Cronky

But surely players have to be prepared to adapt for the sake of the team. You can't expect everything to be set up to suit you. If you look at yesterday, several players were arguably 'out of position' - Martins was wide, Owen was deep, Barton was on the left, and even Faye has said he prefers to be in the midfield. Nobody's complaining now about players being 'out of position' simply because the team as a whole is getting results. Zoggy seems unwilling / unable to adapt. He could be a useful left back, but his concentration and commitment is poor. He could play inside or further forward, but he doesn't seem to have the brain.

With Geremi's corners, I felt he was always aiming for the near post, which inevitably meant that most didn't beat the first defender. I didn't feel he had much choice there, because Portsmouth are so strong in the air that anything else would have got eaten up by Campbell, Distin or James.

When they played for him maybe but Barton, Enrique, Viduka, Beye and Faye cant really be classed as underachievers at the moment. Well exactly. Five of his signings started yesterday, and one came on as a sub. He didn't spend a lot of money compared with our competitors, but overall he spent well. The only one IMO who turned out to be an outright mistake was Rozenhal. Please don't start on me with Smith. Let's just say opinions differ.

An even game, but I thought we had the edge and were going to nick it. Viduka struggled to get involved. With the new system, he seemed to have to drop deeper, but really he does all his best work around the penalty area. The three midfield players all did well. They seem to find a lot more time and space in the 4-3-3. Glen Johnson caused us quite a few problems. I'd really like to have seen him come here, because he's a talent that was always going to come good at some stage.

I agree with that as well. The main problem with Zoggy is between his ears. He's a good player who could be very good if he applies himself. He thinks he's a great player who hasn't been recognised yet.

I pretty much agree with that. In terms of pure talent, better than both is Kazenga Lua Lua. Let's bring him on.

Gazza's free kick, Spurs v Arsenal, FA Cup semi-final 1991. Unbelievable power and accuracy.

The 4-4-2 that we were playing, with Owen as an off the shoulder striker, was failing. Keegan improved the team performance greatly with a switch of formation and a new role for Owen. I was one who didn't think Owen could adapt. He's done better than I'd expected, but the quality of his individual performances - as with most things to do with Owen - have been exaggerated somewhat. Let's at least wait till the end of the season before reaching an assessment.

On reflection, the thing that really bothers me about the Owen situation is the way his reputation is greater than his ability. He's still a good player, but not 'world class'. It feels like a repeat of Shearer's last 2 or 3 seasons, where he seemed to have an undroppable status and team selection and long term planning seemed to be fitting in around him rather than the other way round. It's tricky, because he would need replacing, but what we'd be looking for is someone to fulfil his current role. I don't think his future now lies as an out and out striker.

As with any job, your salary is determined by what sort of competition there is for your services. In Owen's case, we're paying him Big 4 wages, but the Big 4 don't want him. It's a team game, and if players see that someone is being overpaid, then long-term you could have a problem.

I don't think he's worth the money we're paying him. I'd let his contract run down, and begin the search for a replacement.

I'd say Rooney. No matter how long you've been watching football, something new always comes along. I don't think I've ever seen a player who's that powerful, but who's still got such a fine touch on the ball.

I think there's a question mark about Taylor's temperament. He's had the experience now to develop confidence as a defender, but if anything he seems more nervous and indecisive than ever.

The penalty was fair enough I thought. A lot of these quick shoves and tugs at the back are going on, not to bring a player down necessarily but to slow them down. Kuyt got away with it in the first leg, Toure didn't, and that's the only difference.

Arsenal were just overpowered in the end. Shame, because I think they deserve something from this season.

I heard a variation on this theme (from Arsenal fans) that Wenger didn't go in for Owen because Henry can't/won't tolerate competition for places or not being the "hero" upfront (he even had a massive falling out with Zidane over this issue, I've heard). Essentially what I heard was that Wenger was interested (in 2005) but there would be a problem with Henry if another similar striker was brought in. I suspect Wenger didn't go for Owen for the same reason as the other big four managers - better options available.

Keegan does worry me. Is he talking about Henry as he is now, or Henry as he was 2 years ago, when he last watched football on a regular basis?

This. I'm not so sure. Looking at Zoggy, he ought to be able to do roles other than winger or full back in a 4-4-2. But from what I've seen, whenever he's been switched inside and given a freer role, he just sinks without trace. It's like he can't cope when he has more initiative and responsibility.

