Cronky

The difference between the teams was the quality of the players, particularly in the case of Palmer. He must be nailed on for the England squad. Chelsea are still a bit incoherent but their passing and touch on the ball gave them crucial advantages. No need to panic.

Isak was driving me mad with his failure to get involved. Then the minute he got the ball in that position, I just knew he'd score. Tino is having a great game. Best I've seen from him.

Indeed. All a bit speculative, but I wonder if one of the areas that worries Eddie is Hall's ability to defend the back post against tall opponents. Not a problem for Burn obviously, and full backs with that weakness can be easily targeted. Some soft goals can be given away. (Remember Poyet v Nobby, FA Cup semi-final?) Having a back three and playing Hall as a wing back might ease that problem, but that's not Eddie's preferred formation.

We'll have to see, as you say, but I think Amanda sold the idea to the PIF as a long-term investment, rather than an opportunity for a quick dash for glory. Apart from anything else, FFP makes it impossible to repeat an Abramovich or a Sheik Mansour anyway. So I'm hopeful that the owners will be patient and accept some bumps on the way. It also seems that the day to day running of the club is in the hands of Amanda and Co, and that the Saudis are overseers rather than hands-on. Again, I take that as encouraging in the long-term. Finally, I quite like Yasir. He doesn't come across as a remote or arrogant figure. I think he's enjoying the ride and has made decent relationships with those running things. The early indications have been good, as far as I can see.

I see Fernandez repeated this gesture of giving Rashford the penalty kick even though he's not the designated taker. Can you imagine Ferguson allowing that? Mind you I think Ferguson would have shifted Rashford on a while ago.

The big clubs want a manager with a big reputation. And then who's going to tell a Klopp or a Guardiola that this player is going to be signed or sold whether they like it or not? The bigger problem is the lack of patience for long-term growth, brought about by the big income gaps between the CL clubs and the other Premiership clubs, and between the Premiership and the Championship. It's like one poor season and your job's in jeopardy. We saw that a bit with Eddie. Bottom of the league to the Champions League in 18 months. We then fall to mid-table (for a variety of reasons) and the media start saying we're after Nagelsmann. I have faith that the powers behind the scenes will continue to back Eddie, but it just shows you the atmosphere in which clubs now tend to operate.

I don't think a clear dividing line is possible. In practice, both parties have to come to an agreement or a signing can't go through. The manager / head coach is the most important component in a football club, and there's no point in signing a player that they don't want. On the other hand, most Premiership managers have a short shelf-life - the average is two years. I can see the point of a Director of Football, but I'd question how well it often works in practice. Of course, if you have a very good manager who is hard-working, committed to a long-term stay and who isn't looking for the next opportunity to move somewhere bigger, then there isn't a problem. You can give that guy a bit of power. I think we're in that privileged position.

Dodgy use of the word 'literally' there.

There is so much conflicting information about this deal. If Chelsea let him go because they needed the funds to remain within FFP, it seems very unwise of them to give us the chance to wriggle free by making it performance-related. But the more this goes on, the more likely it looks like this is what has happened. Will we really pay £35m for a player who over the course of a season hasn't really been deemed fit to come on as a sub, let alone as a first team regular? I'm doubtful. We could sign him at the end of the season for £35m and then loan him out, but can we really afford to pay that amount for a player who we're not using?

I nurture the possibly foolish hope that we're getting the old Dubs back. He was great when he first arrived, oozing confidence and defiance, but he seemed to lose that after his injury. He's got a bit of that crazy look about him now. Essential for all keepers.

Livramento offers us a different package, and looks ready to step up. He certainly adds to our ability to counter attack. Tripps is a really good reader of the game, but he's never been the greatest defender. He's looked increasingly vulnerable in that area.

For all our worries this season, reaching 40 points with 11 games to go would have been a dream not long ago.

