Cronky

We never looked like beating them - plenty of possession in the 1st half, but no real chances created. Pen unlikely to have been given in an away game....lost shape totally and allowed them to bully us out of it in 2nd half. That's just not how I saw it. We had the better of the first half and the second half was fairly even. They had a spell in the second half where they dominated, but that's the nature of Premiership football. There are inevitably going to be pressure periods - you're not going to have the upper hand for 90 minutes. As I said, they had a big advantage over us at set pieces, and that got them their goals. We suffer from a lack of pace up front which meant we had difficulty in punishing them during our good periods. But you can't say that it couldn't have turned out differently. Games can change in a moment - it sometimes doesn't even take a goal.

I'm not sure if Babel is suffering from a lack of confidence, or if he's not that great. Liverpool is a tough club to come into. They're making promising young players look a bit ordinary. There's pressure.

Pretty harsh criticism when you consider that Campbell was out injured. Aaah..... I thought I saw him on the subs bench. But in that case, we really can't blame Hughton at all, yeah? He lacked any options.

We could easily have beaten Stoke, in which case we'd have been 5th, having beaten Everton and Chelsea away in our previous games. There would have been calls for Chris to be given a knighthood. We've been weak at defending set pieces for the last two years, and Stoke are a team practically designed to exploit that. Of the back four, only Williamson consistently gets his head to the ball in those situations, and we rely a lot on Carroll coming back to help. Those two can't be everywhere at once, and yesterday we were caught out. If I have a criticism of Hughton it's that he didn't anticipate that problem by bringing in Campbell, but there again it's not easy to change a winning side. Subbing Ben Arfa and Tiote were okay decisions - Ben Arfa had run out of steam and, as Hughton has said, he preferred to keep Nolan on as a goalscorer - which he is.

Enrique's comments on Hughton's post-match rocket to the team. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news//tm_headline=magpies-ace-enrique-reveals-hughton-s-fury%26method=full%26objectid=27349464%26siteid=72703-name_page.html Just a little worrying. I'd tend to agree with Enrique - that it's better to leave these inquests for a point when everyone's calmed down a bit. There are some managers who make a policy of this.

I agree with you about Campbell, although for the same reason (ie keeping some physical presence), I'd keep Williamson rather than Colo. Getting more out of the attack is a bit difficult. Shola-Carroll might be better than Nolan-Carroll, but still looks slow. We can only try. I actually thought the starting midfield yesterday looked good.

Having watched the goals again, I don't think it's fair to blame Krul. They were not straightforward balls for a keeper to come and collect. The problem was that we had Perch against Huth. Any manager who had watched our previous games would have targeted Perch. I know Colo is getting a lot of praise at the moment, and he does look a lot more composed than previously, but he really doesn't like defending set pieces. Quite sensibly, he gets protected by not having to go up against the opposition's most dangerous players in that situation, and it falls to Carroll and Williamson. However, now and then it leaves us short of options and yesterday was an example of that.

He seems a quiet lad who lacks confidence. I don't think I've seen him open his mouth yet. He needs to be more aggressive, because with that spirit even if you don't get the ball, you can do enough to put your opponent off. Against Wolves and today, he allowed himself to be bullied. I felt a bit sorry for him today, because he has improved, game on game.

Couldn't agree more. We were never going to beat Stoke by getting in a battle with them. We should have hit their lumbering defenders with speed and skill, HBA had plenty of joy in the first half had anyone had the wit or movement to make the most of it. I like Hughton but he needs to show a bit more faith in his football principles instead of trying to shoehorn all his favourite characters into the team and playing safe. We didn't punish them enough in the final third, and Carroll wasn't as effective as usual, but I don't know what viable options we have. I don't think Ben Arfa would be that effective playing off a target man - a roving role in midfield looks right for him. Ranger is talented but doesn't quite look ready. Shola would give you a slightly different option to Carroll, but the problem of a partner still remains. Lovenkrands is easily blocked out of the game, and Nolan lacks pace.

