the next season or two. For Shearer that would have been unacceptable, and as we know he got his way and played as a first-team regular right up to the point of retirement, which was farcical. I do think that Shearer getting his own way was bad for team morale and undermining of the manager’s position, and that led to Sir Bob’s dismissal. We then had the problem that no manager who wasn’t desperate was going to put themselves forward as Sir Bob’s replacement, having heard what had happened and why. So we ended up with Souness after a number of alternatives had turned us down. Shepherd was a buffoon, and totally out of his depth.

At one point in the interview, he said, 'Passion and finance is all you need'. Discuss.

Just watched the interview. I don't think it would have changed anyone's opinion, whether you have him on a pedastal or whether you're a sceptic. It was the same old Kev, an incurable romantic, with all that flows from that.

2003?! Shearer was still banging them in then. It was only after the following summer it slowed. Good management is spotting the early warning signs and acting before it becomes a problem. That was the secret of Fergie's success. Bob Paisley once said that if a player's legs are going to give out, make sure it's with another club and not yours. The day Shepherd failed to back Sir Bob in moving Shearer on was the turning point. The club, and most of the supporters in the end, backed the wrong man.

Gareth Barry is very underrated. The man speaks true. Barry's reputation hasn't recovered from the last World Cup, where I feel he got scapegoated.

He went to Swansea on loan and couldn't get a game there either. He's probably just not very good and was overhyped from the beginning. When I first saw him play for Chelsea, he looked really good. But it's one thing to play well in a team that's better than the opposition, another thing when the teams are on an equal footing, or worse. Just a guess. Wilshere has filled out a bit and can give as good as he gets physically. McEachran still looks a bit frail. Perhaps he'll be a late developer.

Especially with Dinosaur coaches who are limited tactically who clearly favour less talented players because they can run. We could have all the talent in the world but without quality coaches to flesh it out from a young age we are not going anywhere sadly. It was also striking how much more effective the Italian pressing game was. That wasn’t because they were quicker or fitter, but because most of our players were so unconfident on the ball that it was much easier to get them to pass it backwards or lose it altogether. A few years ago, pressing the ball used to be one our strengths, but it feels increasingly like the balance has gone the other way.

Throwing money at a player in order to overcome their reluctance to join.... That usually ends in tears.

Unbelievable's been making excellent points and its pretty much the stuff i've been saying for months. You've been saying stuff like "Darren Bent MKII" which is complete and utter s****. I said the same thing, and I stand by it.. Could you link me to all of Darren Bent's spectacular goals please, cheers. You get more points for spectacular goals do you? Bent has scored 179 career goals at the age of 29. Hardly an insult to compare Cisse to him, seeing as they are quite similar players (poacher types who are best as a lone forward, and don't contribute much to general play). Yep. And Lambert has made the right call. Pardew hasn't. Yet.

Wickham is the only true Immobile on the pitch.