Cronky

You're describing the team there, coincidence? I'm inclined to think that when the team plays well, so does Butt, rather than the other way round. He's never struck me as one for rallying the troops and turning a poor performance round, although with his experience and in his role, he ought to be a leader.

I've not seen him recently, but he's always looked like a game little bugger who would cope with the Premiership despite his size. Providing his form hasn't deteriorated spectacularly, I'd take a punt. He could be our Beardsley.

Having doubts about Keegan was an entirely sensible position IMO. We'd gone 8 games without a win, and he hadn't shown any signs of the imagination needed to make changes and turn things around. Credit to him, he then hit on a new formation that's got us moving back up again, but it's all had a bit of a trial and error feel to it. He's also had the advantage of a relatively injury-free squad. Previous managers haven't been quite as lucky.

Whilst most of what you say might be right (and hopefully will be) its far too early to judge. 3 starts in the first team! And the bit in bold doesn't apply to yesterday as he was continually just humping the ball forward aimlessly. The bit you highlighted is the bit I feel most sure about. For a centre back, he's quite classy on the ball. The area of doubt for me is whether he's tough enough, mentally and physically, to do the other jobs of a Premiership centre back. Unlike, say, Ramage, I think he might well be, but we'll only find out if he's given the chance against good opposition. It's difficult to give young centre backs a chance, because it's such a crucial position, but we've got the opportunity now. Taylor has slipped backwards this season. He actually looks less confident than before, and hasn't developed that kind of commanding presence that you look for in a centre back. For me, he just hasn't shown enough to have his place in the side protected.

Ashley hasn't spent over £200 million on a football club, just so that he can watch them pissing around in the bottom half of the table. Assuming we stay up, I'm sure there'll be money available.

Re Edgar - as others have said, you expect a young player, who's been given his 'big chance', to be a bit nervous. But from what I've seen of him, he's strong and quick enough to make the grade, and just needs to be given the experience. There are no guarantees, but at some stage, with a young player, you have to make that sort of judgement. With us being pretty much safe now, and no place in Europe to fight for, it's an opportunity to give Edgar his chance. Taylor is stalling on his contract, and hasn't impressed this season. What I like about Edgar is his ability on the ball. Unlike Taylor, he's comfortable in possession and can pass. With the way the game is developing, there's more emphasis on skill throughout the side, and Edgar has it.

I'm pretty sure that, long term, Edgar is a better bet than Taylor. I'd keep him in.

I disagree. I think he'll do okay. And besides, if not now, when?

Even when he was struggling, he's always looked positive and never hid. I'd agree that we'll see his true worth next season.

Oops! Ummm...... kind of half right though? Keegan has changed the way we're playing from an orthodox 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3, and that's turned things round. What I got wrong - and others were thinking the same way - was the idea that Owen couldn't play in a 4-3-3.

Ouch! We have a winner.

Any system can be played flexibly or inflexibly, but 4-3-3 is naturally a bit more loose. In a usual 4-4-2, if you look at the midfield and attack, only two positions are really flexible - the more withdrawn striker and the more attacking central midfield player. That's how we played in 96, with Beardsley and Rob Lee. With 4-3-3, there are four floating roles - the two wider / deeper strikers and the two wider / more advanced midfield players.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others. We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players. more fluid players........for now I do love a bit of optimism.

The player I misjudged most badly was Chris Waddle. He looked absolutely terrible when I first saw him, and I wondered how he'd ever been taken on as a professional, let alone got a place in the first team. And this was in the old Second Division. He was slow and lost the ball within a second of getting it every time. Honestly, if anyone had told me then that he was going to win 60 England caps, I'd have called for the men in the white coats.

It's sad, because he's been cut down by injury at the point when his career was really starting to take off. I'm sure if he'd stayed fit, he's have been a permanent fixture in the England team as a defensive midfield player by now.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others. We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players.

In recent times, I couldn't see Viduka, Martins and Owen working as a combination. I'm still not sure in the long-term, but it's certainly arrested the slide and got us moving in the right direction again. I thought Dalglish and Gullit would be good appointments, and Sir Bobby a bad one.

Arsenal looked knackered.

So why didn't it work when Sam tried to play 4-3-3 with our players? Because he was playing 4-5-1? And that's just scratching the surface. It's a completely different formation with completely different team selections to what Allardyce was playing. Not to mention all of the other stuff like motivation, psychology, etc. Ah right! I thought he tried playing 4-3-3 then a few times, my mistake. I think a real problem was that Sam kept chopping and changing between 4-3-3 and 4-4-2, often within a game. He didn't think Owen could play in a 4-3-3, and when he came back from injury, he changed things to accommodate him. In the end, Sam lacked the courage of his convictions, and it began to filter into the team's performances. I feel very positive about the formation, and it certainly brings out the best in our midfield players. I'm not convinced yet though that we've got the players who can use it to its maximum, and I'd like to see us get another option for the more withdrawn positions - a Bellamy or a Beardsley. Is that Arshavin bloke still on the market?

The last couple of times I've seen Scholes, he's not looked quite the player of old. I wonder if this is his last season, as a first team regular at least. It'd be great if he bowed out with a Champions League win. Fantastic career.

Arsenal were mainly playing a 4-5-1 thing until recently though. Yeah, when I've seen them recently, playing Bendtner up front with Adebayor, they've looked less effective. The switch to 4-4-2 hasn't helped them, but presumably Ade couldn't be expected to play an entire season up there on his own.

Is Faye's distribution upto it though? I think so, yeah. Better than Butt, for sure, and midfield is actually his preferred position. It'd also be good to have that extra aerial power at both ends of the pitch, because otherwise we're not a particularly big side.

Hughton seems to get stuck into the details, so he may well be a good foil for Keegan, who I think isn't so interested in that side of the game.

Ideally, I'd like to see us buy two good centre backs, and then move Faye into Butt's position.

We definitely needed to get away from the bog standard traditional 4-4-2 that we were playing, with a target man, a finisher, two wingers and two in centre mid. It was predictable and easy to counter. Whether you go for 4-3-3, 4-3-2-1, 4-4-1-1 or whatever, the important thing is to introduce that flexibility.