Lotus

My impressions: Pompey's midfield didn't like it when we put a bit of pressure on, in contrast, Butt & Guthrie were actually quite composed when their 2 midf's tried to close them down. Owen dropping deep a bit in the 1st half provided a good option, we had an eatra player in the middle which helped. It seemed to me that their defence held a deeper line than ours, i think we felt a bit more confident about dealing with a ball over the top. I think Distin & Campbell were decent enough but their FB's positioning and ball watching cost them. Their wide men did f**k all, ours got involved, Zog more so in the 2nd half. It seemed to me that the 1st goal was always going to come from a mistake, opportunism rather creativity. Couldn't understand BBC sport saying Pompey should have been 3 up by half time. Just cause you have a crack at goal doesn't mean you should've scored. I can only really think of one shot that Defoe had where i thought he should have done better but i think on the whole we handled him well, kept his opportunities to half chances. He had a decent shout for a penalty though imo, he did Bassong tbf, was good to see Ricky straight there though, if Defoe had of got past Bassong then i think Ricky would've made a tackle. Didn't like seeing Stretch toe poke the ball past Colo and then run round him either but the other 3 covered him well. That pass straight to Defoe as well, jesus... We were better than them, simple as. All this 'lucky' business is bollox. You don't lose 0-3 at home if you're the better team.

Wey Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Always rated Neil, proper player tbh. Stephen's a f**king donkey at LB though. They related?

Never doubted him tbh....

If anyone wants us to replace Enrique with this blerk they need to watch him actually play! F**K me!!! He was f**king shocking as a defender.... If they can get him to take the 10kg boots off it might help though.

He wasn't outstanding yesterday but he was decent enough. Better than Duff by a long way. Funny thing about Jonas, he drifts inside no matter which wing he plays on. If Habib was any cop going forward we'd have a fairly dangerous right flank.

He's very shiny.

To be honest, I was just saying what I think when asked the question in the thread header. Sorry, like. Apologies if that is genuinely the case, but it's the impression I get from you the majority of the time in here, whereas in Gen Chat you make fantastic posts like the one about Morocco earlier on. Apology accepted. My posts on Bellamy here may sound a bit sarcastic, because they are, but I am trying to make a point too, and it's a point that I often try to make in a roundabout way -- that we spend far too much time living in the past and mooning around wishfully over long-departed players and managers. Bellamy is history. He should stay that way. The idea is to learn from history. Were you against Peter Beardsley coming back, by the way ? No, that worked out good, but there were different factors at play -- the existing relationship between him and Keegan and how that overlapping history translated into an extremely effective communication between bench and pitch regarding a particular style of play, which was to some extent influenced by both players' experience at Liverpool. Even if Bellamy a) wasn't so plagued by injury that he's been sleeping in a high-altitude tent, b) wasn't currently in very poor goal-scoring form and b) didn't already have a soured and divisive relationship to the club, I'd also doubt whether Joe "Crazy Gang" Kinnear was the right manager to get the best out of him. it might not have worked out. And Bellamy might work out. You can't tell. This isn't about hindsight, its about making a decision. What do you think ? A 29 year old footballer isn't old. The fact is, we need strengthening, and we have to get the best players possible. If a younger player isn't available who is better and we could get him, why would you say no ? I think it's clear I think he's not a player we need at the moment. There are four specific reasons why in the post you quote. A fifth would be that his position is not one of those that needs strengthening as a priority right now. Why would he come here at the moment anyway? As he's a player who would go straight into the team, I couldn't disagree more. If there are 2 positions we need to strengthen, its in central midfield and up front, with pace in both areas and the desire to make things happen and be a good outlet. Simple fact is Ozzie - you just don't want him back because of his personality, its nothing to do with what he does on the pitch. Well, i f**king loved Bellars but i don't believe he's as good as he was and i also think we need a different type of striker to him, someone good in the air because JFK seems to like playing that way. And as we have Oba and Owen (still) i'd prioritise other positions. A CM who can attack and one who can actually run around a tackle (if the same guy can do both a la Gerrard then great) and a target man.

I might be over reacting........ However, at what point do you decide you have to let JFK go? If we're in the bottom 3 in March?

Are you serious? If we're in the bottom 3 in the new year then i'm desperatey serious. I don't see JFK learning from his mistakes, do you? If he's going to take us down you want us to stick with him? Who else are we going to get? Don't say Rikjaard....

If Billy Davies is still out of a job and be willing to work until the end of the season only, i'd sack JFK immediatley and replace him with BD. I think BD's quite canny and i'm surprised he doesn't appear to be in work.

