Cronky

I'm a bit worried that Joey wants to go. This West Ham thing is a bit of a non-story, but I wonder whether the source is an agent who wants to advertise his availability, price and wages.

If you're comparing the Shepherd and Ashley regimes, you have to look at the hypothetical issue of where we would be now if Shepherd had remained in charge. He left the club in a worse state than when he found it, and if he'd stayed in charge for a further three years, from those figures it could have been an absolute disaster. The other question is whether, if Ashley were to leave now, would the club be in a better state than when he bought it? Despite all the trials and tribulations, I'd say the answer was yes.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14122010/63/fa-remind-barton-quot-responsibilities-quot.html I'm very relieved to hear this. I assume the ref saw the original incident and took no action at the time, in which case - as I understand it - Barton can't be charged. I suspect he's come close to a disrepute charge, and he'd do well to heed the lesson. The gestures were very explicit and don't exactly set a great example. The fact that this, that or the other tackle by Gerrard was worse isn't the point, because it's a completely different type of incident. I did wonder whether Joey has an urge to draw attention to himself by courting controversy. It was so reckless.

Possibly as a player. As a manager, no chance.

Word was that he'd lost the dressing room. I think he admitted afterwards that he tried to change too much too soon. The pressure was mounting and the performances weren't improving. It was probably the right decision, at least for that season. A big problem for him was that he favoured a 4-3-3, and if Michael Owen was Joe Bloggs he probably wouldn't have picked him. As it was, he didn't have the nerve to leave him out and we ended up with a 4-4-2 formation that I don't think Allardyce fully believed in himself.

Fair enough. I think my general point is valid though - that the decision took some courage and that they haven't hidden themselves away from the reaction. It's an unusual type of decision in that normally owners only make a change when things start to go wrong. They very rarely back themselves to bring in someone new pro-actively. So many of Ashley's decisions have been reactive to events around him. Even bringing in Keegan - which was the only remotely pro-active one - had a whiff of panic about it and pleasing others rather than backing his own beliefs. In the current wave of criticism, all his decisions tend to be lumped together, but in this one he's really put his neck on the line and stamped his own judgement on the situation. It's a gamble, but I suspect that, in his thinking, putting Hughton in charge long-term was also a gamble. He now feels that, if he's going to lose, it'd be better to lose having backed himself rather than going with the flow. The only problem I have with that assessment is the choice of Hughton's replacement. What on earth does Pardew have going by his past experiences -- especially in the transfer market -- that Hughton didn't, or couldn't have achieved himself? It's about faith, and they seemed to either, a) have none in Hughton, for whatever reason, or b) there were other reasons which we'll probably never know regarding his sacking. I'm just trying to see the logic in Pardew's appointment, as if Ashley really wanted a proven, experienced, even world-class manager, he could've appointed one. Giving Pardew a five and a half year deal is a little presumptuous, and requires a lot more faith than the amount the players and fans already had in Hughton. I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is that Ashley had long-standing doubts about Hughton's ability to be sufficiently tough with the players, which is the usual issue when a coach becomes manager. I'd felt that Hughton had answered those doubts, but maybe one or two things were going on that we don't know about. Chris's last minute decision to wear a suit and look the part may have been in response to that, I don't know. As I said, a change of manager normally happens when the existing one is judged a failure, and maybe that's why the dominant question is 'What did Hughton do wrong?' Maybe of more importance is that fact that Ashley was going to have to offer a long-term contract to a manager, recruit a new assistant and probably spend more money in January. It was crunch time, and he decided he wanted to make his own choice, rather than deal with Hughton, who is the product of circumstances. In that sense, it may have been more a positive judgement of Pardew, as much as a negative judgement of Hughton. Pardew comes across as confident and intelligent, and his early record was good. He ran into boardroom problems at Southampton and West Ham, and Charlton is the only real blot in his copy book. Even then, he was taking over a club in decline. He's also keen and motivated to get his career back on track, so I can see why Ashley might seem him as the best bet from all the available candidates. It certainly isn't a impulse choice. What he's gambled on is Pardew being able to overcome the inevitable reaction, on and off the pitch, to Hughton's sacking, which Ashley's unpopularity has magnified. He needs a bit of luck, and on Saturday, he got it. Torres had that chance to put Liverpool ahead, and normally with him, it goes bang into the bottom corner, no problems. In this case, it hit Krul on the legs. On such moments can futures depend. Or maybe Ashley is just a control freak who didn't like the fact that Hughton was starting to disagree with him and invented an excuse to replace him with one of Llambias' gambling buddies who was desperate to get into football and would accept any terms and conditions to do so. I suppose we'll never now. Well, a few months ago, Hughton was supposedly the 'yes man'. I think there was a disagreement in that Hughton wanted a long-term contract, and the decision about who appoints the assistant (which is a long-term decision) brought all that to a head. Underneath it all, if Ashley had confidence in Hughton, it would have been settled. I think Ashley has reached a certain point. He knows he can't sell the club, and he knows he'll continue to lose money as the owner. There's talk about 'asset-stripping' and 'selling at a profit' but those clearly aren't options. Now that he's going to be carrying the can, he thinks that he may as well back his own judgement, and forget about normal conventions or trying to please other people. That's the way that he's run his business. The bloke looked completely relaxed on Saturday. It's like he's taken so much abuse that he doesn't care any more. That's not a great place to be, but it's probably better than all the wavering that's gone on over the last three years. I thought the Wall Street Journal (of all places) had an interesting take on the difference between a manager and a coach: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011332568345512.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter I don't know if Pardew will work out or not, but it seems that this kind of appointment might be a reasoned alternative to the kind of DOF/coach structure (Wise etc) that Ashley has already tried and abandoned, and to which many posters on here are emphatically opposed on principle. Not necessarily a bad thing, in that sense. The article seems to suggest that Hughton was content to be a first team coach and let others get involved in the player recruitment side, but that wasn't my impression at all. He seemed to be very involved in all aspects of managerial activity (eg his crucial involvement in the Ben Arfa saga) I don't think swapping Hughton for Pardew represents a change of strategy or job description. I think Ashley just sees Pardew as the better manager, taking into account the full range of a manager's duties.

