Cronky

I know few Liverpool fans on another forum, who are starting to think that Carroll just isn't right for their setup now. They've seen how they play better football without him, though they're still willing to give him time and find a pattern of play with the rest of the team. I had to explain to him that for 1 1/2 seasons Newcastle played almost exclusively to Carroll's strength, and while it wasn't the most attractive football in the world, at least it got the best out of Carroll (and Nolan). Be interesting to see how it develops. At the top level, it's about movement - players pulling defenders out of position and other players running into the gaps. The top sides have mobile strikers who can fit into that pattern. Carroll is good at what he does, but his movement isn't great and he's more of a static pivot for the attack. As such, he's bound to limit the way they can play. At that level, he's best used as an impact sub.

I can't see England's self-styled best midfield player dropping down to the Championship. Even Joey's convuluted mind wouldn't be able to sell himself that one.

Unless Chelsea can get in the players they want, it looks like it's between the Manc clubs.

I'm inclined to think that the article has some substance. It makes more sense to spend money on making your wage structure more competitive and therefore keeping players like Nasri, than to fork out a lot on transfer fees for players who aren't better than the ones you've got, or can develop through your own youth system. This seems to be the strategy we're following ie looking for bargains among players nearing the end of their contracts or with buy-out clauses, and paying them a competitive rate. With freedom of contract, salaries rather than transfer fees swallow up the money. Like Arsenal, we're also hoping to develop our young players.

But not a Bergkamp or an Henry, which can be the difference between winning the league and finishing in the CL places.

I tend to think that it's in the striking positions that Arsenal's lack of competitiveness in the market tends to hit them. These days, they wouldn't be able to land Bergkamp, or keep Henry for as long as they did. They have to settle for Van Persie, Gervinho and Arshavin - good players obviously, but the top ones are elsewhere.

Solano said he would quit international football then changed his mind which pissed Bobby off. Jenas shared a birthday with Bobby which made him a bit of a golden boy. IIRC. I don't think it was fair to ask Solano to quit international football while we had so many other international players who were free to play for their country. Bobby got most things right but selling Solano was a gaffe. He had a telepathic understanding with Dyer and we lost something from our game with that decision. Dyer publicly said it would be a big loss to lose Solano and he was right. I just think Sir Bob reckoned that Solano had passed his peak, and that Darren Ambrose needed first team football to fulfil his potential. I don't think there was anything personal in it. It was just one of those judgements that managers have to make. Sometimes they come off, sometimes they don't. Ambrose wasn't quite the player that Sir Bob hoped. Things turned for Sir Bob at the start of his last full season, when he suggested to Shepherd that we accept Liverpool's offer for Shearer. That's when he became a dead man walking.

It does look like there was a discipline problem with the younger players, but Sir Bob also had problems with both Shepherd and Shearer. There's also no question that a large percentage of fans wanted him out, and that didn't help. The situation became very tense. To be honest, it makes me a bit uneasy when his memory gets praised to the skies now. We ought to have treated him better at the time.

He's come in for a lot of unfair criticism. The challenge he's got is to bring in players who are better than the ones he's got, but who are also not being chased by the other major CL clubs, because he can't compete with the salaries they're offering. That's a fairly narrow field, and he's ended up relying more and more on developing his young players. It's all very well the Gooners shouting at him to buy someone, but who exactly? It's not so much that Arsenal have slipped back over the last few years, as that other clubs (Chelsea, Man City) who are financed by oil money have muscled in on their territory and only Man U have been able to keep up financially. It's no wonder that Wenger is hoping that the FFP rules will have some bite.

From a quick look at the SMB board, they all seem to be on Gyan's case. I don't understand that at all. He caused us lots of problems.

I'd agree. He looked composed, whereas previously there was always a bit of a nervy air about him - understandable in a young keeper trying to prove himself. Tbh though, I felt previously he was trying to catch the ball in situations where he should have punched, so I'm not unhappy to see what might be a change of approach. He's not the most beefy of keepers.

I think we started off with a 4-4-2 against Arsenal, but have switched to a 4-2-3-1, with Cabaye pushed further forward, and Tiote and Barton in the centre. It actually looks like a good use of those three's individual abilities. When Ben Arfa and Marveaux are ready, they should fit into it well too. The challenge will be to score enough goals, and not leave the loan striker isolated, which is the usual problem with that kind of formation. But Cabaye, Marveaux and Ben Arfa should have the energy to do that, so I'm optimistic.

Just watched it on Sky. Obertan looked completely bemused throughout the melee. He needs to play with more aggression. Krul now looks the part. Tiote gave the ball away far too often and looked rushed. Hopefully it's just a question of match fitness. Barton was really good. Sod him. Shola was usually isolated and having to feed off scraps as a target man. As such, he did a great job for us. Most fans won't appreciate it. His manager will. Most of the time, we looked like a 4-2-3-1, with Tiote and Barton down the middle, and Cabaye further forward with Obertan and Jonas. In a frenetic game like that, we struggled for fluency, but I think the formation has potential.

