Cronky

If I was Butt, I might decline the honour of lifting the trophy. He's barely played and it would be a bit embarrassing.

At the end of the day, I think there’s a moral dimension here. If we don’t give Hughton his chance, we’d be treating him badly. It’s not purely a matter of principle, because one way of the other if you don’t behave well, it rebounds on you down the line. In recent years, our behaviour has been dubious (eg towards Sir Bob) and we’ve paid the price later.

This is what used to irritate me about him. He often looked busy without really showing any leadership or initiative. Often played a team mate into trouble.

Routledge has given us a threat down the right which we never had before, and that's also allowed us to push Guthrie inside which has improved our ability to play through the midfield in home games. But it's not exactly been a sea-change, and I haven't seen any performance where we've been remotely 'unplayable'. In every game that I've seen, there's been a lack of pace and mobility in central midfield, and as a result we find it difficult to pressure the ball when the opposition has possession. We still seem to rely on funnelling back behind the ball and defending in the final third. Championship teams haven't punished us for that strategy, but Premiership teams will. Our back four will get found out. The lack of movement also makes it difficult for us to retain the ball, and we often lose it when put under pressure. We rely a lot on Routledge and Jonas's individual ability down the wings.

This idea of replacing Hughton at this point is a kind of Lib Dem type idea. It could only be advocated by people who would never actually have to put it into practice and take responsibility for all the consequences.

I think West Brom and Forest will struggle, in the same way as Burnley now and West Brom previously have struggled. However, they will be able to provide some kind of threat to the opposition, even if it doesn’t prove enough in the end. I think at the moment, we wouldn’t be able to threaten the opposition by threading the ball through the midfield, and we’re not able to do a Stoke and dominate anyone physically. By and large, we’ve got results by getting behind the ball when the opposition is in possession and relying on the likes of Nolan, Shola and Carroll to nick goals during the periods when we’re on the attack. It’s worked this season, but it’s a non-starter next. I’m not especially worried, because I’m confident we’ll have far more money to spend than West Brom or Forest, so we will improve. But there will have to be big changes – like half the first team.

There’s lots that you can pick over, but I thought it was strange that they picked out Williamson and Carroll as players who would struggle in the Premiership. For me, they’re among the few players that I’m confident about. Williamson isn’t the greatest athlete but he’s calm, decisive and skilful, and I’d say our best CB. Carroll has his limitations, but his power in the air will create problems for defences at any level. If the papers are to be believed, Premiership clubs have already come sniffing. If we hadn’t been promoted, I think he’d have moved up anyway. Overall though, with the team we’ve got, we’ll struggle – possibly more than West Brom or Forest, who are better at playing the ball on the deck. It won’t be easy, because we’re now looking for players who can step into the first team, rather than squad players or youngsters who may come good in two years’ time.

Watching better football.

....is about all you can say. In the last ten minutes, Plymouth went to three at the back, and Best had a lot more space. But in general, he doesn't look particularly strong or quick, and therefore isn't able to use what skill he has. I just think he was bought as insurance. In January, Shola wasn't fit, Hughton didn't have faith in Ranger and Carroll was our only target man. If Carroll had got injured, the promotion bid would have been at risk - as the club saw it. I'm not saying the decision was wrong, but I think it was made for the short term, not the long term. If that's the case, why 3 year deal? If it was short-term loan, I'd agree. But it wasn't. Well I doubt whether Coventry would have let him go on a short-term loan. So maybe it was long term or nothing. I just can't see how he's been bought for the future. He isn't better than Carroll or Shola, and with Ranger and Vukcic coming up, his prospects don't look good.

....is about all you can say. In the last ten minutes, Plymouth went to three at the back, and Best had a lot more space. But in general, he doesn't look particularly strong or quick, and therefore isn't able to use what skill he has. I just think he was bought as insurance. In January, Shola wasn't fit, Hughton didn't have faith in Ranger and Carroll was our only target man. If Carroll had got injured, the promotion bid would have been at risk - as the club saw it. I'm not saying the decision was wrong, but I think it was made for the short term, not the long term.

Yeah those giant 8ft, 20 stone premiership defenders are a lot more physical than these championship dwarves They might not be bigger, but they are quicker and stronger. At the moment, defenders are going right through him and he's unable to hold the ball up. He won't get more time and space in the Premiership.

There aren't many risk-free opportunities to give youngsters a chance at first team level, so let's do that.

If he's getting bullied by defenders at this level, I can't see how he'll cope in the Premiership.

They had a very public row last season - I think it was the Blackburn away game. Enrique didn't cover back or close a man down, and when we lost a goal, Barton really let rip. They didn't combine well tonight, but seeing as Barton is a right-footed central midfield player, it was always going to be difficult.

He wasn't what we wanted, but he turned out to be what we needed. Great job.

I thought Williamson was class, particularly in the second half. He's not the quickest but he has the skill and confidence to clear the ball without having to take an initial touch, and that can make a difference. Barton looked a bit fitter and is starting to show his ability. I'd like to have seen him given a chance in the centre later on. Still not sure what Hughton saw in Leon Best. I agreed with Beagrie about us needing another CB and a more energetic anchor man in midfield.

