Cronky

I feel very frustrated because I think Ranger is under-used. This isn't just a Pardew thing - Hughton was equally reluctant to play him. There seems to be this issue about his application in training, but whether he's not being picked as a disciplinary measure or because he's not put in the work to be good or consistent enough, I don't know. My guess is that Pardew feels that if he picks him after he's been messing about, then the situation will only get worse.

He had a decent game, but I was disappointed to see him tearing into Perch after the first goal. That looked wrong. Krul is a young lad who needs to concentrate on his own game. Perch isn't high on confidence and that wouldn't have done him any good. Besides, although Perch could have got a bit closer, he didn't do a lot wrong.

He's certainly improved, but he doesn't offer a lot going forward. I think we can do better.

You'll have a long wait........ We used to be competing for the same players, and because our prospects looked better then, we usually won out. The roles are reversed now, which means that Bale and Modric choose them rather than us. Those two marked the difference between the two sides. In the absence of Nolan, we're heavily reliant on Carroll for goals, and he looked too isolated. That's the flip-side of playing a genuine 4-5-1.

I don't get that team at all. The likeliest bet is Smith up front, but it also looks like a 4-5-1. I thought Ranger would be a shoo-in this time.

I wouldn't mind seeing Taylor switch to full back for this game. He doesn't deal well with the responsibility of playing CB, and seems okay about playing out wide. Plus we'd then have a real threat in the air, which isn't Tottenham's strongest area. As we've seen from our season so far, any result is possible. We're just as likely to win 1-0 as get done 4-0.

Taylor and Colo both have this tendency to drop back in certain situations, which of course breaks up the defensive line. It's like they're too scared of letting an opponent get behind them, and they opt for a sweeper like position which allows them to see what's going on. Similarly, they often play safe by not committing themselves to a tackle, and back away so that they stay goalside. Both tendencies leave all the initiative with the opposition. I don't think it's a question of ability. More like confidence and decisiveness. Williamson is probably less talented than either of them, but he's far more inclined to impose himself on a situation. Taylor tends to be more reactive. It's why I'd see Willo as our first choice centre back.

Well we'd have certainly conceded two. The second and third goals weren't down to the keeper. But ultimately it's about the next game. Krul has been a bit over-ambitious at times, and yesterday he paid the price. It's a simple lesson to learn, and I think he'll learn it. When in doubt, hoof it into the stands, no matter how bad it looks.

No. We just looked a better team when we played 4-4-2. That's not hard to argue with tbh. It looked to me like a 4-4-2 throughout. Whenever Nolan gets picked in that advanced position, it tends to get labelled 4-5-1, but in practice he was playing alongside Carroll just like any other pair of strikers. The difference was that Ranger had the pace and mobility to link with Carroll, whereas Nolan didn't.

Agreed. I would pick Williamson because I see him as a strong character who's not afraid to make decisions. There's an air of nervousness about Taylor and Colo and they're more inclined to get stuck in no man's land. That didn't particularly show against City, but despite the scoreline, our defence didn't actually have that many attacks to deal with. My other worry for tomorrow is that Pardew had us playing a much more high-tempo game against City, both when we had the ball and when we didn't. We put a lot into the game and may not have much left in the tank. As ohmelads has pointed out, Spurs are in a better position to freshen their side up.

I think we should get stuck into them, the way we got stuck into City today. I think they'll find Ranger and Carroll quite a handful.

When exactly did Harper turn into Mr Reliable?

Krul has exceptional agility and has pulled off some great saves this season. Let's not forget the positive side. On the goal today, it's not a matter of trying to get Krul off the hook, because he did have the option of hoofing the ball into the stands, which wouldn't have got him any applause but would have been the correct one. He'll learn from that. But Colo's decision was questionable as well. It's the second minute of the game, he's got an inexperienced keeper and he gives him a bouncing ball which he can't hit first time and which gives Silva the chance to put him under pressure. I think an experienced keeper would have hoofed it off and then given Colo a rocket.

City didn't look like title contenders. There's no way we'd have been able to dominate Chelsea or Man U, in the way that we did for long stretches of the game today.

I don't think Colo did him any favours by giving him a bouncing ball to clear. He controlled it well, but looked a bit unsettled and made a rash decision which I don't think he'd have made if he'd been under less pressure. Krul has done more than enough to keep his place. At this point, there's not a lot to choose between him and Harper, and as the younger player needing experience, he should get the nod.

Yeah, we couldn't handle his pace and energy.

Big change in style today, I thought. We played with a lot more pace than usual, and closed the opposition down further up the pitch rather than funnelling back behind the ball. It worked well for most of the game, and we were unlucky to lose. Still, against Liverpool, we were lucky to win. It was good to see us actually look like the home side. Nolan had very little impact up front, whereas Ranger, despite his rawness, was far more of a harmful. That was one decision that didn't come off for Pardew. Ranger will surely start against Spurs. I thought Carroll was superb today.

When Aaron Hughes scores with a free header from the edge of the goal area, a defence has problems.

he's fucking MILES better than routledge for a start. I agree, SWP is capable of playing football at a completely different level from Routledge. As for Keane, there seems to be no end of clubs where he's joined with high expectations, and ended up on the bench. I think we'd just be another.

A lot of managers have wanted to harness SWP's talent, including a string of England managers and Mourinho, was was prepared to pay £20 million for him. He's got something. I gather that he started off as a striker, and I've often wanted to see how he'd manage in that Beardsley-type free role, linking midfield and attack. He's been operating out wide, where I think his defensive limitations get exposed and he ends up a bit marginalised. He's also got a terrific long-range shot, so why not stick him in the centre. It feels like, throughout his career, he's ended up being given less responsibility, rather than more. I'm not saying it would definitely work, but it's worth a go.

Redknapp doesn't seem to have much faith in that happening.

But he is first team? he'd probably be starting if fit. Which is kind of my point. Centre back isn't your strongest area IMO, so if you're prepared to loan him out, there's a problem.

Linked with a loan move for SWP - http://www.people.co.uk/sport/football/football-hotline/2010/12/26/toon-make-wright-move-in-january-102039-22805667/ Not everyone would be pleased at that, but I see him as an unfulfilled talent who perhaps just needs a coach who can get through to him.

Woodgate clearly has fitness problems. If he was still any good, he'd be in the first team at Spurs.

Vinny Jones v Joey Barton