Cronky

A fair summary. It was noticeable that whereas Liverpool were pressurising the ball all over the pitch, we tended to funnel back and only start defending in the final third. Whether they were just better players, and our lot didn't dare to commit themselves to challenges, or whether it was a fitness issue, I don't know. Edgar looked very classy on the ball for a centre back.

Edgar's been a bit unlucky. He looked very promising, but we've had a very unsettled defence this season, and we're now in a relegation struggle. It's not the best environment in which to give an inexperienced youngster a run in the first team in the crucial position of centre back. I'd be very sorry to see him go, because he looks like a potential first team regular. Taylor's progress has stalled, and, given the chance to gain experience, I think that Edgar would overtake him.

This all goes to show that if there's tension between the manager and the Board, then problems seep all the way down to performances on the pitch. To a lesser extent, I think it happened between Allardyce and Ashley as well. If the manager's not sure of his ground, it's difficult for him to motivate the players and to maintain confidence in his own judgement.

Nice. I really enjoyed that. It's changed my opinion about the bloke.

I can understand the temptation to play Emre, Zoggy and Milner together, but you could have Godzilla as the fourth midfielder and we'd still be overrun.

I don't like the sound of that. It sounds like the reason was Keegan. I reckon that McDermott and Cox now have the boss's ear, and Pearson was feeling marginalised.

Do people realise that 50% of the job of midfield players is to defend?

Unfortunately, I think that midfield would be in trouble when we don't have the ball.

We've scored 3 in the last 10 Premiership games, and you can't put it down to bad luck. What's more it's getting worse. I'd give it a go. So you drop the one person who can actually finish and who has scored in the last 2? Can't decide whether you're a WUM, genuinely thick, or an idiot. Well I’ll give you some more material to help you decide. The problem isn’t that we’re not finishing off chances. We’re not actually creating them in the first place. The two goals in the last two games have been, if anything, a bit more than we’ve deserved. The ball seems to be getting stuck in the midfield. We’re passing the ball quite well at times to retain possession, but not threatening the opposition goal. We look static, and we’re not pulling defenders out of position. It’s no good thinking that you can play two men up front who are going to bang away the chances created by other players. One of the strikers needs to act as a link with the midfield, in the sort of freer role that Beardsley and Bellamy did so well for us. At the same time, one of the midfield players has to be making forward runs to get beyond the strikers and get on the end of chances. That’s the very least you have to do to open up a defence at that level. Neither of those things are happening. The creative striker role is falling to Owen, but it’s not his natural game, he doesn’t look happy and he’s not creating much. Barton is the best bet to get forward from the midfield, but he seems to be getting sucked back into these intricate passing movements whose only function is to retain possession. The whole side lacks rhythm and Butt doesn’t pass the ball forward well, so it’s difficult for Barton to time any forward runs with confidence. So I’d give the withdrawn striker role to Duff, and see how it goes. Owen may be the best finisher we have (which isn’t saying a lot), but his presence limits our creativity. Martins doesn't have the skill or the brains. Smith has done well as a target man, but he doesn’t look sharp enough to get on the end of chances. I don’t have complete confidence in Shola, and he’s not a great finisher either, but he offers us something different and is able to create things for himself. I’d give him a try. Failing that, Viduka. Smith, overall, is being scapegoated and is better than he’s being given credit for. He’s a far better passer than Butt, and certainly more of a leader, so I’d stick him in the anchorman role, for want of a better option in that position. Sorry to give you War and Peace, everyone. I have a lot to get off my chest this morning.

Milner-Duff-Emre-Zoggy is even more powder-puff. Come on, the midfield does actually have to put in a few tackles.

Not a bad team....for the reserves mine would be Given Beye Taylor Faye Enrique Milner Barton Emre Duff Owen Martins Milner-Barton-Emre-Duff looks way too flimsy in midfield to me.

We've scored 3 in the last 10 Premiership games, and you can't put it down to bad luck. What's more it's getting worse. I'd give it a go.

We have to try something different. Today was a real relegation performance. Dodgy defending and no penetration in attack. Harper - Given's nervousness is transmitting itself to the rest of the defence. Carr - He's done okay in recent weeks. His distribution was poor today from LB, but that's what you'd expect. Cacapa - Occasionally his lack of pace shows up, but he shows leadership and initiative. Faye - I'd like to play him in midfield, but we're so dodgy at the back, we need him here. Enrique - Not the greatest so far, but he's prepared to have a go. Beye - Gives us a bit more aerial power, and can shore up a flimsy midfield. We look weak defensively with two wingers. Barton - Still finding his feet, but our most creative player. Smith - Shows leadership, and though it isn't his best position, he's a better anchorman than anyone else we've got. Milner - Better on the left. Edges it over Zoggy because he works hard. Duff - We need a player who can link midfield and attack in a free role, and Duff fits the bill. Shola - I'm prepared to give him a go. We've looked really crap in the final third over the last few weeks, and Shola can cause defences a few problems. I want to see players who show initiative and a willingness to take responsibility. So Taylor and Butt go. Owen may still be a better option, but I'd like to try something new and see how it works. The present set up won't improve itself.