Fair enough. I think my general point is valid though - that the decision took some courage and that they haven't hidden themselves away from the reaction. It's an unusual type of decision in that normally owners only make a change when things start to go wrong. They very rarely back themselves to bring in someone new pro-actively. So many of Ashley's decisions have been reactive to events around him. Even bringing in Keegan - which was the only remotely pro-active one - had a whiff of panic about it and pleasing others rather than backing his own beliefs. In the current wave of criticism, all his decisions tend to be lumped together, but in this one he's really put his neck on the line and stamped his own judgement on the situation. It's a gamble, but I suspect that, in his thinking, putting Hughton in charge long-term was also a gamble. He now feels that, if he's going to lose, it'd be better to lose having backed himself rather than going with the flow. The only problem I have with that assessment is the choice of Hughton's replacement. What on earth does Pardew have going by his past experiences -- especially in the transfer market -- that Hughton didn't, or couldn't have achieved himself? It's about faith, and they seemed to either, a) have none in Hughton, for whatever reason, or b) there were other reasons which we'll probably never know regarding his sacking. I'm just trying to see the logic in Pardew's appointment, as if Ashley really wanted a proven, experienced, even world-class manager, he could've appointed one. Giving Pardew a five and a half year deal is a little presumptuous, and requires a lot more faith than the amount the players and fans already had in Hughton. I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is that Ashley had long-standing doubts about Hughton's ability to be sufficiently tough with the players, which is the usual issue when a coach becomes manager. I'd felt that Hughton had answered those doubts, but maybe one or two things were going on that we don't know about. Chris's last minute decision to wear a suit and look the part may have been in response to that, I don't know. As I said, a change of manager normally happens when the existing one is judged a failure, and maybe that's why the dominant question is 'What did Hughton do wrong?' Maybe of more importance is that fact that Ashley was going to have to offer a long-term contract to a manager, recruit a new assistant and probably spend more money in January. It was crunch time, and he decided he wanted to make his own choice, rather than deal with Hughton, who is the product of circumstances. In that sense, it may have been more a positive judgement of Pardew, as much as a negative judgement of Hughton. Pardew comes across as confident and intelligent, and his early record was good. He ran into boardroom problems at Southampton and West Ham, and Charlton is the only real blot in his copy book. Even then, he was taking over a club in decline. He's also keen and motivated to get his career back on track, so I can see why Ashley might seem him as the best bet from all the available candidates. It certainly isn't a impulse choice. What he's gambled on is Pardew being able to overcome the inevitable reaction, on and off the pitch, to Hughton's sacking, which Ashley's unpopularity has magnified. He needs a bit of luck, and on Saturday, he got it. Torres had that chance to put Liverpool ahead, and normally with him, it goes bang into the bottom corner, no problems. In this case, it hit Krul on the legs. On such moments can futures depend. Or maybe Ashley is just a control freak who didn't like the fact that Hughton was starting to disagree with him and invented an excuse to replace him with one of Llambias' gambling buddies who was desperate to get into football and would accept any terms and conditions to do so. I suppose we'll never now. Well, a few months ago, Hughton was supposedly the 'yes man'. I think there was a disagreement in that Hughton wanted a long-term contract, and the decision about who appoints the assistant (which is a long-term decision) brought all that to a head. Underneath it all, if Ashley had confidence in Hughton, it would have been settled. I think Ashley has reached a certain point. He knows he can't sell the club, and he knows he'll continue to lose money as the owner. There's talk about 'asset-stripping' and 'selling at a profit' but those clearly aren't options. Now that he's going to be carrying the can, he thinks that he may as well back his own judgement, and forget about normal conventions or trying to please other people. That's the way that he's run his business. The bloke looked completely relaxed on Saturday. It's like he's taken so much abuse that he doesn't care any more. That's not a great place to be, but it's probably better than all the wavering that's gone on over the last three years.

