tmonkey

Adding a goalscorer wont make us play better in games where we are playing shiite in the first place, those games where we struggle to create anything. We would just hear the same old lines of "cant do much with no service" when the new frontman is stranded and looking lost. At the same time, in these types of games where we are playing shiite from an attacking point of view, we concede cheap goals on a regular basis. So its like a double loss. Even when we are playing well in an attacking sense, we still ship goals easily. The poor defence cancels out the attacking play shockingly often for us - even against relegation candidate teams we might play good football, but we end up scraping wins because we can and do concede at any time. I think wed be better off sorting out the defence. If we had a defence of the same standard that we had when Woodgate was fit, we would have come away today with a draw, a win in the previous game aginst Bolton, etc etc. "Build from the back", "if you dont concede you wont lose".

With Given, probably. With a fit Woodgate, 100% guaranteed title.

N'Zogbia? Think by willing he meant "willing and able". Dont like to be harsh on Zog, but hes been awful thus far. Practically every time hes gone on a run hes run straight into players and lost the ball, completely different to last season.

True, but then youre forgetting Luque, who is set to be sold. On our books hes a 10mill forward, therefore we at present have an attacking squad of Owen (17mill), Martins (10), Luque (10), with Ameobi and Dyer as backup. Therefore, once Luque goes, its not impossible for us to be having 3 big money forwards since that is what we are supposed to have at present.

Would guarantee 15+ goals imo, but would probably come at a cost to the team because I cant see him playing alongside Martins or Owen effectively, and on top of this he looks like he might be at his best in a lone role, which is the position he hit top form in last season. Hes also a very average footballer as a whole, average technical ability, passing, etc - ie, wont provide much to the team as a whole. Bent should be ruled out now as an option imo. The time when he would have been an option, and a good one, was before we got Martins. We should therefore be looking at something different. Someone in the Gudjohnsen (intelligent holder of the ball), Tevez (skillful linkup play) or Anelka (strong wingplay) mould, someone who will provide what Martins at the moment is failing to do - ie give us a ball retaining presence up front. Let Martins carry on concentrating on scoring.

Beardo Cole has been the best so far. That partnership had absolutely no reliance on the rest of the team, it was entirely self sufficient. Like a lesser version of Bergkamp Henry to an extent, although just as effective.

He's an exciting talent. Seen plenty of Huntington over the past couple of seasons, and I've always been impressed with him. In the academy, he was such a classy defender, and It just seemed easy for him. I remember quite a few games when me and Mosley just raved about him all the way through. Can't wait until he cements a place in our back four, although he's a centre-back, he's young enough to learn these wider positions, and do well in them. Great to hear. I hate to say this, and I know its totally getting carried away with just a handful of first team appearances - but the way Huntington defends reminds me of Woodgate. He positions himself well, hes very quick in reading the situation, fast into the tackle, doesnt panic, and on top of that is tall and skinny - I remember Woodgate when he first broke into the Leeds first team, and I honestly dont see such a big difference between the two - apart from reputation. Or maybe im just missing us having a defender of Woodgate's calibre around, so am clutching at straws and anything else that looks remotely like him because I want to see Woody playing for us again.

Anyone think Huntington looks potentially a significantly better defender than Ramage? From his very brief appearances, Huntington seems to read any danger alot earlier than Ramage. Maybe thats our long term partnership. Taylor and Huntington, with Ramage as backup.

Because hed been poor for Chelsea - hardly a losing team - for a long while prior to his move. This form isnt temporary because of a move or the team struggling - hes been like this for Chelsea for at least a season and a half. I would absolutely love for Duff to get back to the form that made him a 17mill man wanted by the likes of ManU, that would be f***ing awesome, but I cant help but think alot of people are living in hope when trying to justify this purchase of what is the shadow of the player he used to be, and without doubt, a trophy signing that was made because he was a big name player became available rather than a player we desperately needed.

Dyer up front, Milner on the right, Nobby at right back. Yes? Because they've been needed there, haven't they? Signing Duff was NOT a bad move from Roeder. Sure, you can say that he should play because he's been shite, but to say that it was a bad signing because we had enough cover is just not true. Yes, they were needed in other positions because we lack cover in those other positions. Thats the point being made. We have ample wingers as well as cover for both wings, but not enough fullbacks and forwards. It makes no sense to purchase another winger for a sizeable fee and huge wages, and then use the current wingers elsewhere. Likewise, if we did need another winger, why has Duff played several games up front, a position that he looks completely alien to? Because we have wingers who can play on the left, but dont have enough forwards? Its obvious to many that he was a player signed because of reputation, a trophy signing, and not because he was actually needed. If Duff can find his earlier form, I will be delighted, he was a quality player, especially when he switched flanks - but until then, in my eyes, hes been a complete waste of 5mill and whatever wages hes on (supposedly 65k+). Especially considering the player meant to make way for him in the squad overall - Milner, who was earmarked to be sold and not in the same league as the old Duff - has been outperforming him by a country mile thus far.

