Cronky

Has to be. Is still over-rated. In second place, Shearer in his last two seasons.

I'd go for - Cech Bosingwa Terry Carvalho Evra Essien Vieira Gerrard Henry Torres Rooney

Definitely an exceptional player, but Messi looks destined to be one of the all-time greats. Up there with the likes of Maradona and Cruyff.

I know that Wenger has been under fire from the Gooners for not buying a new DM, but it looks like Wenger knew he was nursing a gem in Song. He's a young player who naturally struggled at first in what is usually a position for an experienced player, but now he's arrived. An essential quality in any good manager is the ability to completely ignore the views of most fans. I don't know about Essien and Mascherano, but Song looks better than Barry or Carrick were at 22.

I'm not sure what to make of Beckford. He's developed a good reputation, but he's still stuck in League 1. Is he a bit of an under-acheiver, content to be a big fish in a small pond? Is there something wrong with his attitude that has put bigger clubs off? I don't know, but I quite like the idea of seeing Beckford and Ranger operating together. Two good athletes who could really stretch a defence.

I've been very impressed with Song this season. It looks like Wenger has sorted out his DM problem. Portsmouth weren't that bad. It's frightening how good Arsenal could become, if they can play that well with no physical presence up front, and without their best midfield player.

Please just start walking the walk, Joey.

it's in his book I think. Shepherd said he couldn't. Is the right answer. Shepherd said that he was the 'crown jewels' and the public would basically go beserk. And that was the turning point. Effectively the captain became more powerful than the manager and an important decision about the team was made for other than footballing reasons.

Neither have I and I'm Scottish. That makes me feel old. He was actually a very good full back. No idea about him as a coach though.

In the other thread, I put him as our best player of the decade. He transformed us from mid-table strugglers to a Champions League side, and when he left, things never recovered. Simple as that. Exasperating sod with a self-centred streak, but he lifted the whole team. His last comment is interesting. I've always felt that when we kept Shearer and got rid of Robson, we got it the wrong way round.

1)BEST TOON DEFENDER FROM THE LAST DECADE Woodgate, no contest 2) BEST MIDFIELDER At his best, Dyer, but it shows we’ve not been blessed in this area. 3) BEST STRIKER Bellamy. Shearer wasn't quite the same player after his injury against Everton. 4) BEST OVERALL PLAYER Bellamy 5) BEST MANAGER Sir Bob 6) MOST DISAPPOINTING PLAYER Boumsong. He never looked the part, right from the start. 7) WE SHOULD HAVE SIGNED... Of the realistic possibilities, Anelka 8) WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE LET GO... Dyer 9) BEST HOME GAME 4-3 v Man Utd 10) BEST AWAY / NEUTRAL GAME 4-3 v Leeds 11) WORST GAME 0-1 to Wigan reserves in the League Cup. We showed neither skill nor spirit. 12) BEST GOAL SCORED Shearer v Everton, the volley from 30 yards. It produced my loudest yell of the decade 13) WORST GOAL CONCEDED Don’t know. I think I’ve blanked them all out. 15) BEST HAIRCUT Ranger 16) WORST HAIRCUT Jonas 17) BEST LOOKING PLAYER Robert 18) UGLIEST PLAYER Acuna 19) DIRTIEST PLAYER For sheer consistency, Smith has it over Barton. One mean hombre. 20) BEST STARTING XI OF THE DECADE Given Beye Faye Woodgate Bernard Solano Speed Jenas Dyer Bellamy Shearer 21) PREDICTIONS FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS - MORE /LESS / EQUALLY SUCCESSFUL Less, unless some rich Sheikh takes an interest in us. 22) IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING FROM THE LAST DECADE Tell Shearer in 2003 that he was going to be a squad player, and if he didn’t like it, he could go. Keeping him as a first team regular right up to the point of retirement was a very costly error.

I can't recall a better finisher than Torres. There was only one place he could have stuck that ball and he found it.

Bellamy, deffo.

My mishtake. Because he's only been signed till the end of the season, it feels like he's very much on trial, as with many loan players. Lua Lua has talent to burn, so I can only assume that he's been held back because his reading of the game and decision-making is still immature. If I remember right, that is something of a family trait.

