Cronky

The annoying thing is that they were award the Cup on the basis that they would build air conditioned facilities to get over the summer heat issue. Two months later, it's not going to be a summer tournament. If part of their original package had been a switch in the football calandar, I don't think they'd have won. This stinks.

I think there are negative parallels. It's about turning to a fans' favourite in the hope that that the pressure from the stands will ease and some sense of unity will break out around the club. Shearer wasn't the right man due to inexperience, and Dalglish has been out of management for over 10 years. Long enough to have forgotten what's it's like. I can understand the reasoning behind the decision, but it feels weak. Once the fans start running the club, things will only go in one direction.

Impressive footage on you-know-where. I prefer to see Barton in the centre, so if the idea is for Ziani to play wide right that sounds fine. Routledge, as previously, has been found out at this level. Ultimately, a 4-3-3 may be ideal ie - Barton Tiote Gosling-Nolan Ziani Carroll Ben Arfa

I just think Hodgson should get the Bruce Willis award for being the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. And unlike the movies, there won't be a happy ending. He's copping the whole lot because the supporters can't blame the owners any more.

I think a Cup run would be good for morale, so I hope we field a strong side. We can rest players who aren't 100% fit, but I wouldn't field the sort of team that we did for Accrington.

I've not seen a lot of the player, but maybe Pardew does have half a mind to use him as a full back. Simpson is doing okay, but he doesn't offer a lot going forward. It's not a priority area, but I'd like to see us bring in someone better.

The first part of the quote suggests that both he and the Board want to buy the player, but the selling club needs some persuading. If the result on Wednesday was a mixed blessing, it suggests that West Ham are the club who will now be even more reluctant to sell.

Great prospect, for sure.

Well, bought by Mourinho, 36 England caps in total, selected for the 2010 squad by Capello. If I'm deluded, I'm in good company. He's a talent, but he's made two bad moves in his club career. It's a risk, but he could be right for us, at our stage of development.

There have been hints from Pardew about identifying young talent from the lower leagues. I don't know Puncheon, but as a wide player who I gather can also play up front, he seems to fit the bill. I'd like us to take a punt on SWP though.

i think he said he was asked to "do the honourable thing" by the blackburn chairman and resign and he refused. And quite right too. I've never got to grips with this idea of asking for someone's resignation. It feels cowardly. If you think someone should go, be straight and sack them.

Liverpool's situation reminds me a bit of our position under Dalglish - a team in decline with limited funds, but expectations and pressure still very high. It's a very difficult situation for the manager to handle. Looking at their team, I think upper mid-table is probably the right level, but the fans will see the manager as under-achieving. That team needs rebuilding, but I can't see any manager being given the time at the moment.

Best was signed as an insurance policy. Hughton was worried that, if both Carroll and Shola were injured, we'd have no-one to act as a target man, leading the line. He felt that Ranger wasn't ready to step into that role. I don't think anything's changed. IMO Best is a back-up to Shola and Carroll, nothing more. The priority is a player for the secondary striker role. Ranger has the ability but not the maturity yet to be a regular starter. Lovenkrands is a poacher but not much else. Ben Arfa is injured and we still don't know his best role. Xisco is mentally AWOL and probably should be leading the line if he's good for anything at all. Ideally, we could do with a pacey player who can also play out wide. You know, like Messi.

A bad miss, due to lack of composure, but you wonder whether this is where training, or the lack of it, becomes a factor. In a practice game, 9 out of 10 times he'd have buried it. Heart pounding and edgy when you come on as a sub in a Premiership game, it's not so easy. A player who has worked hard on his finishing is more likely to find himself doing the right thing despite the nerves.

Carroll and Shola are both better players than Best. That hasn't changed after one game.

Going by the 60 minute Sky highlights - great result, but it's hard to know what to make of it. West Ham were terrible at the back and the 5th goal was the only one that wasn't the result of a defensive mistake. It was the first time I'd seen Best leading the line, and that looks like his natural position. He got some good flick-ons, but I still don't think he's destined for a long career here. His goals came from straightforward chances. Still, some daylight is growing between us and the relegation zone and that's great to see.

That's bad news. I can't see where the goals are going to come from tonight.

But taking the decision purely as a single incident, it's a total blunder? Yes, Pardew could be a success here (like I said in that post, I think he will be moreso than Hughton because Ashley will back him because he's a mate), but at the time, he was still appointing a man who had recently been sacked from a League One club, had Charlton relegated and led West Ham to their worst run of defeats in over 70 years - he couldn't have possibly known at the time he'd be a decent choice of manager. I'd see it very much as a single decision, and one that we can't judge yet, as I said. Usually, a manager gets the sack when things are going badly, and the owner then tries to get the best replacement who's available at the time. Effectively, two decisions. I think in this case, Ashley's judgement was that whilst Hughton was doing okay, Pardew would do better and that if he was going to start dishing out long-term contracts and throwing more money into the club, he wanted his own man in charge. Hughton was always the stop gap that he had to accept, and it seems that he never had total confidence in him. Why he didn't see Hughton as the one for the long haul, we don't really know. The 'experience' angle just looks like an excuse. For me, the likeliest explanation is that Hughton was too close and pally to the players and insufficiently tough with them, in Ashley's opinion. I didn't agree with the decision or expect it, but at least he's had the courage to make it. So many decisions that Ashley has made have been reactive, and rather weak. The appointments of Keegan and Shearer seemed to be half-arsed attempts to keep the fans onside, and have backfired. In fact, a lot of decisions that owners make are reactive, and insufficiently daring. In many ways, waiting until things are going badly is the wrong time to bring in a new manager. Sorry, bit long-winded. But this is a decision for the long-term, and has to be judged in that way. Whether things were going sufficiently badly for Hughton to lose his job isn't the real picture.

He has continued to blunder though - sacking Hughton was one, hiring Pardew was another. Both pointless and reckless things to do. Way too early to judge that decision, surely.

Ashley made a bad job of it over the first two years, which he's held his hand up to. A lot of people feel that he'll continue to blunder, but I don't see it that way. I think he's more committed and more confident than he's been before, and he now has that experience under his belt. It'll be interesting to see what effect the new financial fair play rules will have. It should work to our advantage. We need perhaps that one special signing that's going to spark things to life, like Bellamy a few years ago, or Beardsley. It might be Ben Arfa, although he may still have a considerable learning curve ahead of him.

Thinking about it, we've got a few lippy players - Nolan, Barton, Carroll, Smith.

Giving him the intials BO isn't too smart either.

I agree with him about pace. We're not able to punish teams on the break at the moment.

Yeah, maybe. It's just a thought. He's just looked a little bit more subdued of late.

Well, as I said, I don't know the personal angle, but during Hughton's spell in charge, he was probably our most improved player. And I think his performances have slipped a bit since Hughton's departure. Not a lot, just a bit, like he's lost a bit of confidence.