How come, if we have such great cover for his position, we have had to use a CM to play out of position to cover for him? Dyer up front, Milner on the right, Nobby at right back.

Duff should be a 2/10. 5mill that could have been spent elsewhere, huge wages, for a position we have good strength in depth in, for a player who has been poor for a long while and nothing like the player he used to be. On top of that, its a signing that has had a damaging influence on one of our best players last season, and one of our brightest prospects, Nzogbia. Only avoids a 1/10 because of the small possibility that Duff will find some resemblance of his old form when he used to be a quality player.

----------------Given Parker---Taylor-----Sibierski----Emre Dyer----Butt-----Ramage--------Martins -----------Bramble-----Luque Pros: - Towering central defence. - Ball playing fullbacks. - Defensively impenetrable central midfield. - Pacey wingers. - Agile frontline, mixture of strength and class. Cons: - Would require good drilling and structure. We dont have the manager for this team to work, with a good enough manager this team would certainly cause everyone problems.

Nearly pulled my hair out when the team won the ball and looked set to break, players were bursting forward, Parker gets the ball quickly and then decides to spend the next 10 seconds spinning around, for the "move" to eventually be broken down once all the Chlesea players were in position and there was noone to pass to.

Definately shouldnt be sold, not unless its above 6 mill. Still needs to improve his game considerably though. Not in terms of learning new skills, just consistency. So far this season in the Premiership, hes spent most of the first half running into brick walls, showing shiite first touches and being unable to cross to save his life. Quite often, hes been the main player to break down team moves during the early period of a match. Normally, hes improved considerably by the hour mark, when his attempts at taking on the fullback start to bring him some joy eventually, and his crossing seems to improve. If he can play from the start in the same manner that he manages to play after ample tries at doing something reptetitive, hed be a quality player for us indeed.

The thread is about Butt, not your hero. Care to explain who my hero is?

Martins is more talented and has more in his locker.

He gave the ball away in typical sloppy fashion a number of times. Hes got the right ideas, but its unfortunate that he has little ability on the ball. A number of players did the same thing too, just kept giving the ball away with dire passes that went straight out of play, or to the opposition. Ramage, Huntington, Given were the main culprits, whilst Milner spent the entire first half breaking down as many team moves as he could. The lad needs to warm up before games, because he seems to consistently spend the first 50mins of a game being unable to control a ball, repeatedly taking on the opposition fullback and failing miserably, putting in sloppy cross after sloppy cross, but eventually getting some joy in the latter stages of the match.

His positioning is shit, look at that - 9/20. Going to cost us goals.

Rooney. Henry is getting on a bit and is a shadow of his former self. Edit: Actually I would have Toure. Perfect centreback to play alongside Taylor.

Dont really think hes the right man, but cant really complain when results have picked up and the squad is depleted. I just hope he doesnt cock things up in the next transfer window. Made a mammoth hash of the previous window after all the crap he spouted about players being the right age, players who will improve the first team, etc, and we ended up with rejects from other clubs that noone else wanted. Luckily Sibierski has turned out OK (unlike the kid Rossi and the invisble man, Bernard), but that doesnt hide the fact that we were a shambles in the market (pre-season "scouting", Kuyt embarassment, Milner debacle, last minute bidding yet again for the likes of Huth, Viduka, Woodgate - who Roeder initially said he didnt want, etc). I think what must have made a difference with regards to recent results is Pearson's appointment. For me, that shows that Roeder shouldnt be in the job if his assistant manager is making such a big difference, but again, cant really complain at this point in time, nor will I if things continue to improve.

I'd never use the phrase myself. Also, any chant at a football match aimed at the opposing fans is meant to be offensive, so its more than the word 'just'. That is the word that clearly makes the statement judgemental though. "The town centre was full of Brits drinking heavily" is racist too then according to your simplistic moral framework. What framework? Brits, as brummie has pointed out, isnt considered a derogatory or offensive racist word. Paki is, as is nigger or chink. Therefore, calling someone a paki, nigger or chink is racist and offensive to all people of a particular skin tone. "Brits" would have to be understood to be an offensive word for British people in order for the sentance "Youre just a town full of Brits" to be derogatory. Its not. If the sentance was "youre a town full of honkies" sung by a bunch of asians or black hooligans, or something similar, then thats racist.

So if an English speaking Spanish bar owner says 'All these f***ing Brits bringing the tone down in our lovely coastal town' its not racist? The use of the term "Brits" is not racist, no. The suggestion that one national group is having a detrimental effect on an area is somewhat xenophobic. And as for the chant "you're just a town full of pakis" - do you think that is not meant to be racist? I've already answered the second point earlier in the thread. Yes, the use of the word 'just' makes it racist. Your first point seems, to me, to contradict what you are saying though. So "youre a town full of pakis" isnt racist to you? Absolute rubbish.

If we had a stronger team, it would be worth the £50. With the team well have out tomorrow, no way.

Aye, would like that to happen so we can get the player, but like Ashton/Andy Johnson, hed probably still be no cheaper after relegation.