He's looked a bit sharper since his return from the nick. Today, he had a poor game, and quite a few passes went astray. But he is a good player, and he's prepared to take responsibility.

There's a problem up front, because although Smith is our best target man, he doesn't look likely to score. Viduka is the better bet to get goals, but he can be completely dominated by a decent centre back. A lot of people are saying he should have played, but you have to remember how he got blotted out of the game by Laursen at SJP. I'd seriously give Shola a chance. There's nothing to lose because virtually nothing is happening for us up front at the moment. Shola may be clumsy, but there will be 2 or 3 times in a game where he'll use his strength or his footwork to create something for himself out of nothing. Situations can arise where he's actually difficult to stop, and I'd settle for that because the current alternatives look so poor.

It worries me that he favours Butt, who may be experienced but shows no leadership qualities or initiative. It bothered me at the time that Keegan didn't bring new faces in. It seems that money was available but he chose to rely on what he had. The only player he seemed to make a positive move for was Woodgate, and he talked about only wanting experienced Premiership players. I do wonder whether that was as much to do with being out of the game for 3 years and only watching the occasional match on the box. He simply doesn't know much about foreign players or ones in this country who are up and coming. I reckon he wanted players like Woodgate because they were the only ones he knew.

I didn't think Barton was all that bad today. At least he was trying to play positively and take responsibility. Which is more than can be said of Butt, as usual. When in possession, he only seems to look for one pass, which is a lofted ball out to the right wing, which is usually cut out by the full back. If that's not on, he just moves it sideways or backwards, often to a team-mate who is in a worse position than him.

Agree with all the above. The worrying thing was it didn't take great football to open us up. Any old long ball had us in trouble. Faye has been by a long way our best defender this year, and leaving him out when we knew we were going to be under pressure physically was just a rank bad decision. Okay Keegan is just getting to know his players, but you'd have thought that someone would have advised him about Faye. KK is a bit notorious for ignoring advice though. Our other big problem is we don't make use of turnovers of possession. We had a bit of luck to go 1-0 so early, and after that in the first half we had a few chances to break upfield when Villa lost the ball. Instead we ended up playing in tiny little triangles to try and keep possession instead of moving the ball forward quickly. It's vital to score when the opportunities are there because we never looked likely to hold on to a 1-0 lead.

First Division man. I'd prefer to call it the Second Division. :parky:

An international manager can't be a trial and error man. He's got to be able to think problems and solutions out in his head beforehand because there's little margin for error. One defeat can mean failure. Keegan is a doer more than a thinker and club management suits him better. I don't see how you can describe his club record as 'exceptional', when he hasn't won anything.

Dead right.

I've no problem with the principle of the idea, but I'm not sure how many would turn up to watch. Man U v Liverpool in Tokyo would probably fill a stadium no problem, but how much interest would there be in Fulham v Bolton?

On the subject of nostalgia, what happened to the Scottish connection? When I first started going to matches, loads of fans were wearing these black and white tartan scarves. You'd occasionally see a Scotland flag, a black and white kilt and even the occaisonal chant for Scotland. I'm talking away matches here, mind.

Capello deserves a bit more credit than he seems to be getting in the media at the moment. He's trying to get the team to play in a more modern, sophisticated way, and getting them out of the straitjacket of a rigid British-type 4-4-2. So many times, I've seen England teams roll over weaker teams, only to come unstuck in major tournaments when they have to raise their game to beat class opposition. The new system isn't going to flow straight away, but there were plenty of times last night when we were using the ball very well. The better players will thrive, and the lesser ones (Ashley Cole, Brown) will get found out. I think Owen will be in the latter category, but the team is more important than the individual. We've got to stop trying to build the side around the needs of one player - and that applies at club as well as national level.

Do we want to win the game? Winning's become a bit of a problem recently. One in the last 11, and that was against Stoke. The run includes home games against Derby, Bolton, and Boro. I think we need to try something different. I don't really like Milner and Zoggy together, because it leaves us a bit weak defensively. I think Beye can play further forward and would be an asset at set pieces. I'd like to play Faye at the back, but putting him in centre mid is probably the better option because Butt doesn't show enough leadership. Barton on current form is our best creative player in the middle. Smith looks our best target man. Duff can play as a withdrawn striker and IMO is a better option in that particular position than Owen. We need to try something different in attack. ... whilst scoring a sum total of 8 goals between them in the last three years. Stats don't hold all the answers, particularly when both players have missed a lot of games through injury, Smith has played a lot of games in midfield, and Duff hasn't played as a striker at all. I can't see that any of the other combinations up front have looked so great that it's not worth at least a go. And was the wind-up smiley really necessary?