Cronky

At the time of his appointment, there were better options than Roeder, but that doesn't mean that getting rid of him is the right step now. We have to face the issue that the main problem is the Chairman, and that no-one can succeed under his style of running the club. If we get rid of Roeder, some other poor sap will get put in his place, with the same results. I don't think Roeder is the greatest, but he's not a total incompetent either. The idea that with different tactics or team selections we'd be doing much better is far-fetched. The worry is that with all this pressure from the fans, Roeder's morale is going to suffer and it'll be difficult for him to motivate the team. Criticism can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's give the guy a break and focus criticism on the Boardroom, where lies the chief responsibility for our decline over the last three years.

We only miss Shearer at the moment in the limited sense that, with our three best strikers all out injured, we could do with someone else at hand. Shearer or no Shearer, we've been struggling for the last three seasons. I agree with Merlin - the process of replacing Shearer should have begun two years ago. The policy of keeping him as a first team regular right up till his retirement was stupid. If he was still good enough to be in the first team, why retire?

I'd much rather have Roeder and a new Chairman, than Freddie and a new manager. As for Sven - my worry with that kind of senior figure is whether they really have the motivation. Sir Bob did, but he was an exception. You wonder whether, at the first sign of the shit flying around, they're going to think, I've been through this before and proved my worth, why should I have to take it all again? There's something to be said for a manager who's career is still on the rise.

A nice little bit of snappy sarcasm in there from Roeder. Come on, Glenn, get angry. It'll do you good.

You certainly can blame FF. Sir Bob saw this situation coming and wanted to bring in Shearer's replacement. Freddie didn't back him. Shearer wanted to play as a first team regular right up to the point of his retirement, and Souness got the job because he was a fan of Shearer's and was prepared to let that happen.

That's bad news. I know you shouldn't complain about luck but three strikers injured, two of them long-term....

Beckham's never been blessed with pace. Sheringham was no slower today than he was at Spurs about 15 years ago! Still think Beckham will go to the MLS although I think he could do a lot for Spurs' youngsters the same way Davids is doing right now. Okay, pure pace has never been the issue with Beckham, but at his peak he was a great athlete. His work-rate and energy through 90 minutes was a big asset. In that Champions League final where he was storming around, winning challenges right at the very end, he tipped that game in Man U's favour. He can't produce a game like that any more. But as I said, an older player can often compensate for a physical decline by a shrewder awareness of how to make a telling contribution. I just don't think that's happened with Beckham. He still seems to approach games like a headstrong teenager. The definitive modern Beckham performance for me was the Northern Ireland world cup game. He had his chance playing in the middle with Lampard and Gerrard, and just ended up banging the ball over their heads all game, because that's what he does best. That sort of performance is why neither McClaren nor Capello want him any more.

Basic problem is that the only person who's in a position of sufficient strength to influence Shepherd is Douglas Hall, and he doesn't seem to have any interest in the day to day running of the club, or to be a particularly forceful character. The result is that Freddie has been allowed to stumble from one stupid decision to another. His judgement on football matters is equivelent to that of the average pub bore, but his influence on football matters is considerable. We can't progress under that situation. I don't know anything about Belgravia or hedge funds, but I'd take my chances with them rather than carry on under the current cast of idiots.

Normally as a player gets older, they can compensate for losing a bit of pace and stamina by an increase in their ability to use their football brain. Which is the problem with Beckham.

If MON does achieve at the Villa, stand by for that to be dismissed on the grounds that it was all down Lerner's money. Just like any dummy can win the League Cup and win trophies with Celtic.

With the way we're financially committed to Premiership football, and the huge financial gap between the Premiership and the Championship, relegation could lead to a Leeds / Sheff Wed - type downward spiral. BUT - I think I know where Afar is coming from. The whole spirit of the club has been bad for the last three seasons. Everyone's discontented that we've slipped from the top four and there's a lot of pressure on the players and the manager. There's high expectations without the means to fulfil them. Sometimes it helps if you slip to a very low point, and then develop some upward momentum from there, as happened with Keegan and Robson.

I can only think that Luque's performances in training are as half-hearted as his perfomances in matches. Therefore Roeder doesn't see him as the answer. There's no question about his ability. Just his attitude.

Like others, I was puzzled by the lateness of the substitution. It was clear that we'd run out of steam and needed fresh legs, and that Solano was the most tired. We showed a bit of spirit but looked nervous. Unsurpisingly due to the strikeforce, we never looked remotely like scoring from a cross or a corner.

'If Mr Shepherd will have me' - umm.... doesn't the manager make those kind of decisions? Nice to know that the tea lady is rising to the challenge as well.

It'll work really well providing Charlton promise not to try and score.

Roeder made me a cup of tea once, and believe me it was rubbish.

Eriksson's career has already peaked. If we do need to change, let's go for someone who's on the way up.

On form, he adds a lot of pace and energy to the side. All his injury problems may have matured him as a person as well, so let's treat this as a new beginning. I think he needs to be given proper rest, in the long as well as the short term. He does a lot of running, often at full pace, and I do wonder whether part of the problem was due to a kind of muscle overload.

It doesn't actually sound like the writer has seen very much of us. He's just repeating little bits and pieces of what he's heard, rather than coming up with any original insights.

I think he's a good coach, and despite what often gets said, I think he's okay as regards the basics of tactics, team selection and motivation. My main concern about him is how we will cope when (as now) things aren't going so well and the pressure's on. He seems the sensitive sort and may get demoralised. We shall see. There are other big factors around - mainly the Chairman's manner of running the club, and the motivation behind appointing from within rather than looking outside.

A completely incoherent ramble.

.............. and to get someone in who would be qualified for that role? Possible I suppose. I don't believe for a moment that it would be too little too late though. More a case of better late than never imho. I don't have strong feelings either way about the Director of Football role. But I think the Manager should still be in charge, with the Director acting as a help to him. Two bosses wouldn't work. It's also important that any appointment like that is made for the right reasons ie as a genuine help to the manager. If it's some roundabout way of restricting the Chairman's room for manoevre then I think you'll end up with problems. Likewise if it's a way of disempowering the manager. As for too little too late, who knows. An appointment like that is a long-term strategy, not a short-term fix. We've had minor relegation scares over the last two seasons, and this time luck might be against us.

Coming as this idea does from the Halls, it may be an attempt to belatedly get Shepherd away from meddling on the football side. It's a possible sign of a rift between the club's joint owners. It may be too little too late though.

It's interesting that he's piped up with the Director of Football idea in such vague and hopeful terms. There may be a recognition on the part of the Halls that most of the damage is being done by Shepherd's over-involvement in football matters. It may be a not so subtle move to prize him away from player transfer and even manager selection issues. I can't see any reason why Shepherd would want a Director of Football, as it's a role that he's been eager to perform himself, albeit with catastrophic results.

Roeder isn't even lower league standard, never mind good. The mess on Aug 31 showed that amply. Shepherd and Roeder are the Disatrous Duo, Fatman and Roeder. :roll: Yes, but whose mess was it? It's made explicit in Sir Bob's book, and it's been backed up by strong indications with Souness and Roeder, that all the manager is allowed to do is give the Chairman a list of the players he wants. The setting of priorities within that list, timing of bids, the amount of bids, is in the Chairman's hands. The manager is only one of a number of people who Shepherd consults. No top manager would put up with that. No manager can make a success in such a crucial area, operating in that way.