What a load of s*** you come up with. Deeply ashamed? They might mention where their family roots are but it'absurd to say they are ashamed to be american....unless you are obama's missus of course. Needless to say the paddies weren't holding back on the irish american thing when they were collecting money and extolling the virtues of the ira....murdering s**** that they are... on the east coast in particular. Also interesting that nobody mentions the blacks at this point in time, like african american as a handle but no criticism there. Particularly funny that it's a bit like stating the obvious anyway as nobody mistakes them for German-americans. Plus the fact that the activists like the sentiment of african american but very few blacks have any interest in going back there or in fact, know where it is. Got lost at the end there, are you saying very few blacks know where Africa is? As for going back to Africa (i presume you mean to live), i guess it would be hard as there culture, language and habits are western/american. It probably be just as hard as for you or I.

f*** off. Do you honestly think Ashley would have spent any money in January with a "proper" manager in place or do you think the squad would suddenly have become adequate? yes. and the squad is adequate. the manager is s*** though. Ha! Explain that one, please. our squad/first team is better now than it has been in many a year. simple. Still doesn't mean that it's adequate though. we're moving forward. or at least we were. our first team is at least as good as anyone around us. a decent manager would have us at mid table, maybe slightly higher. Our central midfield options aren't good enough, and for me that's the key area to win matches. Coloccini doesn't have a partner who is proven good enough, we have some rather injury prone players, which means we need a good enough squad, something which we don't have. if we got a better manager instead of kinnear, would we be higher up the league? thats what it comes down to since the transfer window has been shut. So we can just ignore the transfer window then? As I've said this has been our problem for years now and it's not something new. the transfer window has been shut since kinnear has been here so its not an issue. so like i said, if we got a better manager instead of kinnear, would we be higher up the league? actually, without wanting to "go there", would we be higher up the league if keegan was still here? Aye mate I feel we would. All I was commenting on is that I don't think the squad is good enough, the squad as a whole. i agree its not good enough but it is adequate. a better manager would drag a few extra points out of the current squad. Seems a moot point though, we're not going to get a 'better manager' under the current circumstances.

Who One Who plays in the J League and hasn't got his Pro Licence yet. Thats the one Timmy!

Who One Who plays in the J League and hasn't got his Pro Licence yet.

I doubt he did but even so, does that make what Morgan did right, then? How is it even relevant? He did exactly the same thing, but luckily Cliff Byrne didn't get a fractured skull from it. However, the injury isn't the point, it's the action. It doesn't make it right at all. I'm just pointing out that what goes around comes around. Who did Cliff Byrne elbow before that then?

Building on good results has not been our forte, which is why we're near the bottom. If Boro really come out of the blocks and get stuck into us i can see us going into half time losing. We haven't come out firing much from what i've seen, we seem more motivated after half time. Couple that with Boro thinking it's a derby and trying to put last week to bed i reckon it will be a moody first 45 mins.

he's not. Agreed, he useless at defending but at least we might have a remote possibility of seeing a freekick get close to the goal. So we should just use him in the 'Special Teams' kind of way, bring him on for a kick at goal Anyone who thinks he's anything beyond below average as a FB is basing their opinion on imagination.

What has he done to deserve a new contract btw? The only reason you can say potentially to give him one is how thread bare the squad already is, as especially as I can't see Viduka and Owen staying. But he certainly doesn't deserve one based on his performances over the last couple of seasons. This.

I'm not sure we get enough to buy a better player which is my main reason for keeping him. And i don't think he's that great either. UK based players will cost too much and foreign players will probably take time to bed in, with even less motivation if on loan i reckon.

Is Zoggy on his 7/8th manager already (including caretakers)? Better to try and develop a player like Zog than keep Duff. It's that simple. Get rid of Duff because we can use his wages and he doesn't offer anything useful on the pitch. Use the money to buy CM who can run around for 90 mins.

That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. I'm interested in the notion that it's not worth buying good defenders unless you have good attackers first. When clubs come up, they've got to build from the back shirley?!? Forwards cost more and if you can get a haof decent defence together you're always in tha game. I'm fully aware that if you don't score you'll go down but i want to know more about the notion of 'building from the front.' It's AntiHansenism. it's always worth buying better players but plenty of times good players are no answer to organisation. i wouldn't prioritise which positions,you can only do it theoretically as in...we desperately need a right midfielder but we have a chance at a quality left midfielder for example. I get your point. The other thing is that just becasue you need to fill a position, doesn't mean there's a player availble that you want/ can afford. I think people sometimes overlook that.

That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested. we had a defence of hughes,griffin,o'brien,bramble,dabizas etc. not one great defender there but it worked because of the organization and the work done defending by the whole team. I'm interested in the notion that it's not worth buying good defenders unless you have good attackers first. When clubs come up, they've got to build from the back shirley?!? Forwards cost more and if you can get a haof decent defence together you're always in tha game. I'm fully aware that if you don't score you'll go down but i want to know more about the notion of 'building from the front.' It's AntiHansenism.

