Cronky

Is he trying too hard? A few times yesterday, when he was on the ball, he was looking around for a defence-splitting pass rather than move the ball on quickly. As a result, he got caught. He is slow, and as Milner has learned, he has to find a few ways of just keeping the ball sometimes rather than doing something more ambitious.

Duff looked mentally and physically much fitter than at any time since he joined us. It was a nice bonus on a disappointing afternoon.

It was a game we should have won because Derby were poor defensively, and we had plenty of chances. We were let down by poor defending. Up front it should be Viduka or Smith but not both. They lack pace and Smith looks far more effective either as the target man or in midfield. Christ knows why people are complaining about 4-3-3, because we played 4-4-2 throughout. The good news was Duff, who looked in very good condition for a player coming back from a long injury.

At the end of the day, we hired Big Sam because of his good track record at other clubs. He's a very individual thinker, and 4-3-3 has always been the main plank of his strategy. The way forward is for him to try and get this system working, and to replace the players who can't or won't adapt with those who will. When we hired the man, we bought into his methods as well. A lot of the faith in 4-4-2 seems to rest on the idea that Zoggy at left wing and Martins at central striker would turn our performances round. Both players will have their moments, but overall they're not good enough to be thought of in those terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/12/16/sfntea116.xml Read this article yesterday. He seems adept at changing his system to suit the situation. We'll have to see if English players brought up on vanilla 4-4-2 can adapt as easily. I think, like most continental managers, he wants his players to be adaptable. That may be the reason he fell out with Beckham, who tends to do his own thing regardless of what's going on around him, and the needs of his particular team-mates.

It's true to say that flexibility means pulling players out of those straight lines, and giving them freer roles. The advantage that I can see of 4-3-3 is that the wide players, as well as two of the three central midfield players, get freed up. Only the target man and the midfield anchor have relatively fixed positions. With the traditional 4-4-2, the wide players tend more to be more stuck to the wings, and the only truly free roles go to the more withdrawn striker and the attacking central midfield player. The problem that I can see with the way we're playing 4-3-3 at the moment is defensively. When the opposition double up on one of our full backs, it's not clear whether one of the central midfield players or the wide player should be helping out. We seem to have difficulty in preventing crosses from coming in. I noticed against Fulham that Martins seemed confused about whether he should be helping his full back out on a couple of occasions. In my modest playing career, I never played 4-3-3, so I don't know how this is supposed to work out. In 4-4-2, the covering role clearly goes to the winger.

The problem wasn't that Allardyce swapped their wings. It was that having two wingers who aren't strong defensively meant the midfield was over-run.

Aye that Ajax team have been garbage over the years like. Oh f*** wait, Johan Cruijff says f*** you. The examples you give are always the exception to the domination of 442. How many international tournaments, champions league tournaments, premierships have been won by 433? About 6? How many have been won by 442? about 1,069,991 and counting. Funny thing is, if someone tried telling Johan Cruijff his team were successful because of the formation and that in a different formation the personnel wouldn't have been as successful, he'd probably tell you to f*** yourself, an rightly so! Is this a wind-up? The last three Premierships have been won with 4-3-3. The current leaders play 4-5-1.

I don't think there's a shortage of quality among British managers - O'Neill, Moyes, Coleman, Hughes, Curbishley - I could add Sam as well, but that would only divert things on to a different discussion. The England job can potentially attract the best managers on a world basis, and now that the precedent has been set with Sven, it's right to pick the best man regardless of nationality.

At the top level of international and club football, 4-4-2 with two wingers is beginning to look a bit rigid and predictable. That's what's been holding the England team back a bit. 4-3-2-1 is becoming more popular because it introduces a bit of flexibility. Man U have tended to play 4-4-2 this season, but their wide players and Rooney tend to roam all over the place. English football supporters seem to have a lot of faith in the idea of tricky wingers beating their full back and creating chances by crosses, and that's the idea that drives a lot of the desire for 4-4-2. I don't think Milner and Zoggy are good enough or consistent enough for that to be our main plan, and in any case, we'd be too obvious and easy to counter.

