Cronky

Two points about Shola that were highlighted last night - firstly, his heading has improved in the last couple of seasons. Secondly - and I wish this aspect of his game was acknowledged more often - although his first touch is poor, once he does get the ball under control and can turn and face a defence, he can cause problems. He can take the ball away from defenders with surprisingly good footwork and get us free kicks in good positions, feed in other players or - as last night - get a shot in himself. Oh and a third point - he never hides.

I'm glad someone else has noticed that. You should of said something during the match mate. Are you kidding? I did. Use your search button. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,71632.msg2527018.html#msg2527018 I still don't get it. You've just linked me to your reply to a post I made about Lovenkrands. I have always been a defender of Shola. He's not the greatest, but he's nowhere near the useless fucker that most fans suggest. He can drive you mad when he miscontrols the ball, but he does cause defenders problems in certain situations and he never hides.

I'm glad someone else has noticed that. You should of said something during the match mate. Are you kidding? I did. Use your search button.

I thought Vuckic played very well tonight I just don't get the feeling that he's giving his all. I can't think of a single positive, creative, forward ball that he played, either tonight or against Accrington. That's what he's there for. Maybe he needs an injection of testosterone or viagra or something. He's a good player but he needs to wake up.

I'm glad someone else has noticed that. He really held our effort together tonight.

I'd keep the bulk of the side that's got us this far - but drop the ones who haven't performed - Vukcic and Lovenkrands.

Could easily have had another one. Lövenkrands should have scored and Ranger should have had one more too. We were fucking dominating the game between the 20th and 65th minute. Lovenkrands just doesn't have the physical presence to get involved in a game like that. If there's any point in him being there, it's as a goal poacher, but he completely fluffed the one, easy chance that came his way. I just don't see what he's offering the side. Next round, I'd try Ranger and Shola together.

What you look for in a young player is that confidence, that belief that they belong out there and a willingness to get involved right away. Ferguson looks to have that.

The strange decision was bringing Tiote on for Raylor. That nearly lost us the game.

Christ, what a game. A deserved win. Chelsea seemed to try and play with the casual confidence of their first team. But they're not the first team, they're the reserves, and they needed to put more into it. I was annoyed because we had the game won at 3-1 with an extra man. We then seemed to lose belief and failed to hit them when they were down. Hopefully that's a lesson learned.

We're getting destroyed down our right side.

It comes down to a lack of belief.

We lost our way when they went down to 10 men. We should have been more positive. We've got the extra man ffs. Let's play like it.

Paid the price for negative play.

The phrase you're looking for is 'fuck all'.

Shola! Deal with it, you lot!

I'm disappointed in Vukcic. He's just not going for it. There's a decent player in there but he needs to be more positive. Shane Ferguson on the other hand is in marked contrast. He's not afraid of the ball and has shown initiative.

Why is everyone wanting Shola taken off when Lovenkrands has barely touched the ball?

What you expecting him to do like, we haven't attacked much or had much ball on that side, he is hardly going to pick it up on the halfway line blaze past 5 players and meg the keeper is he. It'd be nice to see him touch the ball, that's all.

Any sign of Lovenkrands? The invisible man, as often.

Kakuta's a dangerous player.

I read a good article the other day by Cascorino. He said that many of the ex-pros who become pundits are too pally with the players and are wary of offending them. It's noticeable that pundits tend to go for the easier targets like foreign players and referees. Journalists - who rarely seem to be ex-pros -find it easier to be more widespread and forthright in their comments. Unlike say cricket and rugby, where a lot of the journos are ex-pros, in football you have a divide between the two. I don't think the pros like to share a platform with journalists, who they tend to look down on, or feel threatened by. The journos are nearly always in the role of interviewers, rather than fellow experts. Cascarino is the only one I can think of who combines the inside knowledge of a pro with the forthright quality of a journo. We could do with more.

Didnt realize that, I thought Carrol was just helping out the defence on his volition but if that was Hughton's instructions, then he deserves credit. I still think however that his main weakness is his inability to use subs properly and at the right time. He prefers to let the team work things out for themselves which can sometimes backfire (though in this case it did not). 2 specific instances against Everton 1) In the second half when Everton was dictating the game and attacking us in waves around the 60-75 minutes, he should have done something. Ideally putting on a more defensive midfielder in place of a knackered Nolan would have been good to add more steel to the midfield but since our only other defensive midfielder is Alan Smith, he should have still taken off Nolan and put in Jonas or Lovenkrads. At the very least their pace would have prevented Everton's defence from moving so high up to join their midfield/attack and ease the pressure on us. 2) In the last few minutes of injury time, when we were again at risk of conceding, he should have wasted some valuable time by making a sub. Even the Jonas for HBA sub seems more like enforced coz HBA was already limping when the sub was made. So he deserves credit for having the courage to start both HBA and Tiote but he has to use his subs more strategically. We won but on another day his inaction could have lost us 2 valuable points. It's easy to be a manager playing what if. 1) If Hughton panics and subs off Nolan at the first sign of pressure from Everton (which didn't actually amount to any significant chances in that period), then he's not on the field to get what should have been a pen to wrap the game up, and he's not there to deflect Yakubu's shot onto the post. Would Lovenkrands have been there for both those incidents and done better than Nolan otherwise? Possibly. Would Gutierrez? Not a chance. 2) Everton are attacking and we're under constant pressure. Sub comes on & trots into box, not had a kick, doesn't know who he's supposed to be picking up, loses his man or has an adrenaline fuelled rush of blood and gives away a pen. 1-1, Hughton's fault for trying to waste 10 seconds. Poor use of subs is probably the single most common criticism levelled against any manager. Usually, the decisions are tricky. Nolan is good in the air, and that's very handy if you're under the cosh in the late stages of a game. Lovenkrands and Jonas are not. Lovenkrands can't hold the ball up, and wouldn't relieve any pressure. Jonas is better in that respect, and putting him up front so that Carroll's aerial power can help the defence was a good idea. Hughton may well look to do that again.

He's been in charge for just over a year, and we're a team transformed, in every way. Hughton has been excellent at getting the team to bounce back after a setback. The way we tore into Everton right from the start, you'd have thought the that we had fought back the previous week to draw with Man U, and they had lost at home to Blackpool.

Yes, the problem is there's only one of him. Plus we're not a club like Chelsea, who can just buy in players who are already fully developed and ready to compete at the top level. Within reason, we do need to have to watch players develop by giving them first team experience.