We didn't deserve to lose, but I suppose we didn't take sufficient advantage during the period when we were dominant. With Carroll and Nolan, we have a slow strikeforce, so although we were good at getting the ball into the final third, we didn't look very sharp from there on in. We really need a pacey striker whose name isn't Lovenkrands. We were always going to have trouble with their aerial threat and that's how it proved. Perch does look vulnerable in the air, and I do think there was a case for picking Campbell and putting Williamson at RB. I don't think Krul should be blamed for either goal. The Ben Arfa sub made sense because he'd done a lot of running in the first half, and had drifted out of the game. Perhaps he needs to pace himself more. I wasn't expecting Tiote to be subbed, but presumably Hughton thought that, of the two, Nolan was the player more likely to get a goal. Barton played really well. He's having a great season.

I think that achieving a good work / life balance has always been very important to Shearer, and that's why he's in his current position. Being a TV pundit isn't too demanding and he doesn't need to do too much homework to maintain himself there, because of who he is. It's a bit of a shame, because he could do more (ie work as a manager) but he doesn't want to make the necessary sacrifices. Maybe when his family is older he'll feel more motivated, but the same opportunities might not be there for him. He also might be too used to an easy life.

I'm certain that Carroll will start against Stoke. Unlike others, I don't think there's that much to choose between them in attack, but Carroll is superb at getting on the end of headers to defend set pieces, and that's a big asset.

Ref's will start looking for it if they are seeing it highlighted on TV. Well maybe. It still feels odd to not pick a player because refs might start penalising him for something that he's previously been getting away with.

Maybe they should have had a Smith-Nolan type team meeting where those whose heart wasn't in it were told to go. Torres doesn't look committed. We know from our own experience with Owen that if you've got a senior player who's a bit disgruntled, it doesn't do the rest much good.

Yes. Deluded. Exactly. I was wrong about Parker. Isn't that the point of the thread? It's all about opinions, but Parker was a big disappointment to me. At Charlton, he looked like a very confident, positive player and I wasn't surprised that Chelsea paid £13 million for him. The player that we got always looked far more worried about losing the ball than doing anything creative with it.

Unless an opponent actually falls over, it's a rarity for refs to give pens when a player is being held at a set piece. Like many defenders, Williamson keeps very tight so that either the opponent can't go down, or they both go down together. It's difficult for a ref to spot who's doing what. I don't really blame him for doing what lots of others do and get away with. But even if he were to cut that bit of his game out, I'd still fancy him to get on the end of more headers than Colo.

Good point that. Not a bad shout at all. Williamson is stronger than Colo in the air. I don't think Colo likes these set piece battles, and if anyone makes way for Campbell, it should be him.

I can't see how Liverpool will escape administration here, but a 9 point penalty shouldn't mean relegation for them, and in practice the club will end up getting off lightly. By the end of the season, they'll have new owners, a drastically reduced debt and they'll still be in the Premiership. I don't think 9 points is an adequate punishment, although obviously it can't be changed retrospectively in this case. In future, it should be automatic relegation, with a 9 point penalty for the following season if the club was going to be relegated anyway. It would help if the huge income differentials between Premiership and Championship, and between Premiership and Champions League, could both be reduced. A lot of clubs get in trouble because they take risks to maintain their status, and they take those risks because the financial consequences of slipping down are so severe.

This is why I think we should play Campbell for his strength in the air. I saw the Stoke game, against West Ham I think it was, and they were taking long throws from their own half of the field. We're going to get bombarded. Krul is a good shot-stopper, but like most young keepers his judgement and ability when coming off his line to clear is still a work in progress. He does get these rushes of blood to the head, as when he smacked into Campbell on Wednesday - I wouldn't blame the goal directly on him, but it's the sort of mistake that he's prone to. It was definitely Campbell's ball. Let's hope that the ref looks out for obstruction as well.

In football these things go in cycles, I think barring the appearance of a mega wealthy owner, Liverpool are fucked for a decade while they convert to a low debt busniness model. I never thought I'd say this 24 months ago, but I can honestly see us overtaking Liverpool's position in the Premier within a couple of years. Think RBOS will take it over in Oct. But will they get fined points and will it be called administration? It should be, but I have a feeling Liv will get protection from the Fa. It depends on the exact rules and the exact structure of the the debt. My understanding is that the debt is owed by LFC's owner, the holding company, as the LFC board repeatedly rejected attempts to move the debt onto the club's books. If this is the case, perhaps just the holding must declare bankruptcy, not LFC itself. I don't know enough about the situation or the rules to say whether that would help us avoid a point penalty. I really can't see anyone coming in with a bid before the Yanks default, though. They'd have to pay quite a premium. I think it was Southampton that tried this - claiming that it was the holding company that went bust rather than the club. It wasn't accepted. Whether being taken over by a debtor like RBS counts as administration may depend on detail. If it's an enforced takeover due to insolvency then I'd say it's administration, so it might depend on the Americans' co-operation in being taken over, which is uncertain. It looks like a game of chicken at the moment. One thing though - RBS are obliged to act in the interests of their shareholders, investors and deposit holders. They are not obliged to act in the interests of Liverpool FC or their supporters, and quite right too. There are other people to be considered here, despite what that message from LFC forumco implies.

