Cronky

Perhaps the thousands are being a bit naïve. Playing to Cisse’s strengths isn’t that simple a matter. The way I see it, at the top level, there’s a real problem with integrating a specialist finisher whose hold up and linking play isn’t that good. You can – a) Play him with more of a target man, but then you have two players who are both looking for the same advanced, central position, albeit for different reasons. b) Try a), but then ask one or the other to move into a secondary, withdrawn or wider role, but then you’re asking one of them to do something they’re not good at. That was the whole Ba / Cisse issue. c) Ask the finisher to play as an all-round striker, which is what we seem to be doing at the moment, but that isn’t working well. d) Don’t ask the finisher to do anything other than play on the shoulders of the CBs, and get the rest of the team to create chances for him. Trouble is, your system lacks the interchanging of positions that can help to open up a defence, and you can look a bit static. It can also feel like you’re playing with 10 men, particularly if you’re up against good opposition. Apart from all that, to make plan d) worthwhile, your finisher has to put away a high percentage of the chances that come his way, and personally I don’t think Cisse’s conversion rate is good enough for that. I think perhaps you're over-thinking it a little. I would say we need people capable of creating space and committing defenders. Ba used to do this for him, and Best did it for Ba pre-Cisse. We have Ben Arfa and Gouffran who can do that. Play Gouffran up ahead of Cisse or have Cisse flanked by both, and he will keep getting the ball around the D where he does what he does best. That sounds like option d), but in practice, the advanced striker has to play some part in the build-up and link with his team-mates, and that's where Cisse's limitations are being exposed. You can't exempt a striker from those tasks and just tell him to wait for chances to come his way. So it's reasonable to consider whether we can get a striker who offers a better package. Who would you suggest who we can afford and might be possibly willing to come? Unlike some of you guys, I’m not well up on possible strikers from abroad, so I’m limited to domestic options. I’d like Benteke or Lukaku, but I think both are outside our range. Best realistic option that I know of is Hoilett. I’d try playing him and Gouffy with Ben Arfa / Marveaux breaking down the centre from a midfield diamond. We could probably get Shane Long, who looks a good all-rounder, but West Brom would take us to the cleaners on the fee.

I can remember us losing at home to Holland 2-0, in the late 1970s, and Don Revie picked 5 players who normally played centre back for their clubs. That was an example of Englandmanageritis, where a competent club manager's judgement and composure starts to unravel under the pressure of the national job.

Perhaps the thousands are being a bit naïve. Playing to Cisse’s strengths isn’t that simple a matter. The way I see it, at the top level, there’s a real problem with integrating a specialist finisher whose hold up and linking play isn’t that good. You can – a) Play him with more of a target man, but then you have two players who are both looking for the same advanced, central position, albeit for different reasons. b) Try a), but then ask one or the other to move into a secondary, withdrawn or wider role, but then you’re asking one of them to do something they’re not good at. That was the whole Ba / Cisse issue. c) Ask the finisher to play as an all-round striker, which is what we seem to be doing at the moment, but that isn’t working well. d) Don’t ask the finisher to do anything other than play on the shoulders of the CBs, and get the rest of the team to create chances for him. Trouble is, your system lacks the interchanging of positions that can help to open up a defence, and you can look a bit static. It can also feel like you’re playing with 10 men, particularly if you’re up against good opposition. Apart from all that, to make plan d) worthwhile, your finisher has to put away a high percentage of the chances that come his way, and personally I don’t think Cisse’s conversion rate is good enough for that. I think perhaps you're over-thinking it a little. I would say we need people capable of creating space and committing defenders. Ba used to do this for him, and Best did it for Ba pre-Cisse. We have Ben Arfa and Gouffran who can do that. Play Gouffran up ahead of Cisse or have Cisse flanked by both, and he will keep getting the ball around the D where he does what he does best. That sounds like option d), but in practice, the advanced striker has to play some part in the build-up and link with his team-mates, and that's where Cisse's limitations are being exposed. You can't exempt a striker from those tasks and just tell him to wait for chances to come his way. So it's reasonable to consider whether we can get a striker who offers a better package.