Fair enough. I think my general point is valid though - that the decision took some courage and that they haven't hidden themselves away from the reaction. It's an unusual type of decision in that normally owners only make a change when things start to go wrong. They very rarely back themselves to bring in someone new pro-actively. So many of Ashley's decisions have been reactive to events around him. Even bringing in Keegan - which was the only remotely pro-active one - had a whiff of panic about it and pleasing others rather than backing his own beliefs. In the current wave of criticism, all his decisions tend to be lumped together, but in this one he's really put his neck on the line and stamped his own judgement on the situation. It's a gamble, but I suspect that, in his thinking, putting Hughton in charge long-term was also a gamble. He now feels that, if he's going to lose, it'd be better to lose having backed himself rather than going with the flow. The only problem I have with that assessment is the choice of Hughton's replacement. What on earth does Pardew have going by his past experiences -- especially in the transfer market -- that Hughton didn't, or couldn't have achieved himself? It's about faith, and they seemed to either, a) have none in Hughton, for whatever reason, or b) there were other reasons which we'll probably never know regarding his sacking. I'm just trying to see the logic in Pardew's appointment, as if Ashley really wanted a proven, experienced, even world-class manager, he could've appointed one. Giving Pardew a five and a half year deal is a little presumptuous, and requires a lot more faith than the amount the players and fans already had in Hughton. I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is that Ashley had long-standing doubts about Hughton's ability to be sufficiently tough with the players, which is the usual issue when a coach becomes manager. I'd felt that Hughton had answered those doubts, but maybe one or two things were going on that we don't know about. Chris's last minute decision to wear a suit and look the part may have been in response to that, I don't know. As I said, a change of manager normally happens when the existing one is judged a failure, and maybe that's why the dominant question is 'What did Hughton do wrong?' Maybe of more importance is that fact that Ashley was going to have to offer a long-term contract to a manager, recruit a new assistant and probably spend more money in January. It was crunch time, and he decided he wanted to make his own choice, rather than deal with Hughton, who is the product of circumstances. In that sense, it may have been more a positive judgement of Pardew, as much as a negative judgement of Hughton. Pardew comes across as confident and intelligent, and his early record was good. He ran into boardroom problems at Southampton and West Ham, and Charlton is the only real blot in his copy book. Even then, he was taking over a club in decline. He's also keen and motivated to get his career back on track, so I can see why Ashley might seem him as the best bet from all the available candidates. It certainly isn't a impulse choice. What he's gambled on is Pardew being able to overcome the inevitable reaction, on and off the pitch, to Hughton's sacking, which Ashley's unpopularity has magnified. He needs a bit of luck, and on Saturday, he got it. Torres had that chance to put Liverpool ahead, and normally with him, it goes bang into the bottom corner, no problems. In this case, it hit Krul on the legs. On such moments can futures depend.

Best game I've seen this season. It baffles me that there's any debate on the field about who should take penalties. If Lampard is the designated taker, he should have had it. Drogba grabbing the ball like that reminds me of kids in the park. Over the last few years, I've never ceased to marvel at Chelsea's fitness levels. They ran Spurs ragged in the last 20 minutes and should have won.

Tremendous game. Anelka always looks half-hearted to me. Such a frustrating player.

Christ sake man. Considering how much he was involved yesterday, he's bound to have a couple of poor touches. His first touch is fine. I'd agree with Kelly on this. Particularly in the first half, he giving the ball away a lot. It was like the atmosphere had affected him and he wasn't relaxed. Normally, he's okay on the deck, but he kept misfiring. He still on a learning curve and too much praise won't help him. Having said that, there are situations where he's unstoppable and he's a great asset to have.