Owen and Shearer - RIGHT - I spotted their decline, and the consequences, much earlier than most. Milner - WRONG - I didn't see him making the progress that he has over the last two years. Going back in time, I got Waddle spectacularly wrong. When I first saw him play, I couldn't work out how he'd even been able to become a professional.

Sounds like what people thought of Roeder in the early days. I think the important difference between the two is that Hughton has remained true to himself and his ideas, whereas Roeder tried to be something he wasn't, which eventually exposed a lack of confidence that led to his downfall. I can remember him saying that he'd been criticised in the past for being too nice, and he was going to prove that he can assert himself just as well as any other manager. It was a theme he kept returning to, and it was like he had a chip on his shoulder. If you remember, it all unravelled in the Alkmaar game, where he allowed himself to be psyched out by Van Gaal, and then lashed out at the players both in the dressing room after the game, and in public later when he threatened to move some of them on at the end of the season if they didn't buck up their ideas. He lost the respect of the players after that, and never recovered it. I can't see Hughton making that mistake. He projects a quiet confidence and doesn't feel the need to throw his weight around in that way.

I think the key is to have faith in your own ideas and decisions, and to have the confidence to impose them. In that sense, I'm not sure it matters whether you're a shouter or a diplomat. Either one can be seen as strength or weakness. I suspect that quite a few managers may be quite loud and apparently forceful, but because they lack real conviction are afraid to take the brave but unorthodox decision that is correct, but will leave you looking a bit stupid if it doesn't come off. It's been striking that Hughton hasn't been afraid to back his own judgement in situations like that. He was the first to drop Owen - even though, quite incorrectly, he was criticised for that at the time. He picked Nolan as a striker, which no-one foresaw, but which was a big part of our promotion. He also kept the same side even after promotion was secured, instead of blooding some of the youngsters, which I'm sure the majority of managers would have done. He wanted to keep the winning habit. That last decision I thought at the time was definitely wrong, but you look at the start we've made and the spirit in the side and I now think sod it, he's probably got that one right too.

Interesting article by Ms Taylor on the socialist background of Chris Hughton here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/dec/20/chris-hughton-newcastle-united-middlesbrough We seem to know so little of Hughton. His career of staying for so long as a coach at one club, and then becoming a manager only through first accepting a caretaker role, doesn't suggest someone of great ambition. The message that he gives is of one who is happy to serve in whatever capacity he's asked to, and although he doesn't appear to resent it, the club have somewhat taken advantage of him. That doesn't sound like the kind of ruthless, single-minded man who can bang heads together and make a success of football management. I think that's why most of us, at various stages, have been expecting it all to go belly-up. It hasn't happened - in fact, quite the reverse. He's clearly a driven man who can impose his views, but in the absence of a personal ego, I've sometimes wondered where the drive comes from. This socialist aspect of his personality may be the key to understanding that. It's hard to tell how far that can take us - whether at some stage he'll hit a kind of glass ceiling. But you have to say it's been the perfect approach for our club, in our situation.

fair points considering last night. however he still has a tendency to mess up often. what did you make of McEachran for Chelsea? Very skilful and very confident for a 17 year old. I don't think Smith and Vukcic would present the most formidable barrier for a player like that, but he looked certain to have a good career. In general though, I'm not sure that it's a good idea for a gifted young player to choose Chelsea. It must be the most difficult club of all for a youngster to break into the first team, because they make progress by buying ready made players from elsewhere. I did wonder whether it had an effect on their team last night, because they didn't really seem to put heart and soul into it. When you see the Arsenal youngsters in action, they really tear into the opposition, and it must help that they know that if you do well, you'll get promoted to the first team. That Chelsea team can't have the same confidence.