Perhaps the thousands are being a bit naïve. Playing to Cisse’s strengths isn’t that simple a matter. The way I see it, at the top level, there’s a real problem with integrating a specialist finisher whose hold up and linking play isn’t that good. You can – a) Play him with more of a target man, but then you have two players who are both looking for the same advanced, central position, albeit for different reasons. b) Try a), but then ask one or the other to move into a secondary, withdrawn or wider role, but then you’re asking one of them to do something they’re not good at. That was the whole Ba / Cisse issue. c) Ask the finisher to play as an all-round striker, which is what we seem to be doing at the moment, but that isn’t working well. d) Don’t ask the finisher to do anything other than play on the shoulders of the CBs, and get the rest of the team to create chances for him. Trouble is, your system lacks the interchanging of positions that can help to open up a defence, and you can look a bit static. It can also feel like you’re playing with 10 men, particularly if you’re up against good opposition. Apart from all that, to make plan d) worthwhile, your finisher has to put away a high percentage of the chances that come his way, and personally I don’t think Cisse’s conversion rate is good enough for that.

There were signs of tension in Sir Bob’s final full season. Shearer spoke to a newspaper about being annoyed at being left out for a UEFA cup game against Valarenga, and in a later interview, he said he’d consider leaving if he didn’t have a regular first-team place. Not what you’d want from your Captain. At the start of the next season, everyone was looking for further signs of friction. IIRC, Sir Bob paints a confusing picture in his book. He denies that he wanted to sell Shearer, but he then immediately recounts an incident that suggests the opposite. He found out that Shepherd had received an offer for Shearer which he hadn’t told him about, and then met up with Shepherd and proposed that any money for Shearer could be used to buy Mpenza, who ‘could be the future’. Shepherd didn’t budge, saying that selling Shearer would be too unpopular with the supporters. At other points in the book, he says that Shearer was always supportive, but recounts other incidents where there’s clear disagreement. I remember he also pointed out to Shepherd that he, as an experienced manager, was the right man for the tricky task of easing Shearer into retirement, as a younger man would find it difficult to handle the criticism. On this last point, he was right, but Shearer won the day, with disastrous results.

Normally you'd say never go back, but Chelsea are a side that have started to improve, and he's therefore joining them at a good time. Needs to sort out the defence though.

He's better than Welbeck by leaps and bounds too. The latter should never be played over him. Sturridge up-top flanked by Rooney is probably the strongest front-2 England can play at the moment. Yeah, those two were looking promising against Ireland, and it's a shame we didn't see more of them. Welbeck is a class player, and I hope he can carve out a role for himself at international level. He doesn't look ideally suited to a wide role, but he's a player who can make things happen.

There seems to be much talk but little communication. I think there are two debates that get entangled. The first is over how much you rate Cisse as a finisher. The second is whether you think the situation will improve by providing Cisse with better ‘service’, or whether we need to rethink the strategy with a different type of striker.

+ 7 years. There is arguably one world class player in the squad (Cole) and he's on the wane. Wilshere and Chamberlain aside there is little coming through either currently. Smalling, Jones, Cleverley, Welbeck and Sturridge are also coming through and playing international football at a good age. Yet to make a breakthrough, but I’d add Ross Barkley to that list. He looks a very good player in the making, and I could see a midfield of him, Chamberlain and Wilshere operating very well in the future. We’ll see. This current England side hasn’t performed anywhere near to its potential, partly due to the frequent absence of Wilshere, but also the conservatism of the manager. But against Brazil, I saw a glimpse of how the side can perform and with Wilshere and Gerrard to come in, I think the future is starting to look bright.

My other concern is that neither of them are particularly good going forward. Cabaye is a playmaker rather than an attacking midfielder, and it often means that he and Tiote end up side by side. We end up looking too static.

