Cronky

Krul has shown some talent, but he's been a little bit on edge as well, on his few first-team appearances. If he knows he's going to get a decent run, he may relax a bit and his judgement might improve. That's the only thing that's been holding him back. I think he's ready.

We've only been waiting about 10 years man. Scott Parker? Always thought he was pretty good for you in that role. Looked very busy. Didn't achieve much. Despite all the talk of an England place, I don't think much has changed.

I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be remotely good at full back. Yes he is a solid defender but you need more than this to play FB effectively. His control/vision/distribution isn't good enough to play there, especially in a game where we'll need to attack the opposition and take the iniative to them. Nor can I imagine him overlapping Routledge and putting a ball - something we're going to need as we'll need to try to get in behind Stoke and get them turned to expose their lack of pace at the back. Has he not filled in at RB in a game last season? I can't remember. It's not ideal, but Perch looks very vulnerable in the air and I think we need that extra protection. His ball control actually isn't that bad. He can pass quite accurately. True, he won't be a lot of help to Routledge going forward, but neither is Perch at the moment. A crucial point here is Coloccini, who doesn't win many aerial battles from the opposition's set pieces. With all those throw ins coming in, we do look vulnerable to a sucker punch.

Williamson isn't that strong, but can handle the physical side, and he's not averse to the professional dark arts. If he can't get the ball, he usually makes sure his opponent can't either. But I would still pick Campbell for Stoke, and move Williamson to RB instead of Perch. We're going to face an aerial bombardment, and need all the strength we can get in that area. Plus Coloccini still isn't that great defensively at set pieces, and will need help.

I was told by a teacher that only fools like Best and Law played with their shirts out. Just thought I'd show my age.

I think we're the right club for him at this stage of his career, and he recognises that. I can see him staying at least a couple of seasons here. Before too long, he'll be a marked man, and the test will be how he deals with that. I think he has the talent to deal with being closed down, but obviously it'll be more of a struggle for him. It'll be a test of his temperament as much as his skill.` But from what I saw of the Everton game, he's even better than I thought he might be. There can't be many players who are better than their youtube clips.

The first five games should have laid a lot of our fears to rest. We're good enough to compete in this division. The one question mark is our ability to break a team down at home, where they've come to defend and hit us on the break. We've shown we can play when we have a bit of time and space. I'm not saying we can't do it - it's just the remaining unmet challenge which will be thrown up by those three home games. It comes down to how well you defend as much as how you attack.

Nolan does look fitter this season, and while he's obviously limited by his lack of pace, he's battling hard to stay in the first team picture. At Everton, we seemed to have a genuine 5-man midfield, which worked very well overall. It may have suited Nolan a bit better, in that his slowness wasn't exposed so much.

Krul is good enough for the first team, and it's a chance for him to gain some experience. We're looking for a back-up, rather than a replacement, and Given won't be available anyway - it's outside the window. What most clubs do in this situation is sign up on a short-term contract an experienced keeper from the lower divisions who's out of the first team picture. He doesn't have to be brilliant - just someone who isn't going to completely fuck up due to nerves. That's the danger with promoting a very young keeper like Sodeberg.

The penalty would have been a difficult spot for the ref but an easy one for the assistant. Seeing that Coleman didn't get anywhere near the ball, I don't understand why it wasn't spotted. It would have been a red card as well, so we'd have been coasting.

I'd noticed from video clips that he's good at keeping the ball low when he shoots. The trajectory that he got on the ball was unreal. In fact, despite the pace on the ball, I think it was actually travelling downwards when it hit the net. And for a player whose fitness and attitude were suspect, there didn't seem to be a problem with either. He seems determined to make this a completely fresh start to his career.

Unbelievable improvement in the side compared to this point last season. Everton are a good team but we matched them for pace, skill and determination. And we had a player who can produce something exceptional. Tiote added that drive from central midfield that's been so lacking in recent seasons.

Ta.

I looked at this post for about 5minutes thinking 'What pair of Scottish lads do we have?' Yeah, I was thinking Calderwood and who else Help me, someone. Is it Carroll and someone else?

Cahill's injured Nothing trivial, I hope.

I wasn't expecting to see the new lads starting. Hughton has cojones.

Shit, I think I left the iron on.....