He seems limited in the sense that while he's got pace, his ball control isn't great. That's why he's on loan to a Championship side instead of playing at a higher level. Our other options also have their limitations though. Taylor hits a good, dead ball but doesn't offer much else. Guthrie is skilful but is too slow to really have an impact out wide, and often gets muscled off the ball. I was hoping that Lua Lua would emerge as an option this season, but his development seems to have halted.

Nope, I think his delivery was good and he offers genuine width. His miss was a shocker though. Enough to make the eyes bleed. Oh aye. An absolute sitter. Some footballers really surprise me when they choose the lower corner or they shoot straight at the kepper during 1-on-1 situations. The better players can chip the ball slightly and put it over the keeper's body. A shot on the ground quite often hits an outstretched leg or something as the keeper spreads himself.

I know I'm only picking up on a small amount of your post but I thought Smith & Nolan were both diabolical tonight. Their midfield had 60 yards of free space in front of them every time they broke from the back. A 7 was generous for Nolan, probably - but not for Smith i'd say. Derby hardly came here to attack but Smith breaks up the play so well in this division and actually generates some forward momentum. He's meant to play deep - the full-backs have a chance to overlap and he passes the ball in a forward direction. It's good retaining of possession. I honestly don't know what role Nolan plays. "The guy who scores quite a bit" is about the only label i can give him. I thought Smith was appalling when they were playing down our right hand side in the first half and 3 of them were playing triangles around R Taylor and Simpson, but Smith still refused to leave the D on the edge of the 18 yard box to help out or break up those attacks. He is primarily responsible for the fact that we sit too deep and invite teams on because he himself sits too deep when the opposition have the ball. Whether that's as a result of instructions he's been given or a choice he's making himself is another matter though. I don't think Smith has much choice. He's not got the legs to chase the ball further upfield so he stays in position. It looks to me that it is just part of the overall strategy for our rather immobile midfield to get behind the ball and snuff out attacks when they reach the penalty area. In nearly every game I've seen, the opposition has had plenty of possession, time and space - they just don't usually have the ability to take advantage. I'm not very confident about Guthrie and don't see him as the answer. He's skilful but struggles under any kind of physical challenge and when pressured. Barton can give us the boost we need. Is there any news about him? In the Premier League perhaps, but even Smith & Nolan have their uses a level down. I was expecting Guthrie to really come into his own at this lower level, but I feel he's been a real disappointment so far. Obviously he's been shunted out wide, which doesn't help, but he's so easily bullied off the ball and I can see why Hughton hasn't wanted to risk him in the middle. Nolan v Guthrie is a difficult choice rather than an obvious one, I reckon.

This would be a very empty forum if it only contained viewpoints that could be proven. Shearer has status with a lot of fans and gets cut a lot of slack. You can disagree, but it's not exactly an outrageous opinion with no foundation.

I know I'm only picking up on a small amount of your post but I thought Smith & Nolan were both diabolical tonight. Their midfield had 60 yards of free space in front of them every time they broke from the back. A 7 was generous for Nolan, probably - but not for Smith i'd say. Derby hardly came here to attack but Smith breaks up the play so well in this division and actually generates some forward momentum. He's meant to play deep - the full-backs have a chance to overlap and he passes the ball in a forward direction. It's good retaining of possession. I honestly don't know what role Nolan plays. "The guy who scores quite a bit" is about the only label i can give him. I thought Smith was appalling when they were playing down our right hand side in the first half and 3 of them were playing triangles around R Taylor and Simpson, but Smith still refused to leave the D on the edge of the 18 yard box to help out or break up those attacks. He is primarily responsible for the fact that we sit too deep and invite teams on because he himself sits too deep when the opposition have the ball. Whether that's as a result of instructions he's been given or a choice he's making himself is another matter though. I don't think Smith has much choice. He's not got the legs to chase the ball further upfield so he stays in position. It looks to me that it is just part of the overall strategy for our rather immobile midfield to get behind the ball and snuff out attacks when they reach the penalty area. In nearly every game I've seen, the opposition has had plenty of possession, time and space - they just don't usually have the ability to take advantage. I'm not very confident about Guthrie and don't see him as the answer. He's skilful but struggles under any kind of physical challenge and when pressured. Barton can give us the boost we need. Is there any news about him?

Depends on whether the performances had been the same Come on now. He'd be hailed as a tactical genius for getting results from such a poor set of players.

