Cronky

The three main strikers being out is a problem. But of available options, I voted for confidence. We look hesitant.

A no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Keep. His mistakes will get ironed out with experience. He has the ability to get past his man in a variety of ways, and he also seems to have a good temperament. There's plenty to build on.

He's our best central defender, which isn't saying much I know, but at the moment I don't think we can afford to let him go.

Who would have thought a few months ago that we'd be playing Sibierski as a lone striker? Shola looked very unfit. Even if he'd been fit, I don't think him and Sibierski are a partnership. There's no pace there at all. The back four were very lucky not to concede a goal. Is Bramble injured, because if not, I really think he should have been playing. That's not a compliment to Titus - that's how poor I thought Moore was. Zoggy didn't look up for it at all. Something's wrong there. But if there's hope, it's Dyer. I felt that when he came on, the whole team got a bit of a lift. His individual performance was superb - he covered ground, he made himself available, he got forward, he enabled the whole strategy of keeping the ball on the deck, to work. On top of that, he was composed, rarely lost the ball, and made his contribution count. Fingers crossed, he's matured as a person and as a player. Pity he can't shoot, but hey ho.

I agree. Freddie paid too much money and offered too high wages for a player that we couldn't really afford. That's why he's bleating.

I think if you see more games, odds are your opinion will be more sensible, or at least it ought to be. But I've noticed on here, that those who go to all the home games are often the most angry or otherwise emotional, and that can cloud their judgement.

I think we're plum in the wrong here. Players come back injured from international duty all the time. It's an inevitable hazard of having an international dimension to the game. The only reason why Shepherd is making a fuss is because, in Owen's case, we're losing a lot of money rather than a smaller amount. If the international game means anything at all, then the best players need to be available. If clubs either withold players, or National Associations don't pick certain players because they can't afford compensation, then the international game will soon become a meaningless sideshow, rather than the pinnacle that it is. Club Chairmen tend to pursue their own interests without any oversight of the good of the game as a whole. If control of the game ever falls into the hands of people like Freddie Shepherd, it'll be a very sad day.

Smith was very poor against Southend. He couldn't keep hold of the ball at all, and looked off the pace. I thought he was the biggest single reason why they lost. He was never the quickest to start off with, and this injury may have a long-term effect. So no, I don't think this is a golden opportunity missed.

I think a player who's only had a modest career may have the desire to prove themselves and gain success as a manager, whereas there might not be the same incentive and drive with a more successful player. Also, a less talented player may also have had to achieve what he has by hard work, listening intently to coaches and thinking deeply about the game. That attitude can then stand him in good stead as a manager. I think Shearer actually has the potential to be a good manager. I don't think he was blessed with great natural talent, but he applied himself very intelligently and with a lot of hard graft. I think he understands the game well and has leadership qualities. The question marks are - does he want it enough? ie Is he prepared to make the sacrifices and put up with the hassle? And - will he be able to get the best out of the more temperamental characters in the dressing room? The hard man approach won't work every time.

right, so you some in and start making decisions about the club in which Shep has a 30% interest and the Halls have over 50%? how long would that last? IIRC that is exactly why Fred's last 'resignation' failed Well the overall strategy would still lie in the hands of the Board, but at least you could keep him out of the fields of player, coach and manager recruitment, where Shepherd has been doing the real damage. Having said that, I'm sure that Freddie wouldn't agree to that more detached role. He's a fan, and he's very keen to get involved in the football side of things. Unfortunately, that's the very reason why he's not suited to the job.

Well, even if there's no-one prepared to take over the ownership of the club, (and that's questionable, given all we've heard about the Belgravia group), perhaps Freddie could appoint a Chief Executive and a Director of Football, and kick himself upstairs. It's not his ownership that's the problem in itself. It's the degree of hands-on involvement that he has, which extends into the football side. He may be a good businessman, but there's areas of running a football club where he's not competent. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that.

Rumour has it that Parker is unhappy with the way the club is run. He might not be all that keen to deflect attention from the Chairman, now that he's come under fire.