I'd say Faye, because he's far and away our best central defender, and that's a vital position. A close second is Martins, which is something I wouldn't have expected to say a few weeks ago. He's not the most subtle of players, but he's been making a real pest of himself and that's opened things up for us. We don't have any other strikers with pace.

Zoggy doesn't fit in with the 4-3-3. I've not heard any rumours about a row. There is a rumour about a swap deal with Lennon.

I agree with Dave. We pretty much know what Taylor can do. He's a strong lad but a bit of a camel. Edgar's got a bit more class about him and this is a good opportunity to test him out more.

A very good article on this subject from Gabriele Marchotti in the Times today - From The TimesApril 7, 2008 4-4-2 exits through the evolving door Gabriele Marcotti As footballing creeds go, it is entrenched. It is what most play when they first engage in organised football. It is the first option in most video-games. And there is even a football magazine by that name. But the 4-4-2 formation is in serious danger of going the way of telephone booths, VCRs and shops that repair electric kettles. Obsolescence beckons. Of the eight quarter-finalists in the Champions League, two employ a 4-4-2 formation: Schalke 04 and Arsenal. I am being generous in the case of the North London team: it is the formation that they would have used all season if Robin van Persie had been fit. In fact, with Van Persie out they have often used Emmanuel Adebayor on his own up front. Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, once told me that it was the most “rational” scheme because “it is the most efficient way of covering the greatest percentage of the pitch”. Most of his counterparts evidently do not see it that way. At Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard uses three up front. Chelsea and Liverpool employ a lone striker with two wide men. Zico, the Fenerbahçe coach, uses a variation of the one-striker system, with the support men being more central. AS Roma and Manchester United (even when Carlos Tévez and Wayne Rooney play together down the middle) effectively have no fixed front men, relying on constant movement to attack from different areas of the pitch. However you want to define the varying systems, one thing is clear: the old footballing bread-and-butter of two fully-fledged strikers (usually one big and strong, the other quick and agile) down the middle is getting more difficult to find at the highest level. Obviously, there is no “right” formation in football. It all depends on the players at your disposal, their characteristics and how well they execute and understand the manager’s system. And so it would appear to make sense that part of the reason we no longer see many teams attacking with two strikers is that forwards have changed. Exhibit A seems to be the gradual disappearance of the traditional target man: tall, strong, good in the air and a fixture in the opposition’s penalty area. The “gold standard” today are players such as Didier Drogba, Ruud van Nistelrooy, David Trezeguet and Luca Toni. All of them are 30 or older. With a few exceptions, such as Mario Gomez, of VfB Stuttgart, who is 22, there are no heirs apparent. True, there are still tall, strong strikers, but they are more in the mould of Adebayor or Fernando Torres, players who are also mobile and quick. Because they provide pace and power, they are comfortable playing up front on their own, unlike the players cited above, most of whom (with the exception of Drogba and perhaps Van Nistelrooy) are more productive with a teammate nearby. The genetic development of players is probably what has done most to eradicate the two-striker scheme. As players become bigger and quicker, they fill more of the pitch. Teams defend higher up and as a result the space in which to play shrinks. A side-effect is that it is easier for midfield players to get into the penalty area as pace and stamina improve. It is not a coincidence that players such as Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and Cristiano Ronaldo are so prolific; they have the physical tools to get into the area far more than their counterparts a generation ago. And so, if your midfield players can effectively double as strikers when you have possession, many managers reckon that there is no point playing two up front. Better to have an extra man in the middle of the park, where games are won and lost. This is especially true when it comes to strikers who are one-dimensional and do not offer much in terms of workrate, movement or creativity (which is, largely, the case of the frontmen cited above). Best to hand a slot to an attacking midfield player instead. All of this heralds a new frontier and, taken to its logical conclusion, it raises the question of why have strikers at all. Why not, rather than three banks of players, employ only two: defence and midfield? Carlos Alberto Parreira, the former Brazil coach, foreshadowed this in a memorable speech some years ago. You could argue that United and Roma are leading the way in that direction. Two strikers are (nearly) dead as a concept. Some are turning their back on even the lone striker. Football continues to evolve. Until the next big idea surfaces

However highly you might rate Henry's footballing skills, he's not a team player and he's not a leader. That's not part of the package that he'd offer.

He looks like a very thorough professional who gets absorbed in the details of preparation. Keegan's a bit more gung-ho, so the two of them probably form a good balance.

He's a player that's got way too big for his boots. Arsenal did well to get rid of him, and it hasn't harmed them. Barca seem to have slipped back since his arrival. Not very promising. You sense he's the sort that can turn a good side into a great one, not a moderate side into a good one, which is what we need.