Fair enough. I think my general point is valid though - that the decision took some courage and that they haven't hidden themselves away from the reaction. It's an unusual type of decision in that normally owners only make a change when things start to go wrong. They very rarely back themselves to bring in someone new pro-actively. So many of Ashley's decisions have been reactive to events around him. Even bringing in Keegan - which was the only remotely pro-active one - had a whiff of panic about it and pleasing others rather than backing his own beliefs. In the current wave of criticism, all his decisions tend to be lumped together, but in this one he's really put his neck on the line and stamped his own judgement on the situation. It's a gamble, but I suspect that, in his thinking, putting Hughton in charge long-term was also a gamble. He now feels that, if he's going to lose, it'd be better to lose having backed himself rather than going with the flow.

I doubt that it was prematch in the ground. Just before the game wouldn't have been good timing. Perhaps it was both Llambias and Ashley that spoke to the players. Ashley does show up at the training ground to meet the players on a fairly regular basis, from what I can tell. I'll say this for Ashley, and it won't go down well. Whilst I didn't agree with the decision, at least he had the balls to make it, to face the players with it, and to turn up for the next home game.

RE the Daily Mail - It looks like the players completely spoiled that piece by winning the game. Kevin Nolan gave a very good interview on MOTD. After saying how disappointed they all were to lose Chris, he said that Ashley as the owner has to make tough decisions, and he appreciated the fact that he met all the players to explain his reasoning. Very few think it was the right decision, but it was certainly a bold one. He would have known what the reaction would be.

That moment changed the game. We suddenly looked like we believed we could score. This lad will be international class if he just adds those bits of refinement and composure to his game. For a player of his size and strength, he is freakishly fast and that's what turned things our way. International class? Why not? As an athlete, he's superb. If he continues to work at his game, he can go right to the top.

That moment changed the game. We suddenly looked like we believed we could score. This lad will be international class if he just adds those bits of refinement and composure to his game. For a player of his size and strength, he is freakishly fast and that's what turned things our way.

I did wonder whether he might retain Steve Stone as his number 2. They looked to get on okay as a team - with Stone as the mouthy one and Pardew the thinker. It wouldn't do Pardew too much harm to have one of the old guard in there as well.

It was a stupid question and Joey handled it pretty well. Ranger looks like a starter for next week, and his emergence could be the stroke of luck that Pardew needed. Before that, we looked like losers. It was unbelievably weak defending by Campbell for their goal. Over the last two years, he's looked mentally vulnerable on occasion, and that was a mini nervous breakdown. The other bit of luck for Pardew is that Williamson will be coming back next game, with no lasting damage done by a very shaky back four.

Absolutely. It was the shot of energy that we badly needed. Dare I say it, he's arrived.

Waddle seems to want us to lose, and that's a bit irritating.

Both teams poor. In Liverpool's case, unexpectedly. We've had a few narrow scrapes and I don't expect our luck to hold out for another 45 minutes.

Yeah 100% agree but not now Yeah. His continued fitness and presence in the first team is likely to make the difference between going down and staying up IMO.

Yeah, good point. It's the sort of background that often makes for a good manager. But whatever your ability, you need the right opportunity. Everything is stacked against him. It looks to me like Ashley was only prepared to offer Hughton an extension of the short-term contract that he'd been under in the Championship. He felt he was still under trial. Hughton felt he deserved more, with justification. When Calderwood left and the issue of his successor arose, it brought to a head the issue of whether Ashley saw Hughton as the man for the long-term. It always brings me back to the issue of whether the owner of a football club can act with quite the sort of arbitrary authority of an owner of a retail chain. There's such a strong political element to a football club, which I don't think Ashley has come to terms with yet.

I was impressed with Liverpool against West Ham. They're playing with a lot of pace and movement and, even if this week had been a normal one, I can't see us getting anything. It could be a drubbing.

Dealing with this point and sort of changing the subject, I actually agree with you to a large extent. I think time and place can be vital in deciding whether something succeeds or fails. That's part of what's so awful about what's taken place. The stars aligned 15 months ago, and the right blend of characters came together by chance - a manager that was inclined to give players individual responsibility and players who rose to that challenge etc. We had the bedrock of a dynasty in my view - a positive and self-policing dressing room who were instilling their excellent ethos into new signings which meant it would outlive any individual. I'll happily quote some social science crap from cutting edge thinkers to back up my view if it would help convince anyone. This has now been majorly disrupted, and I expect it will be extinguished completely very soon by the Board and its' chosen servants' actions. Even someone determined to see glints of sunlight emerge from Derek Llambias' arsecheeks should see this whole affair has been a massive failure of thought and imagination. I'd agree. This is what Ashley and Llambias have underestimated, and I think it's the important issue, rather than how 'good' or 'crap' you might rate Pardew as a manager.