Cronky

Our midfield looks a mess. Carrick and Milner lack pace and neither are great tacklers. As a result, we're getting overrun down the centre. We're also not creating anything. I can't work out whether we're playing a 4-4-2 with Rooney and Crouch up front, or 4-3-3 with Rooney and Walcott out wide. They seem to be trying to alternate between the two, but defensively it's causing us problems. I don't like Walcott. Not at this level. It's tempting to put it down to this thing of him not playing the game until he's 11. He doesn't have the right decision-making instincts.

This story just seems to be based on Keegan and the Hamburg president being spotted in a restaurant. There are any number of explanations more likely than the President wanting Keegan to be the manager. None of which would make a good story, of course.

It would be even sillier than Ashley's decision to re-appoint him here. Being a hero as a player 30 years ago doesn't make him the best person for that job.

Routledge is a good athlete with a poor first touch. He's struggled before in the Premiership, and he'll struggle again. Hopefully this time, he'll have the maturity and experience to be effective. Strengthening the RW position is far from being a priority though.

Only seen Cleverley once, but I was impressed. He looks just the player we need in midfield.

Don't see why his wages would be any problem. He'll be on no more then Smith or Nolan and probably less. No idea about the fee though. Possibly not, but it seems that Ashley is trying to keep a cap on the wages of incoming players. My hunch is that Jenas is currently getting more than that cap, and he wouldn't want a pay cut. In any case, I don't think Jenas would want to come back. He wasn't exactly a fans' favourite.

I can't see this happening at all. Unless Jenas has seriously fallen out with Redknapp, he has every incentive to try and stay now that they've got a Champions League place. From Spurs point of view, even if he's been moved down the pecking order, he's still a useful squad member. From our point of view, I don't think we can afford the fee or the wages.

What we don't know at this point is how our spending power compares with that of our competitors, which is what really counts. The clubs in the top eight look likely to have something to spend but my impression is that things are tight for nearly everyone else. Transfer fees and salaries may actually be going down.

Man City had to either change the manager or the team, because the two were at odds. It seems they've opted to change the team. At the end of the day, are they going to be any better off? They'll have a completely new side which will take half a season at least to gel. Not very different from the same time last year.

You just have to write the last three seasons off. It's pointless looking back. He's our player, at least for one more season, and let's hope we finally see the best of him - and he is actually a very good player who can make a big difference to us. how can you say he IS avery good player whilst also saying you have to write the last 3 seasons off ? I'm writing off the last few seasons because he's barely played at all due to injuries and off-field behaviour, not because I think he's played badly during his brief appearances. Largely down to his own fault, we've seen very little of him. I checked this out a short while ago - his longest unbroken series of starts in his time here stands at 8. That coincides with the period at the end of the Keegan season, when we went on that run to avoid relegation. Personally, I'd say that's significant. I'm not making excuses for the bloke. He's been stupid and irresponsible, to both himself and the club. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he does have ability. He's shown that at Man City and in the short spells that he's played for us. If it wasn't for his off-field problems he'd have been a regular in the England squad.

You just have to write the last three seasons off. It's pointless looking back. He's our player, at least for one more season, and let's hope we finally see the best of him - and he is actually a very good player who can make a big difference to us.

I think the fact it's the most important competition is the reason why it makes so much sense. It's hardly a wholesale change of rules. Now everyone will see what FIFA deem to be the official rule on a certain aspect of the game, on the world's greatest footballing stage. I take your point there, but the whole thing seems unfair on both the players and the referees. This change isn't so drastic, but last time, I seem to remember the big rule change was a red card for tackles from behind. Problem was, it was too drastic and nobody really knew how seriously to take it. Rule changes need to be tested out at other levels of the game beforehand. And on the matter in hand, I can't see what's so wrong about feinting when taking a penalty. Why take a technique out of the game? It's not as though feinting and wrong-footing the opposition is considered unfair in other parts of the field - in fact, we call it skill.

Changing the rules just before the game's most important competition has never made any sense to me.

