Cronky

I don't think Souness was the only reason for our decline, by any means. Also, with both Liverpool and us, he took over clubs at a bad time, but having said that, I think there's a flaw in his man management skills which regularly gets exposed when the going gets tough. So definitely not. It exasperates me that half the time we're talking about stability, and the other half we're talking about changing the manager yet again. This has been such a traumatic season, on and off the field, that we can't judge Kinnear at this point. He's been firefighting, and providing he still has the support of the dressing room, he should be given a summer transfer window and another season to show what he can do. Hardly a bad time was it. This is a bad time. Two different kinds of bad time. With Souness, he was taking over teams that had already peaked and were just starting to decline. A bit of rebuilding was needed but expectations were still high and a manager in that situation is under a lot of pressure. In some ways, it's easier on the new man to take over a club at the bottom where the only way is up. Trouble is, I'm not sure that any manager taking over our club is spared the problem of high expectations.

Given had been grumbling about the club periodically for some time before, but I reckon what made the difference in January was that he was offered a megabucks deal by Man City. He knew that if he didn't take the offer then and there, there was a good chance that City would have been signing Buffon or some other big name in the summer. For him, it was now or never.

I don't think Souness was the only reason for our decline, by any means. Also, with both Liverpool and us, he took over clubs at a bad time, but having said that, I think there's a flaw in his man management skills which regularly gets exposed when the going gets tough. So definitely not. It exasperates me that half the time we're talking about stability, and the other half we're talking about changing the manager yet again. This has been such a traumatic season, on and off the field, that we can't judge Kinnear at this point. He's been firefighting, and providing he still has the support of the dressing room, he should be given a summer transfer window and another season to show what he can do.

There was a story about a year ago, about Mourinho getting involved in some kind of a skirmish at his child's school, I seem to recall. Perhaps he's either got a very short fuse, or he thinks he can get away with it.

Ibrahimovic caused Man U a lot of problems, I thought. That kind of gangly player is never going to be a great finisher, but he does a lot of good work none the less. But Rooney - yet again, what a player. The way he drew defenders to him and then plonked the ball right in the danger area for the second goal was just brilliant. Not spectacular, but brilliant.

This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. The kind of situation that I was talking about, and which Leeds exemplifies, is where a club is funding players by going into debt to levels which can only be sustained if the expenditure leads to success on the pitch and therefore greater income. I don’t think the clubs that you’ve cited there have done that. You mention Villa, but their new owner has only been able to spend because the previous owner avoided saddling the club with large amounts of debt. The problem for Ashley is that he’s inherited a club whose previous business strategy was more on the Leeds line (although not as bad, of course)

This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic.

It looks a bit grim, but I think he owes us at least one more season. We gave him his chance on the bigger stage.

Ashley? That's a good point, but hopefully Ashley has learned his lesson. I think Indi has put it well though. It's why I've never been convinced about the idea of a fans' representative sitting on the Board, with this or any other football club.

So why is he performing so poorly. I wouldn't say he was, from what I've seen. He's not very strong, so he does lose the ball more than some other strikers, but on the other hand he can find passes that really open up a defence. Ultimately the acid test is how the team is doing, and at the moment I'm sure Fergie isn't complaining.

Fergie was prepared to pay over the odds for Berbatov because the one thing his side lacked was a skilful centre-forward type of striker. He completed their jigsaw.

Smith at least has the ability to pass the ball forward quickly, on the deck, into the path of a forward player. Butt takes longer to control the ball, and the pass is more likely to be sideways or back. If it goes forward, it is usually slightly behind the player (because Butt wants to play it safe) and the other man has to check his run. The momentum of the attack is lost and everyone starts to receive the ball under pressure. Other specialities are the lofted diagonal ball or the tiny prod to a player who is tightly marked, both of which put his team-mates in trouble. Butt is the better tackler, and gets through a lot of work, but he's not a player who spreads confidence through the side.

I thought Taylor's second follow-up challenge on (I think) the full back was worse than the charge on Ronaldo. He was lucky not to get sent off. It was just completely brainless, as though we're not in enough trouble as it is. If he must nobble people, Shearer should take him in hand and show him how to do it with a bit of subtlety.

Martins looked a lot sharper and fitter and that made a big difference. He and Lovenkrands looked a decent combination because you have one striker who likes the advanced position and another who plays back a bit. It would be a mistake to break them up to accommodate Owen - unfortunately it's one I can see us making. It also helped that in Smith and Geremi you had two CM's who were comfortable on the ball. We were able to get the ball forward quickly, on the deck, and so our strikers were able to get the ball in a bit of space. If we play with that spirit and confidence, we'll be safe. My only concern is that we weren't under any pressure, being expected to lose, and it might be a different story against the less fancied sides. We've got to approach each game in that frame of mind.

Possibly George Best. He didn't really need one though, because he could do everything himself. Of current players, Ashley Young would be a good candidate.

