Cronky

The more I think about it, the more Qatar seems a step too far. I could see the case for Russia, in that putting on a World Cup would leave a lasting legacy for the country, in terms of stadia, transport, hotels etc. Once Qatar have put it on, it'll all get dismantled, or fall into disuse. I know there's this idea of the stadiums being reconstructed in other countries, but that's not an idea Ive come across before, and the logistical problems seem huge.

Good idea. Won't happen. Fergie needs him, if only as a squad player.

My bet is we were the ones who voted for the Aussies.

I don't think the media allegations were the cause of us losing, but they might explain our losing so badly. Our media act very independently, and without any sense of responsibility for anyone's interests other than their own in attracting readers / viewers. The media in most other countries are more heavily censored or at least influenced by their governments. I suspect that when our media came up with these stories, the assumption on many delegates' parts would be that they had been put up to it by the bid team or the government. They would have interpreted it as dirty tricks by the English establishment, rather than the rather wayward behaviour of our media. Our most significant moment probably came when the Daily Mail taped our previous bid leader making scathing remarks about other countries' bids and the possibility of corruption. Other countries must find it hard to fathom why an apparently establishment paper like the Daily Mail would do something like that, unless they were being influenced to do so by people higher up.

Utter rubbish. Nope. So... we shouldn't have sent such key figures? The delegation reeked of the establishment, but I doubt whether that made any difference to the outcome. It's clear that FIFA are now looking to grant the World Cup to developing nations rather than established ones. The idea of using the World Cup to create something that wasn't there before has really caught on. The big problem with Qatar is climate, with temperatures over 40c in the summer.

If it's between us and Iberia then it should be us, as Spain had it in 1982. If it's between us and Russia, then that's a more difficult choice, because Eastern Europe have never had it, and it would mean a lot to Russia. I wouldn't give it to Russia, because of the travel problems within the country, but maybe I am biased.

Complete rubbish.

Everyone else had turned it down, because of the influence that Shearer was allowed to wield around the club as the fans' hero and the future manager in waiting. It did for Robson and only a man who had no other options would put their career at risk like that. I would love to know who did turn it down - Steve Bruce seems pretty convinced that the job was his if he'd wanted it and I'm sure I read somewhere that Fat Sam was also offered it. Anyone else? I would think the brainless timing of SBR's sacking left the board with very few options. Managers didn't want to make the switch 4 games into a season with no time left to do anything in the transfer window - unless of course they were about to be sacked from their current job. O'Leary, O'Neill and Shearer were other names I've heard mentioned, but we'll never know the whole truth. But the main reason why Souness was appointed was Shepherd had run out of options.

He has the ability, but I worry that he's being a bit over-egged at the moment. His inexperience does show from time to time, and I'd rather he was allowed to continue to develop without so much publicity. Typical of the sort of moment that I'm thinking of came in the first half, when a cross came to the far post, where Shola was waiting to nod it back. Instead of making a run down the centre, Carroll drifted towards the far post as well, watching the ball, so when the nod back came, there was no-one there. It was a park footballer's mistake. He needs to relax, not try to do everything himself, and be aware of what's going on around him a bit more.

Everyone else had turned it down, because of the influence that Shearer was allowed to wield around the club as the fans' hero and the future manager in waiting. It did for Robson and only a man who had no other options would put their career at risk like that.

Mourinho got what he deserved, for the totally graceless way in which he acted when Inter knocked Barca out last year. As for Barca, they continue to set new standards for how the game can be played. The only team of my lifetime that I can compare them with is the AC Milan side of the late 80s / early 90s.

Yeah, this. A lot of the bookings we see now for diving turn out to be wrong. It's a very difficult offence to be sure about, even with video evidence.

It's frustrating but it was the way we played for most of last season ie getting men behind the ball rather than pressuring the opposition further up the pitch. Hughton made the decision that we lacked the pace and power to match Chelsea in midfield. At the end of the day we got the draw, and at least we have a manager who is prepared to take that kind of decision.

Agree, crazy to have mentioned that as a flaw when he actually crossed one with the outside of his foot today. Not many have the skill or confidence to do it, and I was surprised to see it from Routledge tbh. That I don't remember, but if it happened I don't think it's a regular feature of his game. What drives me most spare is his reluctance to try and feed a player who is making a run outside of him. That kind of pass isn't the most difficult in the world, but it needs an element of touch and accuracy that he doesn't seem to trust himself to find. He often ends up wasting that situation by crabbing his way inside.

Taylor had an okay game, so I'm not wanting to have a go, but he didn't do well for the first goal. He wandered out of position but wasn't anywhere near enough to Malouda, either to block his flick on or to get to the ball before him. Getting caught in no-man's land has always been a problem for him.

Would be very interesting to see Routledge off Carroll. Fortunately I'm sure we won't. He doesn't have the skill or the brain for that position. IMO Routledge is technically very limited. If he gets the chance to beat the full back for pace on the outside, then you have a 50-50 chance of a decent cross. He's ineffective in other situations. He's got no left foot, he can't hit it with the outside of his right, and he even has trouble passing the ball to a team mate on his right hand side.

I'm not sure which is worse - someone who won't part with the bloody ball or someone who's scared of it. Actually I'd take Taarabt. On the grounds that he might improve.

Stamina is a weak area of Shola's game. Unless he's fully fit, he fades badly in the second half.

I don't think there's any mystery about Guthrie. He's got some skill but he lacks strength and pace and is very easily muscled out of a challenge. That's what we saw today.

As the game went on, Chelsea's midfield became increasingly dominant. Tiote and Jonas did okay, but Guthrie and Routledge barely won a single challenge. The back five didn't get much protection. The game generally showed our limitations at the moment, but the plus side of it was that despite Chelsea's dominance, we always had a chance of nicking a goal. PS - I'd like to see us make more use of Ranger. He's very raw, but he does look like he can make something happen.

Routledge always looks a bit scared generally, both physically and mentally. I'd agree with you - I didn't see anything today which suggested he should keep his place when Barton returns.

Exactly. He's a "steady Eddy" if you will. The only thing that concerns me is he needs to toughen up a bit, he can be a bit of a tart at times. Which is quite worrying for a centre half of his size playing Premier League football. He already looks mentally tough to me. He's not the greatest athlete, but he makes up for that in terms of his attitude and street wisdom. It's like he's had to wait a long time to play at the top level, and he's not going to give the chance up easily.

f***ing hell man What exactly do you disagree with? Or have you just had another s*** week stocking shelves and want exact retribution on society through antagonizing folk on here. Grow up. I agree with Ronaldo on this Williamson thing. Honestly, I think Ronaldo's being to fair on Williamson because hes shit (Williamson). Thank you. He may be shit, but he's an absolute bargain.

It's a bit concerning that a Board member is 'ignorant of the financial position of the Trust'. I don't believe that the organisation is corrupt, but they were incredibly naive in the way they were trying to get people to part with their money. There was all this talk about support that was waiting in the wings - all designed to encourage people to join up. The details of the support would all be revealed at such and such a date, but the magic date never seemed to arise. If you're going to be responsible for people's money, there are certain standards of openness and accountability. It was all a bit gung-ho, and I doubt whether those standards have been met.

with Redknapp, it's a matter of not judging the book by the cover. He's clearly got something. I daresay he's not as dumb as he pretends to be, and seems good at instilling confidence in his players.