We have an experienced but rather immobile midfield, and as a result we don't often pressure the ball when the opposition have possession. We concentrate instead on getting behind the ball and in position to defend. Today, as usual, the opposition had plenty of time and space in which to play the ball around, were able to pressure us quite effectively, and came out the better in most of the 50-50 skirmishes. We're relying on the fact that the opposition can't take their chances and we have the class to put away the ones that come our way. Today, that didn't happen for us, but most of the time, it does. Barton would improve things. For all the goals that Nolan chips in, he's very poor in possession and often either gives it away or slows the attack down.

I see the point there... but if we went up under Hughton and a manager of Mark Hughes' calibre expressed an interest in the job - it'd be a huge mistake not to bring him in. Aye he hasn't broken records anywhere yet, but he's a proven manager in this league and some would say a very good one at that. A far greater catch for incoming players, too. Aye it would potentially upset some of the harmony in the dressing room, but the majority in this squad shouldn't be regarded as key players next season if we go up anyway. The whole point of getting promotion would be to rebuild; start again. I totally understand what you're saying, but football is different to your average workplace. We've made these sort of mistakes before and it's cost us. I've got some doubts about the long-term consequences of coaches becoming managers, but the decision about whether to replace Hughton is different from a kind of theoretical discussion about whether manager X, Y or Z is a 'better' manager than him. For the first time in many years, we have a Chairman and Manager working together, a Manager working well with the team, and a united dressing room. I'd be very wary of upsetting that applecart, because we're going to need it if and when we go up. Even with some new players coming in, we're going to be one of the bottom half of the table strugglers, and we can't afford too much disruption. One thing I like about Hughton is he's always given the message that it's a privilege and great opportunity for him to manage the club. We need to attract players who are going to feel the same way. Most of our managers say that though. 'Saying' something and 'giving the message' aren't quite the same thing. Hughton's words rang true for me because they were backed up by his actions and his attitude. We've recently had a manager who quit after the transfer window had ended, when he was over-ruled over a loan signing, and then tried to take the club for £25 million after 5 months work. Another one would only take the job if his terms and conditions were met, despite the fact that his record while in charge was dire. These guys might have made all the right noises and been heroes in most people's eyes, but they were giving the message that it was some great privilege for the club to have them as a manager, rather than the other way round. The quote in my signature suggests otherwise. Well, like I said, he made the right noises.

Picking Harewood feels like a negative decision. It's important that we still try to improve and don't get into a mind-set where we're scared to take a risk in case we spoil our chances of promotion. I just see him as a clumsy player with a poor first touch. We should look to do better.

I see the point there... but if we went up under Hughton and a manager of Mark Hughes' calibre expressed an interest in the job - it'd be a huge mistake not to bring him in. Aye he hasn't broken records anywhere yet, but he's a proven manager in this league and some would say a very good one at that. A far greater catch for incoming players, too. Aye it would potentially upset some of the harmony in the dressing room, but the majority in this squad shouldn't be regarded as key players next season if we go up anyway. The whole point of getting promotion would be to rebuild; start again. I totally understand what you're saying, but football is different to your average workplace. We've made these sort of mistakes before and it's cost us. I've got some doubts about the long-term consequences of coaches becoming managers, but the decision about whether to replace Hughton is different from a kind of theoretical discussion about whether manager X, Y or Z is a 'better' manager than him. For the first time in many years, we have a Chairman and Manager working together, a Manager working well with the team, and a united dressing room. I'd be very wary of upsetting that applecart, because we're going to need it if and when we go up. Even with some new players coming in, we're going to be one of the bottom half of the table strugglers, and we can't afford too much disruption. One thing I like about Hughton is he's always given the message that it's a privilege and great opportunity for him to manage the club. We need to attract players who are going to feel the same way. Most of our managers say that though. 'Saying' something and 'giving the message' aren't quite the same thing. Hughton's words rang true for me because they were backed up by his actions and his attitude. We've recently had a manager who quit after the transfer window had ended, when he was over-ruled over a loan signing, and then tried to take the club for £25 million after 5 months work. Another one would only take the job if his terms and conditions were met, despite the fact that his record while in charge was dire. These guys might have made all the right noises and been heroes in most people's eyes, but they were giving the message that it was some great privilege for the club to have them as a manager, rather than the other way round.

That was actually tried many years ago as an experiment in something like the FIFA World Under-18 cup. I'd assume it was dropped for the obvious reason. That players would simply lump the ball into the box, thereby bringing about the very thing that Wenger wants to prevent.