We can't really judge the side until we get Marveaux and Ben Arfa up and running. They're the players that have the potential to move us up a notch.

This looks like being a tasty affair. Marveaux to come on in the second half and make the difference.

The top three places are set in stone, so it's basically you, Spurs and Arsenal battling it out for 4th. Luck will play its part in how that falls, but - I think your owner has actually said that the current spending is a one-off investment to get you back into the CL, and thereafter the budgeting will be tighter. Now I'm not sure that works as a long-term strategy. Clubs that spend tend to have to keep spending to maintain their position, or else they slip back (eg Leeds, Newcastle)

Well of course he has. But if we feel that we can get a better player in - and we've got plenty of time to do that - why offer him a longer / bigger contract? It really all boils down to how much you rate him as a player, and amidst all the wringing of hands I haven't noticed one post that says he's a good player who we need to keep. Has that been the point made by anyone, though? Might have missed it, but most people seem to be worried that we could sell him and then struggle to replace him with anyone better. How much you rate him as a player and how easy it would be to replace him with someone better are inter-related questions, aren't they? We replaced Nolan with someone better so I can't see why we couldn't do the same with Simpson.

Well of course he has. But if we feel that we can get a better player in - and we've got plenty of time to do that - why offer him a longer / bigger contract? It really all boils down to how much you rate him as a player, and amidst all the wringing of hands I haven't noticed one post that says he's a good player who we need to keep.

The fuss about Simpson should be really easy to understand tbh. We already lack players in positions we've been looking for replacements for months. It's silly as fuck to think we'd suddenly manage to replace Simpson with a better player in this window. We don't need to replace him in this window. He's got 2 years left on his contract.

I really don't get the fuss about Simpson. Over the next two years, I'd honestly hope that we could replace him, not secure him on a more lucrative, long-term contract, which I assume is what he wants. He was okay for the job of getting us out of the Championship, but he's a limited player and now one of the weaker links. He's not the long-term solution to the Right Back problem as far as I'm concerned. The logic that some people seem to be applying is that because Simpson won't sign, we won't be able to sign players who are better. Well, it's common knowledge that not all players at a club are on the same contract. We simply haven't offered Simpson what he thinks he's worth.

If this leads to Simpson being replaced, then fine. We've proved that we can get decent players in, and it shouldn't be too difficult to find a better RB than Simpson. At the moment, he has two years left on his contract and there's no rush.

A player is nearing the end of his contract, and he's offered more money by what is generally considered a bigger and more wealthy club. Nearly every player would opt to leave, and a certain number would feel the need to complain about their club's 'lack of ambition'. What they're actually referring to is lack of money (for both wages and transfer fees for new players) but 'ambition' obviously shifts the responsibility for the decision from the player to the club. What people seem to be wilfully ignoring is the success that the club has had so far in attracting players of similar or better standard, who seem to think that the club is moving in the right direction and that the wages offered are okay. They're in a different category to players like Enrique, who we'd like to keep but who we don't want to offer a pay rise to, which is the usual step. So we go into negotiation offering the same money, which however large that package may be, is a bit of a take-it-or-leave-it message. No room for negotiation, except over the question of contract length, which can then become the sticking point (eg Barton, Nolan). The player doesn't get the opportunity to feel that they've 'won' anything, and as I said before the underlying message is that we're already paying you too much. Hence the unnecessary degree of carping that Enrique, Barton and to a lesser degree Nolan have indulged in. The danger is that we'll have a playing squad divided between the old guard and the new. Enrique and Barton seem to be almost trying to spread the same degree of resentment that they feel, into the rest of the squad. They've made their decisions, why try to speak for other players?

Well I'm sure he also saw Liverpool as a club with better prospects, but this resentment he feels, this need to snipe at the Board, stems from the contract he was offered. We'd like you to stay, but only on the same money is a bit of a mixed message. Underlying that is the suggestion that he's already being paid more than enough, and the club won't offer a penny more. I don't think the solution is to pay more than a player is worth. Over the last few months, the club seems to have been able to bring in some decent players on lower salaries who don't seem to have a problem with the club's 'ambition'.

It was always going to be a problem when these players on inflated salaries came to the end of their contracts. Normally a club that wants to keep the player offers a pay rise, but in this case that seems to out of the question because of a new pay structure. So they offer the same amount, and that breeds resentment. That's all that's happened here.

Poor refereeing in the Spurs game. A lot of the Hearts players were leaving their foot in, and he was too lenient. Some refs do go easy on teams that are being outclassed.