At first, I thought we'd found a decent player, but his performances have been declining all season. He looks frightened when the ball goes anywhere near him, in attack and defence. As for the game, we're poor, they're worse.

Ah, now reading that carefully there is no mention of Wenger actually wanting Nolan - only that he needs a combative midfield player and Nolan has done well in the Championship. Still, he would fit in very well with their high tempo, one-touch style of play... No mention of wenger wanting him? Were you expecting direct quotes from Arsene on how Nolans dynamic play would have a positive impact on there success and would be one their main targets this summer? Not direct quotes, but something on the lines of 'Wenger wants Nolan' is the minimum requirement for a rumour. But 'Wenger wants a DM - hey, that Nolan's being doing okay in the Championship' is stretching it a bit. That's clearly the journo's opinion that Nolan could do a job for Arsenal, not Wenger's.

Ah, now reading that carefully there is no mention of Wenger actually wanting Nolan - only that he needs a combative midfield player and Nolan has done well in the Championship. Still, he would fit in very well with their high tempo, one-touch style of play...

Or worse - Whelan buying Moses just to spite/trump Ashley as part of their JJB/Sports Direct feud. That's always been my suspicion. A young, unproven player who still needs experience is hardly the signing that a team fighting relegation would go for.

Unless they find an Abramovich or a Mansour, I think the yanks have a big problem. The financial climate still isn't one where businesses are inclined to take on large amounts of debt. In football terms, they've chosen a bad time to sell. Their team is slipping out of the Champions League places, and given the wealth behind Man City, it may be a long time before they get back up there. As we ourselves know, once things start to decline on the pitch, it's difficult to turn things round. They spent ages dithering about whether to sell and for how much, and now they're attempting to bail out when things are looking bad and they're liable to take a bigger hit. What's more, they've still not sorted the stadium out. It's been glaringly obvious that the only way forward is to collaborate with Everton over a joint stadium, but neither club has faced up to it. Owning an American sports franchise is a much safer proposition financially than a European football club. Neither they nor the Glazers have been prepared for the reality.

Mancienne may have a problem, in that his natural position is centre back, but he might not be big enough to play there at the very top level in the Premiership. He's looked okay at DM, but not completely comfortable.

I can't see that we'd be able to afford Berbatov's transfer fee or wages, especially considering he would have no sell on value at 30. But even ignoring that factor, he'd also be a risk. When he puts heart and soul into it - as when he was building his reputation at Spurs - he looks a great player. When he's looking a bit distracted - as when he was trying to leave Spurs, or as he's playing now for Man U - he still produces some nice touches but overall doesn't contribute much. He's failed to impose himself at Man U, like he's overawed. Perhaps he'll do better as a big fish in a small pond, but as I say, for that money, I can't see us taking the risk. PS - With Carroll, Shola and possibly Ranger, target man isn't the priority anyway.

On a related subject, I've just seen the Reading goal and I can't see why Harper is getting the blame. It was a reflex save from a point blank header. What's he supposed to do - catch it with one hand?

Not having a go like but this is one of those things I could never understand at the time, people thinking we were certs to get beaten by West Brom. We were missing two players (Lovenkrands and Bassong) from the side that beat them the previous year in the Premiership. They were also missing two of their best players from the previous year. I couldn't get to grips with the idea that people thought they'd be much better then us all of a sudden when we'd beaten them twice the year before. i think ppl thought the mess off the field would provide the players again with more excuse's for bad performances It was not the quality of players but the off field issues that made me worried. All we heard throughout the summer was the on / off sale of the club, that Ashley and Llambias had washed their hands of it and that there was no-one left to make any decisions within the club. Everything was put into limbo because of the anticipated sale of the club - agents said they could not get hold of anyone to discuss selling players. I remember some of the players saying there was no leadership from the top and that they would have to organise themselves. They wouldn't appoint a manager because prospective new owners might not want him. Eventually the club had to start selling some players - maybe they would have sold more if they had more time. (I am not convinced by the view that it was a deliberate decision to keep the bulk of the squad together - I just think they ran out of time and potential buyers had opted for alternatives). With all that going on, it seemed that the downward spiral of the previous season could continue as I just couldn't see how the players could be motivated to play for a club where no-one seemed to care. On the back of the Orient defeat and the players losing theirs heads at Huddersfield, it seemed like it was affecting them on the pitch so in that game against West Brom it was a relief to see the players fighting for every ball and not letting their heads drop when they went a goal behind. That performance made me optimistic that maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all but I still didn't think for one minute that we would do as well as we have. Yeah, that sums up my feeling at the time as well. It's very difficult for a manager or coach to show leadership or initiative if their own position is insecure because of turmoil behind the scenes, and players are leaving. I went to the Orient game, and I can remember posting here afterwards that I couldn't see why the players would take any notice of Hughton when Hughton's position looked so temporary and powerless. The situation didn't get resolved particularly quickly either. Hughton was on a caretaker's contract for half the season before Ashley finally decided to take the club off the market and confirm his position. You have to say that Hughton was absolutely the right man for the situation, and it's amazing how he's kept the team focused through it all. I've been waiting for things to go off the rails all season and it hasn't happened.