He played a lot on the left, didn't he? Pointless. I think in the later stages of his England career, with the emergence of Lampard and Gerrard, yes he did get pushed out wide, which as you say is pointless and probably led to his quitting the set-up. Earlier on, I seem to remember he did get plenty of chances down the middle. He was good, but in recent seasons there's been an air of authority and calmness about his play that wasn't quite there before. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he'd accepted Capello's offer to return to the squad. For me, there's still a strong sense of unfulfilled promise about Scholes's England career.

I actually think Scholes played his best football after he left the England set up. He's a great player, but I don't think we saw the best of him in an England shirt.

There's a good 10 minute video of him in action somewhere. Not just spectacular moments - it gives you an idea of his general play. He looks more like an attacking midfielder than an out and out striker. Looks like he can handle the physical side. No superstar, but I was quite impressed.

I'd genuinely like to see you take a stab at justifying this. What makes you think he isn't a winner? I mean, considering, in his only job in management he's - erm - won, i'm struggling to see how he's anything but. Hes done extremely well, but I wouldn't say he's 'won' yet at all. In competition terms, he's merely qualified for the finals I can't see though how it can be said that winning isn't that important to Houghton. This season, winning has taken the priority over style. West Brom, Forest and Blackpool have been playing all the football. We've won ugly, and as Cajun pointed out, even when we'd secured promotion, Houghton was eager to keep the momentum going. That last bit surprised me in fact. I wanted him to give the younger players a chance of first team experience, but he clearly saw it as important to start next season how we'd left this one. That's a winner's mentality.

I thought this was interesting - Capello considering a switch to three at the back in the absence of Gareth Barry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8681745.stm I can see the problem, because there's no direct replacement for Barry, and he may need an extra man in the middle to bolster the defensive side if he plays someone like Carrick. He's asking a lot of the average English player's ability to adapt though.

While my team (in the OP) had no pure defensive midfielders, I thought that the front six would all do their defensive share. Your midfield isn't the weakest defensively that's been put forward, but all the same Beardsley-Gazza-Scholes-Beckham looks a bit unbalanced, in that they're all basically attacking players. I don't think there's any need to pick a purely defensive player at all, but there has to be some capacity to defend amongst the midfield. I enjoy these 'all time best' threads, and it's difficult to leave out some players, but I think the results are usually over-optimistic.

There's a lot of non-tackling midfields being posted. Are the opposition never going to get the ball?

I don't think the media have quite caught up with how serious the situation at Liverpool is. We've never had a major club go bust before, but there's always a first time. Just because it's Liverpool doesn't mean it can't happen. You wonder about the attitude of the Americans. In their sports, franchises are moving between different cities all the time. In Europe, the football club is a very important part of a city's identity and culture. It's more than just a business.

I thought they were being a bit harsh on Forest on the TV. That second Blackpool equaliser was a fluke and turned out to be the turning point. Things can turn on bits of luck and it went against Forest tonight. Still, I've thought that Blackpool could be the dark horses for a while now. They're a very relaxed side and they have a fair bit of skill.

That's a good squad. I'm pleased he's taking Adam Johnson, Joe Cole and SWP. The ones I'd drop are - Warnock, King, Dawson, Huddlestone, Parker, Walcott and Bent. That's assuming Barry is fit, and able to provide cover at CB. If he's unfit, I'd take Dawson.

Agree on Milner. I wouldn't say Rooney had critics, but a couple of years ago, there seemed to be a lot of doubters. As for Beckham, it really depends on which criticism you listen to. My feeling with him is that while he has certain talents (set pieces and crossing) which catch the eye, he also has some limitations and his overall contribution to a side isn't always positive for that reason. He's only won one trophy since he left Man U, (la Liga with Real) and he struggled to get in that team.

It boils down to why they've used the term 'capital outlay' rather than just 'outlay'. 'Capital' is a long-term asset, and so it can be acquired on the assumption that it can later be sold (at least in part) and the initial investment recouped. A bit like using a mortgage to buy a house. The previous board was buying players over and above its income, with the assumption that the debt could be paid off by selling the player or through money gained by success on the field. The Leeds option, although not so extreme. So what they might be saying is that the expenditure will only come from income, and not by borrowing against an asset, in the form of a player or players. Maybe that's an optimistic spin on it. They really need to clarify it though.