You could attack virtually every sentence in that statement. What a load of crap. He says that we're all in it together, but it's all a blatant attempt to deflect criticism away from himself and on to the players and the manager. You can bet your life that that's how the players will perceive it as well. Like Fox, I go back longer than most. I have known more difficult times than this on the pitch, but I've never felt more angry and ashamed of my club than I have over the last 3 years. Shepherd is dragging the whole image of the club through the mud. Sorry, Freddy, but I'm not impressed that you had to fight your way to and from school in Byker. You just come across like an ignorant bully.

I'd agree that Rossi and Duff don't look like a combination, but I think that's because both are more suited to the more withdrawn striker Bellamy / Beardsley type role. With Owen, Shola, Martins and Sibierski all injured, we don't have a fit player who can play the more advanced role. Trouble is, I don't think Luque can either, at least not in the Premiership. Your line of argument seems to be 'at least he's not going to be as bad', but I can understand Roeder's decision here. With the other two, Roeder can trust them to put in a bit of effort, whereas Luque still looks like he's not sure he really wants to be here. In a crisis, the last thing that Roeder and the team want is someone who's not pulling their weight. It's a downer and an irritant for everyone.

You're doing what a lot of people do on this site, which is seize on particular words rather than respond to the overall meaning of the post. There's a lot of exasperation around that Roeder won't play Luque, but based on his performances that decision seems perfectly reasonable to me. This clamour for his being picked must be based on something, but that something seems to be hope born of desperation, rather than any level-headed assessment of his contributions so far. On the other hand, Dyer is a very energetic player who, on his day, can really make things happen and turn a performance round. We do need someone like that, because overall confidence is very low. For sure it's a team game, but often particular players can make all the difference.

He's still numero uno as far as I'm concerned. To build yet another great United team is an incredible feat. If he wins the title this season, it will top all this other achievements. Apart from Rooney and Ferdinand, I don't think any member of the Man U first team would get into Chelsea's.

If Shepherd hasn't realised by now that the way he operates is damaging to the club, he never will.

It's a bit worrying, this growing belief among many that Luque is the answer. He isn't. He doesn't have the heart. If anyone can save this season, it's the much-maligned bling boy, Kieron Dyer. We'd better just pray he can keep fit.

This current situation wasn't created overnight, and won't be solved overnight. The relationship between the Chairman and the Manager is a very important one in the running of a football club. Shepherd seems incapable of forming a good working relationship with his manager, and the situation is becoming worse. We have become a one man band. The Halls aren't interested in the day to day running of the club, and the local press are so far up the big man's arse, they've invisible. It's heartening that the mob are starting to stir, because there's no other opposition. In the long term, I'm hoping for new ownership, and take it from there. That's the only way the spirit of the club can be revived. Shepherd has destroyed it. On the more immediate position, we're missing Shola at the moment. He paid a big part in our revival at the end of last season, although lots of people are committed to a poor opinion of him, and won't give him proper credit. Nothing is sticking up front at the moment.

Complete crap. Local journalists are not 'an easy target' in this kind of situation. In fact, this is the first time I've heard of any local paper, anywhere in the country, coming under fire in this kind of way. Freddie Shepherd's mouthpiece? Freddie Shepherd's ringpiece more like.

I don't think there's a quick fix to our current problems. But in the long-term, we have to be rid of that ignorant, arrogant, meddling jerk who's running the club.

I can't see any manager who's good enough to have other options, choosing to join us with Shepherd still in charge. His reputation as an unsupportive meddler will put them off.

Big problem was that with that strikeforce we had to keep the ball on the ground, and we don't really have the confidence or the class to do that successfully at the moment. As against Charlton, we don't look remotely likely to get a goal from a cross or a corner. Those sort of chances were completely wasted. I don't want to lay into Roeder, because with the players available, there wasn't a lot else he could have done. The situation we're in is a combination of bad luck with injuries, and long-term mismanagement by Shepherd. Inevitably with all the chopping and changing, there's no overall team-building strategy and we look like a cobbled-together side.

The problem is that Chelsea didn't need SWP. They bought him to stop him going to one of their rivals, and haven't given him a proper chance. As a result, whenever he plays, he tries to do too much. Lennon's a very good player, but SWP has something a bit extra. If true, I think that's a very good deal for Spurs.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Zoggy seems to be going backwards at the moment, or at least not rising to the challenge to improve.