Cronky

They really miss Fabregas. He gets on the end of chances and his decision-making on the ball is so much quicker and more mature than Diaby, Nasri or Denilson.

I'm enjoying the Tottenham - Arsenal game. It's typical Arsenal, lovely build-up but not enough bite in the penalty area. Hard to predict how this one will go. Bendtner still looks like he's been parachuted in from a completely different side.

I was going by the comments on our performance, not the timing of the goals.

I didn't see the game, but this pattern of a poor first half and then a much better second is too frequent to be a coincidence. My best explanation is that we haven't had a very energetic midfield this season. We don't or can't try and pressure the ball upfield, but instead we funnel back behind the ball and try to defend in our last third of the pitch. As a result, the opposition is able to knock the ball around in relative comfort and we're starved of good possession. However, when the pace slows down a bit in the second half, we're able to get more possession and that extra bit of class that we can bring into the final third of the pitch means that we get the goals that the opposition, in their previous good spell, didn't get. It won't work in the Premiership as it stands, but with a bit more pace and mobility in midfield we should be okay.

We're actually in a good situation with keepers, because we have an experienced, competent man who is coming to the end of his career, able to pass on his know-how to two very promising younger lads who are on the way up and who should be able to take over. I'd agree that it wouldn't be easy or cheap to replace Harper with a better keeper, and in any case the new man wouldn't come here just to keep the seat warm for Krul or Forster. We'd actually be interfering with the career progression of the younger lads if we brought in anyone new. Krul has great agility and reflexes for a keeper his size, but he also looks a bit headstrong and impulsive. Krul may be the better keeper in the longer term, but Forster may be the quicker of the two to develop the necessary composure, and may therefore get the nod first.

I should just ignore this, but how does what he did today change anything? He's been a valuable Championship-standard player all season. If he puts in solid performances next season then feel free to bump this thread and laugh at us, but you are a little premature in calling us all twats. In recent weeks, Nolan has looked far more like a box-to-box player - the type that I remember from Bolton. I remember that last year, he said he was struggling for fitness and without that mobilty, he didn't have much to offer. We still need some pace and energy in that CM area for next season, but Nolan would still have something to offer as a squad player.

I'd say goalkeeper is the position which is least in need of strengthening.

Making a noise while a reporter is trying to talk to camera was possibly a little bit funny the first time it was done. Not now. The other gestures are crude and not at all funny. IMO.

I'm starting to wonder how much football means to him. If it's just a way of achieving a certain lifestyle, he won't make it. He reached a certain point, but hasn't pushed on from it, and there's a lot he still needs to learn about reading the game, and keeping his composure when finishing. It's a shame, because he has talent, but if he doesn't keep progressing, then he'll slip backwards, and he'll just be left with regrets.

My priorities would be - 1) A creative secondary striker in the Beardsley / Bellamy / Gavin Peacock mould. Hard to find but worth shelling out for the right man. 2) An anchor man in midfield who is quicker and more mobile than Nolan or Smith. 3) A centre back who is better than Taylor or Coloccini. 4) A right back who carries more of an attacking threat than Simpson.

Unreasonable expectations, self-pity, anger at the villains who are running the club – that’s widespread among football fans everywhere. The only ones who I don’t understand are the Arsenal fans who criticise Wenger because he hasn’t won a trophy in five years. If I was watching great football in a great stadium with regular appearances in the Champions League, I wouldn’t be complaining.

He's a talent all right, but I was beginning to wonder why he actually seemed to be slipping out of favour, rather than progressing. Hughton seemed to be preparing him for more and more first team action at one stage. Major attitude problems would explain the decline in his standing. I'd hate to see him go, but if he's causing problems behind the scenes then there's no choice.

Good luck to SJH. I always respected him as a straight talker.

we were also on then receiving end when boro played man utd and we played tottenham. we have no cup finals or 'big' games to save players for. the only reason is to give a bit of experience to haris vukic etc. thats not a good enough reason to play with the promotion/relegation of another team. I suppose the issue is - who decides what's a 'good enough reason'? It's a very grey area. It never sits comfortably with me when clubs criticise other clubs for doing something when, in practice, they would do exactly the same if they were in an identical position. You can try and regulate it, but there is another position to take - namely, that clubs will look after their own interests in this kind of situation and you have to accept that. The 'victim' club can complain, but if they'd played well enough in previous games they wouldn't be having to depend on other results. They have to take responsibility for the position they're in, where they are dependent on this kind of luck.