I'm a bit confused here. The Premier League has a requirement to have a certain number of 'homegrown' players in the first team squad, but they don't have to be 'academy' players. On the other hand there seems to be UEFA requirement for there to be 4 Academy players in the first team squad. Does that only apply to UEFA competitions (eg Champions League etc)

That's the signal to go 4-4-2.

He had problems with injuries, so it's difficult to tell how things would have gone for him. What I'm sure Sir Bob was looking at was his pace. He and Bellamy together could have been a real handful - worth the gamble, let's say. Whatever, allowing Shearer to effectively choose his own time of departure was a costly strategic error.

The conversation between Robson and Shepherd in 2003, when Sir Bob proposed that we accept Liverpool's offer for Shearer and use the proceeds to buy Emile Mpenza. Robson and Shearer were headed on a collision course, but Shepherd had the dream of Shearer taking over as manager, and of course he was the local hero. We backed the wrong man.

Always been a good shot-stopper. Slightly dodgy on crosses. We needed the former last night and he stepped up.

Yeah, they couldn't summon up the energy to celebrate the shoot-out properly. Where was the mad rush at the keeper, ending with him disappearing under a pile of delirious bodies, eh? That sounded a bit homo-erotic, didn't it? Hmm.....

At times it looked like we were trying to walk the ball into the net, and some of the tackling looked tentative. BUT ..... it's good to see a few players coming back to fitness and we're still in it. The season's not dead.

It looked to me like most of the team had half an eye on Tuesday's game. It looked a bit half-hearted. I can't blame the players, but it's sometimes difficult to raise your game after a poor performance like that.

I've quoted this before, but I feel impelled to do so again - 'Past success is only briefly a glad memory. It quickly becomes an accusing finger'. That's taken from 'The Football Man' by Arthur Hopcraft, in his section on Managers. I was 13 when I first read the book and that leapt out at me as a truism even at that young age. Nothing's changed and it applies now to Eddie. His past achievements have created a yardstick which can quickly become an unwelcome burden.

And I've got a feeling that his best position ultimately isn't full back. Perhaps Eddie can't afford to risk him defensively and he doesn't have the experience to play in midfield.

We don't have a fit striker, there's no cover in midfield and we're having to field a raw 17 year old. The back four has always been slow and now they're inevitably not getting the same protection as before. Simple as. With the resources available, Eddie is still doing a great job. The underlying idea seems to be that the likes of Bournemouth are poor sides who we should be beating comfortably even with half the first team out. That's nonsense. The margins between victory and defeat at this level can be very fine.

I felt that Eddie had looked a bit more tense over the last few weeks. I'd attributed it to the poor run of results and the criticism that was coming his way (more from the media than the supporters, I think) Now I wonder if the Ashworth situation was playing on his mind. Knowing that any conversation that he had with Ashworth might be used for the benefit of a rival club a short time afterwards is a difficult position to be in. No wonder he wants it resolved quickly. As he says himself, he very much believes in the value of a long-term commitment. It's how he's handled his own career, apart from that brief hiatus with Burnley. This will be disappointing for him. On the related issue, I'm not sure how things will work out for Ashworth. The structure at Man U is very unusual, and in any event, is there much wrong with the Man U youth set up? Genuine question. With these top clubs, you are never going to get more than 2 or 3 players into the first team, and they've done that with Garnacho and Mainoo. The main problem is instability in the first team, with players and managers being replaced with big fees by others who aren't any better.

Change the punishment for a deliberate foul against a player in a scoring position outside the area. Instead of a red and a free kick, award a penalty and either a yellow or a red depending on the nature of the foul. Before anyone starts, there is nothing sacrosanct about the principle that a penalty can only be awarded for a foul in the area. Refs already have to distinguish between 'goalscoring position' fouls and the others, so it's perfectly practical. I don't know why it hasn't been tried. A penalty is a much better compensation when a player has been deprived of a shot on goal. A sending off for a non-violent foul also seems unnecessary. The penalty would be punishment enough.