I think we've got a real gem in Chamberlain. He seems to have the lot - pace, strength, skill and a good temperament. It's only a question of how far down the road of development you feel he's reached, but to me he now looks ready for regular football at the top level. To see a 19 year old pitched on to the Maracana and give such a confident, game-changing display was really heartening. It's only a matter of time before people start talking of this lad as one of the best in the world.

I wonder whether Sissoko was over-played. He was new to Premiership football, but seemed to be playing every minute of every game. He's clearly a good athlete, but he started to look more and more knackered. Plus he was trying to do too much himself, in a struggling side. As for Cabaye and Tiote, I'd rather we had two players who could do a bit of both passing and tackling. I don't think C and T were ever the awesome combination that often gets cited.

I can hear the sound of hairs being split. We don't need to argue about who's better than who, and whether a player is 'very good' or just 'decent'. My point was that we've got a much better bunch of players at the moment than is usually the case with England, and we (manager especially) ought to be more positive in our expectations.

If we get the chance to get an upgrade on Tiote (eg with Wanyama), I hope we take it. I fear we won't. Pardew seems to think there's a playmaker in there, but his passing and his control of the ball under pressure aren't good enough.

There was a 20 minute spell in the second half, in between the Ox coming on and Rooney scoring, when we actually looked the better side. I don't mean that we had a period of physical dominance in the way of England teams of old, I mean we were playing the better football. The lesson that I hope has been taken from that is that the manager needs to be a bit more positive in his selections, if we're to have a chance of getting anywhere. We do have some very good players in Rooney, Chamberlain, Gerrard, Hart and Wilshere. Decent ones in Welbeck, Baines and possibly Sturridge if he continues to mature. Ironically, the back four look the weakest links, even though defending is usually one of our strengths. So we actually need an attacking strategy, even though most England managers have tended to be cautious. This could be a really good England side, if Hodgson handles things right.

It just sounds like something any of us could have written based on the existing rumours. No sign of inside knowledge at all.

The game changed when we tried a bit of positive thinking. Jones-Carrick-Lampard was a midfield designed to contain rather than attack, and the Ox changed that. I thought Rooney had a really good game, feeding off scraps.

Walcott gets himself into so many good situations. Then he completely messes up. It drives me MAAAAAAAD!

I'd sell Cabaye for the right offer tbh. He's struggled with the physical side of the Premiership, and if he wants to leave it'd be counter-productive to try and dig our heels in. When people say 'I wouldn't sell' do they really mean 'not at any price?' That strikes me as lacking in imagination, and influenced by fear of the unknown.

Is Carroll the only alternative to Cisse? Have I missed something? Our movement and interpassing needs to improve, and whilst Carroll has his qualities, he wouldn't help in those areas. That's why Liverpool are trying to get rid of him.

Buy cheap sell high doesn't sound too bad an idea to me.

Looks like he has real skill, so not the worst idea in the world. Effectively, we seem to be moving away from the idea of bringing through our own young players solely via the academy and reserve teams. So this could be a possibility.

Realistically, if a club is offering you far more than a player is worth, then you should take it. Last time around, the policy seemed to be to hang on to what we had, and spend only a limited amount. That was a mistake. I know what people are going to say - a) that if we sell Cisse, we won't re-invest the money and b) we should spend more without having to release any other players to finance the deals. I don't believe that a) is the case and b) isn't realistic. There's pressure because we're said to be a club that 'sells its best players' so regardless of the fee there's going to be a backlash from the supporters. The club just have to grit their teeth and back their judgement. We shouldn't be afraid to trade, providing we come out on the right end of any deals.

There seems to be a lot of clubs hovering, like they're unsure of his potential and worth. £5m suggests the uncertainty is still there. I didn't think this was the sort of signing we were looking to make this time round. On the basis of what I've seen, I'd say no. Liverpool have Sterling and Spurs have Townsend, and both look like better players than Ince. I'm a bit mystified that they're getting linked.

Sell.