I understand the point about not fielding a weakened side so as to be fair on other teams, but it's always going to happen and it's not something that can be regulated against. If a club is in the Cup Final, with an unimportant league game the week before, are they going to risk their best players? No. We ourselves were on the receiving end when Juve played a weak side in the Champions League, when we were playing Feyenoord. Man U played a weak side against Hull when we were playing Villa. I now see it as just the kind of luck that every team has to deal with throughout the season, in various forms. In any case, how do you distinguish between a club resting a player (OK), taking a precaution with a player who has a niggling injury (OK) and withholding a player so they're fit and fresh for a more important match (not OK)?

As opposed to the Morning Star, which was written by the biggest tits.

Blackpool are a very neat, passing side and they're a threat. With the pressure to play safe and produce results, it's so difficult for a manager to give younger players their chance in the first team. I'd definitely use the opportunity to give Ranger, Kadar and Krul some games. It wouldn't weaken the team by much (if at all) and besides, now we're promoted it's job done as far as I'm concerned.

Can i just say, if we're depending on a few core players like Harper, Nolan and Carroll then we're f**ked. That article isn't informative in the least. Actually, i might doing it a disservice, he's writing for the broader public not diehard Newcastle fans who know the realities. Not going to go into the merits or not of the players you mention - I don't see them as often as you lot do - but surely, for any team which is newly promoted, you have to do precisely that - pick a core group of players, and rely on them. The alternative is assembling an entirely new nucleus to your squad, which is just infeasbile - both in terms of the time you have got to do it (especially with a World Cup in the summer distracting the usual business of football transfers) but also in terms of how much it would cost (unless you're Man City). Surely the clever thing to do is pick one or two areas where you can improve, at a decent price, and do that? No point throwing the baby out with the bath water. I understand your point however, Harper might be ok but Nolan doesn't do nearly enough often enough at the level he's playing at now and Carroll isn't of a calibre (yet) that we can rely on to score against Prem defences. If the jorno had said, Jonas, Barton, Enrique, and Collocini (question marks over how he'll adapt) then i could have understood his point. The 4 i've mentioned actually have the ability to play at a decent level in the Prem, 2 out of 3 he picked don't. In fairness, the article was about Hughton and what he's contributed, not about the overall quality of the players. Most of the articles we see are either patronising (isn't it great to see all the wonderful, jolly Geordies back in the Premiership) or hostile (all those mindless Geordies with their ridiculously high expectations of their club) It's good to read something that's sensible and (I think) sincere.

I know it's the Daily Star, but that's the best appraisal of Hughton that I've read. The word that Hughton himself uses a lot is 'focus', and that's been the key to his success. It seems to me that all successful managers create some kind of shield around their team, which protects them from the pressure, both positive and negative, that comes from the fans and the media. The players go out on the pitch relaxed and concentrating on the job in hand, not worried or over-excited. Different managers do it in different ways, but the end result is the same ie the team goes out focused on the manager's plan and not on all the other voices. Despite getting promoted with six games to go, we have not been playing the best football. For the most part, we have been grinding out results with a tactical plan that has made best use of the players available. It's been said that we've had the advantage of a Premiership standard squad but I don't think that's true. There's been a serious lack of pace and mobility in the side, but we've managed to get over that. I really mean this as praise for Hughton, because the sign of a good manager is over-achieving on limited resources. I've been a doubter in the past, but I'm intrigued now to see what the bloke can do with a bit of money to spend on the players that he feels the team needs to improve. The January window only gave him limited scope, so he's not really had the chance to do that yet.

And true. The poor lad's limitations were shown up big time.

Yes, a lot of people should be more careful about what they write, and I don't think any of us are without sin here. However, Ms Taylor and many of her colleagues are the very last ones who should be wagging a finger.

It was daft letting Rooney make the decision. He was never going to volunteer to come off. Yeah but when you make a decision to start with a player and see how he goes, you need him to let you know how he's feeling. It did become obvious he was uncomfortable but if he tells you he's feeling alright, you have to believe him. Well, you can give him a chance, but it was obvious Rooney was holding something back. Sometimes a manager has to over-rule his player. A sprained ankle isn't going to be completely right after a week. You may be able to run on it, but it's still going to be looser than it should be, and therefore vulnerable. Once he aggravated it, there was no going back.

Utter bollocks that like. It's a mandatory yellow card, and the reason players generally don't get them for that is because they're not stupid enough to do it when already on a yellow. Are you saying you've never seen a ref be a bit more lenient when it comes to deciding on a second yellow?

It was daft letting Rooney make the decision. He was never going to volunteer to come off.

The sending off was crucial. It was the sort of foul that usually gets a first yellow card, but often doesn't get a second. I know that technically the ref was right, but many players in that situation just get a final warning. So to that extent, they were a bit unlucky. Fergie is usually bold with his decisions, but I thought he left Rooney on for too long. It felt like a negative decision, like he had no faith in the alternatives. The decision to start him came off, but after he twinged his ankle in the first half, he wasn't able to give 100%.