I'd agree that we've looked better with 4-3-3, although clearly it doesn't suit every player. Apart from anything else, it's the system that Sam believes in. He has to stand or fall by those beliefs, instead of all this chopping and changing to suit particular individuals. Mentioning no names, Michael.

I agree. It sounded like our fans were booing Allardyce for subbing him, which I found unbelievable.

I get the impression that Allardyce doesn't rate Taylor that highly, and doesn't see him as the long-term answer. This lad's arrival could mean Taylor going at the end of the season. I'm not saying Allardyce is necessarily wrong here. Taylor's technique on the ball is pretty bad, even by centre back standards. This does get exposed every now and then.

They might have looked it but how the fuck can they be tired? The player who I was really thinking about was Smith, who has put a lot into the last two games, and wasn't quite at his best yesterday. In the second half, we also seemed to be losing a lot of the 50-50 challenges, and allowed ourselves to get pegged back. It might have been mental tiredness as much as physical. It might also have been the change of formation to 4-4-2, which maybe weakened us in centre mid. I prefer the 4-3-3, and this changing around does more harm than good anyway. The real worry for me was Martins. He's a bit limited at the best of times, but yesterday, and for the first time that I've seen, he looked half-hearted.

I thought we looked the better side in the first half with 4-3-3. Second half we switched Martins inside and seemed to be 4-4-2, but we were poor. Couldn't hold on to the ball. Martins was terrible, in both positions. A lot of players looked a bit tired, but we stuck it out and nicked it.

Sir Bob is entitled to a little bit of smug self-satisfaction here. The fact is we are struggling to get back to the point where he left us. The problem started when we failed to push on after the season before, when we finished 3rd. There was no money for new players, and the process of replacing Shearer was fudged. If you don't keep moving forward, you slip back.

I think this story has some legs. £8 million plus Vassell I'd take.

You need someone who's going to keep faith in their own judgement and ideas when the going is tough and every journalist in the country is shouting how crap you are. Capello seems the kind of stubborn character who can handle it. Plus he wants it.

I wasn't at the game, but I saw the whole of the match on Sky. Birmingham had a couple of good spells, but overall I thought we were well worth the win. It's all down to opinion, but check out the stats - we were 56% - 44% up on possession, 55% - 45% up on territory, and had 17 shots against 6. I can't see how that's being 'dominated'. I can only think that, like the commentary teams yesterday and on Wednesday, the media are talking about the game that they expected or wanted to see, and not the one that actually happened.

I don't understand the doubts about the penalty. It was a clear trip. Are people saying that the defender didn't make contact?

I don't think Rozenhal should be criticised too much for the first goal. It was a more difficult ball to deal with than first appears. It skidded off the wet turf right into Jerome's stride. Having said that, in general, I think he's far too weak in the air for a Premiership centre back. I'd agree that Barton is improving, and we should stick with him. He's still not up to full fitness.

Cruyff, Maradona, Best.

There's no way that we were lucky to win. It was thoroughly deserved. Statistics don't mean everything, but 17 shots against 6 pretty well reflects the way we created the vast majority of the chances. Barton - aaargh! He should have been sent off, and that would probably have cost us the game. He's lucky that Jerome got up quickly and indicated to the ref that he should be lenient. Barton has got to cut out that sort of petulant stuff. Smith didn't look as good up front after Viduka came on. He seems to do better as the target man, than playing off the target man. He did a good job in centre mid though. Milner had a very good game, I thought. His decision-making has improved a lot. And Martins shouldn't be taking the penalties.

Mourinho is acting like a tart. Give it to Capello. At least he's come out and said he definitely wants it.

After last night, I think the problem is half solved. I didn't realise that Smith could play quite that well as a target man. It's him plus AN other(s) for me. I'd stick with the 4-3-3. Milner plus whichever one of Martins or Owen can adapt the better.