Yet another person missing my point. They've shown yesterday that they CAN perform, and against a team bang in form. I don't see why we should be chopping and changing it every week. Stick with them and let them develop an understanding. If Bassong had a mare at LB then would you want him out of the team again? Ad infinitum. We ought to pick our best back four - with everyone in their natural positions - and stick with it IMO. I agree 100% that the back four should be the same week in week out, I just don't think Enrique at LB and Beye at RB in particular give us great attacking options which for my money is the best way to defend, i.e. from the front. The Chelsea match saw 10-11 men behind the ball whenever they were on it so not surprisingly the defence did well - all that cover and protection would help any under fire defence. We shouldn't use that one match in any way to justify the current back-four though as they were s**** against Wigan, especially at RB and LB. Hence my choice of Taylor at RB and Bassong at LB who hase the athleticism and pace to get forward from there while also being a competent defender. Enrique rarely passes the half-way line and that doesn't helpe neither the defence or the attack. On the other flank I think Beye is an excellent defender but going forward isn't the best. He isn't aggressive enough whereas Taylor is. Furthermore from yesterday's evidence a lot of Beye's best work came in the centre of defence covering for Colo or Bassong, he's a cool head in there and reads play well. I'd play him there alongside Colo. So you'd play 3 players out of position, basically? Fantastic. The players in question have played in the positions I'd personally like to see them operating from numerous times enough to be competent at least in those positions so I'd be more than willing to shift them around. Either way its give or take with whoever plays where anyway. Play Enrique at LB and you get a natural LB but you lose out in the final 3rd. Play Bassong at LB and you don't get a natural LB but as he's shown you do get some mobility down there and some pace too. Swings and roundabouts really with the personnel we have at our disposal. None of them fully convince me in their own "natural" positions except for Colo. I'd play Taylor and Bassong at full-back because they are better attacking options in those positions than Enrique and Beye in my view. I want my full-backs to attack and to support the wide men, to overlap and to give the front runners options as it pushes the opposition back and in doing so keeps them as far away from our own defence as possible which in theory anyway limits the risk of conceding. Taylor and Bassong are better suited and more inclined to play like that. Beye is suited to the centre alongside Colo who likes to vacate his position a lot. Bassong doesn't have the reading capabilities nor experience to cover for him in that way just yet and nor does Taylor, well he does try but makes a balls up of it, Beye reads the game well and has a wealth of experience. Against Chelsea when Colo went on walkabouts vacating his position, Beye filled in a number of times doing the job Bassong should have been doing. That's not a dig at the Frenchman by the way, he's young and learning still. Problem with FB's getting high up the pitch a lot is that when the oppostion counters it's a ball into the space vacated by the FB, CB comes across to cover and we have to rely on Nippy Nicky Butt to get back, fill the space and mark the on running midfielder who's about to have a free shot at goal. Can you see where this plan falls down?

That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. BSA wasn't unlucky with barton. he knew exactly what he was buyong and if he bought him purely because of his on-field stuff ignoring the players wider life then BSA was a bigger fool than i thought. Barton broke a bone in preseason which i think affected his form. That's unlucky. I didn't know Barton was gonna spark off at some McDonalds and neither did BSA. I actually thought he'd have the brains to stay out of it. I was wrong there. no problem with him on the pitch. if it was that alone he is defintly a player to have based on his citeh form when we signed him. however you are in a small minority if you thought him kicking off again was unlikely. As i said, i was wrong. you can't do that on here. you have to twist and squirm and defend your view blindly no matter what,dodge questions,change the subject,derail the argument on to minutiae of the tiniest detail. That is not the road to emancipation my brother....

That's the problem with the "squad" generally today, we have 1 decent first choice player for a position, but very little backup. Allardyce addressed those "problems in the squad" the following season spending substantially more than £5m (I assume you mean the defence) and we subsequently went on to concede twice as many goals - in no small part due to the midfield being weak. I don't think you and I are gonna disagree much on this tbh, but regards the defence. Allardyce bought a CB for <3m and one for free, and that's exactly what they looked like. I'd say he got his money's worth for those 2. Beye is a good buy and i think Ricky is a decent and promising defender. I think BSA thought he was addressing the MidF with Barton and Smith, Barton i could understand (BSA was unlucky with him tbf), Smith was a mystery in my eyes. I mostly agree, but I didn't want to take this into a discussion about Allardyce, my point was that 1) it's not at all easy to improve a defence weak in all departments by spending £5m on it and 2) sometimes you can do more to improve your defence by improving your midfielders/attackers than you can by improving your defenders (I'd argue it's only really worth having quality defenders after you've got the other parts of the team sorted, but that's even further OT for this thread). That last point is interesting. I've heard a couple of posters say something similar and yet 'conventional wisdom' always seems to be that you build from the back. Not saying Alan Hansen is an authority but he says 'If you haven't got a defence you haven't got much.' You always hear pundits trotting out a similar line. Just cause they're on TV doesn't make them right but i genuinely want to know if you think differently and why cause i'm genuinely interested.