Shearer has always had ambiguous feelings about management, and it's interesting that he mentioned that his children had never seen so little of him as during that period. I'm sure that's been the factor that's made him hesitate in the past. I don't think he's seen as responsible for the relegation, but I guess as long as he had never been a manager, prospective employers could always think of him as being a Clough-style miracle worker in waiting. Some doubts will now have been introduced into the situation, and he'll have to compete with other candidates on a more equal footing. He's bound to see the Newcastle episode as a missed opportunity. He baulked at the unfavourable situation following relegation, and then had to watch Hughton succeed under the same conditions. I'm not sure how his managerial career will get started. He doesn't seem to want the hassle and sacrifice of starting off at the bottom, but his chances of starting off at a bigger club aren't so great any more.

I remember him keep saying at the time that he was waiting to hear something, why did nobody from the club tell us that they had contacted him it it wasn't true? I'm not quite sure what you mean there, but yes, Shearer was in a position of limbo. As I understand it, they hadn't agreed terms and Ashley had decided to sell again. Obviously there's no question of a manager being appointed permanently if the club could change hands at any time, so Shearer is in a position of waiting to see if a new owner can come in and appoint him. Did no-one spell out to him that was the situation? I don't know. It would be interesting to know what the mystery man two days later who didn't know what was going on actually said.

Not giving him the job isn't a major issue, the treatment of him by not even having the decency to tell him is shit and beyond excuse. He didn't deserve to be left waiting for a phone call to tell him the job wasn't his. Shearer took the job on originally to help them and the club out and was left lookiing like an idiot. Not giving him a call back, if true, seems to me the one part of the accusation that might stick. Even then, I'm reserving judgement, because other parts of Shearer's statement aren't that convincing.

The one thing it doesn't necessarily mean is 'I was offered the job and accepted it'. You can come away from an interview or from negotiations and say to someone 'I think I've got the job' based on how well you think things went. I can't recall at the time the slightest rumour / hint / suggestion that they had agreed terms and offered him the job and then withdrawn the offer. I think we would have heard something. What's more, Shearer's follow-up to this supposed job offer was a single phone call two days later to someone else, who couldn't tell him anything - a conversation that at first he was reluctant to acknowledge for some reason. Now I think if I'd had a definite job offer I wouldn't have left it at that. I don't think we've got the complete picture here. This is just the common sense response when someone comes up with a hard done by story, vague in detail, of which we've only heard one side.

"Bringing Alan Shearer back to Newcastle United was the best decision I have made," said Ashley. "Alan and his staff did all they could to try and keep us up in the short space of time they had. "Talks are now ongoing between us about how we can take this club forward again." "We want him to be the manager 110%," he said. "He's very good at what he does and he's a straight-talking guy - we like that. He would be the perfect appointment. "We are trying to sort something and we will give the public some information as soon as possible. "Alan has put a lot of work into the job at Newcastle and we are talking to him now." Over to you Cronky. No-one's said that they didn't want him to carry on. However, that quote makes it very clear that negotiations were still going on at the time, and that no agreement had been reached. The stumbling block was the conditions that Shearer was asking for. Or Ashley's reluctance to meet those conditions, depending on how you want to see it.

Let's get this in context. Shearer was only prepared to accept the job if certain conditions were met in terms of Ashley investing in the club. Ashley wasn't prepared to meet those conditions. If he'd appointed a different permanent manager at that point we'd have had another revolt in support of the fans' favourite. Understandably, Ashley didn't want to go through that again, and put the club up for sale. If it had been a quick sale to someone who was prepared to meet Shearer's conditions then all could have been settled. As it was, Shearer couldn't be appointed at a point when a change of ownership was in the offing, and the club made do with a caretaker. By the time any prospect of a sale had faded, things had moved on and Hughton was the best candidate. Shearer has tried to make all that look like Ashley offered him the job and then changed his mind without telling him, but that just doesn't stand up. 'I thought I had the job and then I didn't hear anything' doesn't actually contradict the events as outlined, but is very misleading.

I didn't think I was being at all controversial in calling his account vague. 'I thought I had the job' can mean anything. Who are 'the appropriate people'? Who is the 'someone' who he spoke to the second time? We're not exactly being flooded with significant detail. There does seem to be this syndrome where anything Shearer or Keegan come out with is treated as holy writ. They are as capable as anyone of spinning an account to put themselves in a good light.

I've listened to his comments and he is extremely vague. There are a lot of gaps in his story which for whatever reason he was reluctant to fill. He hints that he was offered the job and then they changed their minds without telling him, and inevitably that's the story that the papers will run with. IIRC he said in public at the time that he had given the ownership his blueprint of what was needed to restore the club to good health, and which were effectively his conditions for becoming the manager. Ashley didn't take that up, and instead put the club on the market. I don't recall any kind of hint or rumour that he'd been offered the permanent job.