It's about decision-making - reacting to every situation in the way that's going to do most harm to the opposition, even if that means doing something quite unorthodox. Kenny Dalglish had a fantastic football brain. Every time he got on the ball, he seemed to do just the right thing with it. Sometimes talented players don't possess the best football intelligence, because they can hang on to the ball too long.

I agree completely on this, and it's a real problem. The most experienced players - Butt, Owen, Geremi, Colo - seem too quiet to be good leaders. The Bolton goal would have been prevented with a bit of communication and initiative. Instead we have hesitation and people leaving it to others to take responsibility.

The way I see it NUSC are a pressure group. If the people running the club aren't satisfying the fan base, then it's the place of the NUSC to apply pressure to them. The NUSC don't have to have a viable alternative, money to pay the bills or any magic solution. In the same way as Greenpeace aren't in the game of providing fuel alternatives. At last, a supporter of NUSC who's honest enough to admit what they really are and not try to pretend that they're a genuine supporters' club!! Well done Happy, I admire your honesty. I disagree with you, but at least you're honest about it. You're wrong about Greenpeace and all by the way. The analogy with Greenpeace would only work if they were only saying that they want the world to be 'a better place', or something like that. Greenpeace are quite clear what changes they want to see.

I thought KK being talked into letting Milner go and no replacement (we know now the monies isn't due till July) was the final straw. Could be wrong. I guess you are wrong, according to KK's statement via the League Managers Association, which I think I'm right in saying is the only thing we've heard from the Keegan camp. It said that a manager cannot be expected to manage if the club insists on signing players that he doesn't want. The rather unsettling thing about the comment is its vagueness. It doesn't exclude the possibility that he's talking about being pressured to agree to signings, and not about signings taking place without his consent.

It's an interesting read, but it says as much about NUSC as about Llambias. The whole tone of the reporting is very snide, and if they're wanting to build bridges with the new regime, that won't have helped. I thought it was quite funny the way they demand openness from Llambias about quite detailed matters such as transfers, but when it comes to their own standpoint, they're completely evasive. All they stand for is 'change' - could that be any more vague? They also demand truthfulness from Llambias, but their declaration that they're not an Anti-Ashley organisation is more than a bit dishonest. Some bit of half-light was shed on what for me is the constant mystery at the heart of the Keegan resignation - ie what player or players were foisted on him against his will. Like many, I'd thought that Xisco was the obvious candidate, but Keegan had met him earlier in the day, and there now seems to be a clear message from Llambias that Keegan had agreed to the transfer. Really that only leaves Gonzalez, which does suggest that Keegan was spoiling for a fight.

From experience, going down is a bad feeling. However, once the team started to move forward, albeit in the lower division, everyone got behind them again. Momentum is very important in generating enthusiasm. The bad bit about lower division football is that you disappear from the national radar a bit. All the attention is on the top division, and nobody seems to care what's happening underneath. Promotion is a lovely feeling though - not that I'd want to experience it again. Hopefully we'll have other things to feel happy about in the future.

I don't find your separation of ability, skill and technique particularly convincing tbh. For me, one of the fascinations of football is that every player is different and unique, just like every character is different. They are all a particular blend of various abilities and attitudes. Starting off from an idea that, underneath, they're basically the same doesn't feel right to me. No matter how long you've followed the game, there's always something new. Rooney is a prime example of a player with a unique set of qualities, regardless of how highly you rate him.

Yeah, for much of the game today, we were either incapable or unwilling to pass the ball through the midfield. It was only in the last half hour, when Bolton stopped pushing forward, that we kept the ball on the deck. It's important because Shola isn't good in the air, despite his height, and we keep possession far more easily when we play the ball into his feet. The absence of both Guthrie and Barton is hitting us hard in this respect.

Well quite a few times, he did link the attack together. I'm not saying he had a good game, but he made some kind of a contribution. Martins, on the other hand, just couldn't get involved at all. His control of a football is as bad as I've seen from a professional player, but he gets away with it because he's so quick and strong that when the ball pings away from his feet, he can usually get to it before an opponent. Today, he wasn't up to full fitness, and it just wasn't the same player at all. There was no fire and no confidence. But apparently, some people are so keen to knock Shola that he even gets the blame for other players' poor performances.

Martins had a shite game fair enough but he's always likely to pop up with a wonder strike. Taking him off was madness. Why wasn't taking Ameobi off a choice like?? I know what you mean, but Martins didn't look sharp enough to get that yard of space to get a shot in. Martins' game is all about athleticism, and if that's not there, then he's really not offering anything. Shola's never going to be a good finisher, but at least he can link the attack together. I don't think any of the defenders did well, but Butt's job is to protect the back four and prevent them from having to commit themselves. He was in a position to do that, but didn't, for some reason. It was a really awful goal, because we had plenty of players back, but not actually doing anything. I don't think it's about coaching or systems. More about players taking responsibility.