TRon

We are also relying on the opposition to be very poor up front as well and to be fair they usually oblige.

Think that's just as much of an over-reaction tbh. We were very good as a team defensively today, but equally we didn't use the ball well when we had it. No one's arguing it wasn't a good result, but we could have executed the attack side of it a lot better, and by that I don't mean dominating the game, I just mean countering effectively. No harm in pointing that out is there?

That's Duff's contribution for this season, he can put his feet up now.

Very good defensively but offers nothing going forward. Seeing as we're already crap on the right wing we could do with someone who gets down the flank a bit more, but other than that I like him.

Sorry but no they're not, at all - and to say so is purely succumbing to the ridiculous bumfest he receives on this board. I mean for isntance, on a couple of occassions in the second half... he was holding the defender off on the edge of the box - admittedly with his back to goal - but with a good yard of space between him and his encroacher. A turn and shot is hardly against the rules from these situations and i saw him score a similar sounding goal for England the other day. I can't understand it; it's almost as if he's compelled to pass in those situations in the first team, where he'd shoot in the reserves or England team. It's not bad like - and i'd largely put it down to confidence... and the midfield not being that great does make him look wasteful when he isn't as such, but a bit more striker's instinct definitely needs kicking into him. He's nowhere to be seen from set pieces, either. Carroll's the more rounded striker at the moment and i'd definitely have him in the side ahead of him; especially in a 4-5-1. Comparing him infavourably to Carroll doesn't do your argument many favours imo. One of Carroll's biggest flaws at first team level is his lack of willingness to have a shot. Yes but Ranger hasn't even posed any aerial threat (as yet). I'm trying desperately hard not to sound like i'm writing him off here, , cos i'm not - i do like him. I'd just prefer to have Carroll in the side, should he be fit enough to play. I'm all for us blooding youngsters and it's nice to see us finally doing so (even if it's forced), but i'd hate to see us be naive and stick with him when there's better options there. With our defensive line up, I don't think we got past their full backs to get any decent crosses in so I don't know where the aerial threat from Ranger was going to come from other than a set piece, and his header led to our only goal from one of those. Two away games playing as a lone front man isn't enough evidence to make those sort of judgements for me.

We should give the 4-5-1 a rest IMO. I'd prefer to see any two from Ranger, Carroll and Lovenkrands start. There isn't really any need to play 5 midfielders, especially if you are still going to concede most of the posession like we did today.

Just as well because it was the only one we had.

Eh? He held the ball up perfectly almost everytime and the midfield were nowhere to be seen, if the likes of Nolan, Guthrie and Barton bothered he might look better. Made loads of important defensive headers as well. Absolutely. Shame he's had to play two games with absolutely no support.

Good post. You mentioned we resorted to the long ball, but I think Harper didn't help there, I didn't see him throw the ball out once, although he had a good game otherwise.

Didn't need to, thought had the goal lead, sorted. Just because the midfield and defence have defended well doesn't mean that we should just forget about functioning at the other end of the pitch. We didn't even attempt to play any counter attacks.

Defended well to grind out the win but we were awful going forward. Absolutley no support for Ranger. Still 3pts though so can't really grumble.

Nolan has been shocking 1st half. Wish harper would throw the ball out once in a while as well. Good start, shame we resorted to sitting back after taking the lead.

They play a decent passing game from what Taffy was saying, but I think we'll nullify them and get a draw. Can't see us getting more than one goal with a five man midfield, unless we score from a free kick or something. 1-1.

Still not comfortable with Nolan playing off the striker but tbf he did ok against Leicester. At least Hughton has shown he has a set of balls and left Butt on the bench.

You can't claim compensation because the owner didn't bring in players you expected him to. Walk out by all means but £10m because "it's not like the brochure"? So can you claim compensation because players were signed that you didn't want? There's no rule book saying what is and what isn't constructive dismissal. Precedent is obviously used but precedent can also be set. As long as Keegan can show his position was made untenable then he'll win his case. Remember constructive dismissal doesn't just occur in football, Keegan could have said Llambias was touching him up and insulting him ( ) and so he had to resign, that'd also be a case for constructive dismissal Obviously precedent is being set so all of us are just passing opinion at the moment. I just think that Keegan was out of work in football for a long time and there weren't exactly queues lining up to offer him multi-million pound employment, and I doubt there will be after this episode either. If he wins his case it would have been a very expensive decision to give him that chance again, one which we'll pay for dearly as a club.

You can't claim compensation because the owner didn't bring in players you expected him to. Walk out by all means but £10m because "it's not like the brochure"?

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball. Viduka's first touch was magnificent to the extent you cannot teach. Shearer's was very consistent to be fair but not quite in the same league imo. He seldom miscontrolled it but couldn't really manipulate the ball as well as the Duke. We all know who the better player by far was. I think Shearer had to work a lot harder to become the player he was, is all i'm saying. In a nutshell, Shearer's mentality and discipline combined with Viduka's natural talent (including size) would just about equal the man himself, almost The bit in bold. Viduka could do a lot more with the ball at his feet, he was very inventive, whereas Shearer stuck to the basics of trapping and laying the ball off.

Just realised it's Mike ashley. I thought it was Kevin Nolan at first

We don't need sources telling us that Hughton will be given the job, it was clear as day that it was going to happen a month ago.

Keegan walked in my book. He may have been justified but being sacked or told to clear his desk is not what happened to him so I hope he loses this case, not only because the club can't afford it but constructive dismissal in this case just doesn't seem a correct description. Maybe new evidence will come to the fore once the case is underway, we'll have to wait and see. I don't blame him for walking but I think it's going too far too expect to get paid for doing it.

Lampard's a brilliant finisher and he scores golas in big matches which should never be under-estimated. The reason he doesn't get more praise is that he's like a lot of English midfielders, very efficient and effective but doesn't have the touch of creative magic that thrills people. Rooney and Gascoigne have it, lampard and Gerrard don't. Obviously they've got other qualities though, so it's not a criticism.

He's even got that manic crazed look in a paint job. What a tool.

Yes. Man City are giving up this season's campaign in empathy with Spurs plight.

I wonder if the domination of the Big Four is coming to an end? Based on 4/5 games? Based on the fact that City's squad is pretty strong now and they might well be able to push Arsenal for the 4th spot at least. Is that completely unbelievable?