Cronky

..................Given Carr Bramble Taylor Babayaro ........Solano Butt Emre ...............Dyer Duff ...............Martins

Mick 'Zico' Martin. Playing crap never seemed to bother him.

I think Roeder needed to be specific about what was said, or else say nothing. This kind of comment only leads to speculation about how bad the abuse was. 'They were nasty but I'm going to rise above it' sounds like he's not really rising above it at all.

If Shepherd lets Bramble go, against his manager's wishes, then it's another sad comment on how our club is run.

Personally, I've never thought that standing on a terrace watching crap football was a privelege that needed to be preserved for future generations. I think we need to be careful to keep things competitive, and not let the League become a monopoly, but otherwise as a spectator sport I think the game has improved immeasurably over the last 25 years.

It's one of those denials which only fuel suspicion. Looking at the detail, he's only denying things that he's never been accused of in the first place - buying a player without the consent of the manager, taking part in team selection, getting involved on the training pitch.

It was a bad reflection on the Premiership Chairmen that they made this rule for the good of the game, and then made an exception the minute it suited their own short-term interests - Shepherd wanted to appoint Roeder, and the other Chairmen didn't want him poaching their managers. As a result, as Ferguson says, the whole principle has been blown out of the water.

Zoggy has a major flaw in this game ie he loses control of the ball when running forward in possession. It's something he needs to work hard on, and I'm not quite sure that his attitude is right at the moment.

I think he's already done that, BUT, myself I'm being slowly converted. I'd like to see him perform in a Premiership game where he's put under pressure though.

Zoggy just couldn't keep control of the ball going forward, and didn't any provide proper protection in defence. On that performance, I'd take Arsenal's money before they change their minds. Luque, as usual, not enough aggression. We weren't able to stop crosses coming in, and they produced some good ones. We were saved by some very poor finishing. Incidentally, am I right in assuming that the commentators were based in England and talking to a TV monitor? They seemed to have terrible trouble identifying the players.

It was done by a guy called the Serial Caller. I don't know if it's obtainable on the Web though.

From that article, it sounds like the decision about a new contract will rest with the Chairman, not the Manager. I know the Chairman is ultimately responsible for financial decisions, but when it comes to the playing staff, he's got to be guided by the manager. Freddie doesn't have a great reputation for taking advice, and I suspect that, like most fans, he doesn't like Bramble. Otherwise, the contract position would have been sorted out before now.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice. Sigh "Where we ought to be if the club is run properly" ........ Note the second bit I put in bold, which is something true only in your head, as the muppets like to say. Well let me put it another way. If you don't think another Board could do better, why is that? If you do think it's possible that another Board could do better, why are you so reluctant to consider a change?

I agree with Gejon, Bolton's style suits him down to the ground. He's playing better for them than he did for us in his final two years. I don't think the loss of Speed was the problem.

So where is our divine right to be, then? Also, tell me why there is more chance of replacing the Board with a better one than a worse one? Tell me why another Board will automatically be better than the current one, why they will automatically make available as much or even more cash to the manager and will automatically appoint the right manager? Thanks Well, we've no divine right to be anywhere, and there's no automatic guarantees that another Board would perform better, but seeing I didn't say either of those things, I think your questions are wide of the mark. I mean, if someone is doing their job badly, you don't have any guarantees that their replacement would automatically do better, but you might still be correct in reaching the judgement that the bloke should be fired. You have to reach some kind of decision. Your reason for thinking that Shepherd should remain is that we're doing better than pre-1992, but in that era we weren't a big club whose turnover took them into the European top 20. We were a middle-sized club on the lines of West Ham or Sheffield Wednesday. Now we seem to be slipping back. Shepherd took over a very different club from the one that Sir John Hall took over in 1992. I mean, if you think Shepherd is doing an okay job, then fine, but it seems to me that our club has become one man's personal fiefdom. There's no checks on his powers because the Halls stay in the background, the local press is cowardly, and he doesn't give proper respect for the judgement of his managers. He's now built up a reputation as a Dictator that will make it difficult to attract any top-class manager, and maybe even top class players are going to think twice.

The proper comparison to make isn't between the current situation and how things were pre-1992. It's between the current situation and where we ought to be if the club was run properly.

I think we are unpopular, although it's not easy to make a good comparison with Chelsea's unpopularity. I agree that the 'best fans in the country' bit gets on people's nerves. Freddie's also a bit of a PR disaster, with a boorish manner and a habit of opening his mouth before engaging his brain. Outside the local press, which he largely controls, I don't think he has many friends in the national media, and that often comes out in the coverage we receive.

Il est totallement merde. Ne l'achetez pas.

Wullie has a heart! Who would have believed it?

No question he's turned things round for us. I don't think he's ever played better than he is now, which is remarkable considering the time he's had out. He's not needed any time to get back to his best form - the minute he stepped on the pitch at Man City, he's looked great. My heart was in my mouth today when he went down, clutching the back of his thigh. I really thought his hamstring had gone again.

Parker just isn't the player that he was at Charlton, where he looked relaxed, positive and eager to get on the ball. He now looks a bit nervous, eager not to lose the ball rather than trying to move it on quickly. The extra pressure has got to him. Having said that, even though there's not much to choose between him and Butt at the moment, Parker has the potential to play much better.

Nobby was brilliant in possession today, and really added something to our right side. I'm still not sure yet that he's a longer-term solution to the full back problem. He wasn't up against a winger today, and wasn't challenged in the air. The test will come against a Bolton or a Wigan, or in an away game where we get pushed back. But I must admit, the doubts that I had about him before the game have been considerably eased.

Great performances by Nobby and Dyer - they barely wasted possession once. The crowd finally got behind the team ten minutes into the second half, and it gave the lads a real lift. I can't remember wanting a final whistle to go more. It would have been a travesty not to have won. I don't understand why Portsmouth are in the top four. They didn't really threaten all game. It looks like we've only got 11 fit players now, so we won't have any arguments about team selection. Looks like Luque's fans will get their wish because Roeder won't have any choice but to play him.

Apart from run? Luque is preety quick. If only.

Eastern Europeans seem to have more problems than you might expect. I think they struggle with the language, as well as the different style of play. And I'd agree that most South Americans really struggle physically with the Premiership.