mrmojorisin75

look, if someone takes the wages for the rest of his contract surely that'll do? as someone else said, i'm not sure finding fees is an issue for us, it's balancing the number of players on the books & their wages get shot of shola regardless, must be done, then smith, then sign one striker who'll do a better job than the two of them put together

Firstly, I never specifically referred to you did I? I was going on about the general theme and feeling on the forum at times. Secondly, we can't just shift Butt and Geremi (both probably making a fortune in wages here) down the list and bring in new players on similarly huge money. It just won't stand up given that we already had the fifth biggest wage bill in the league and aren't anywhere near that in reality. We can bring in young players yes but many on here don't seem to like that. They want them replaced, with someone loads better. I agree the likes of Cacapa, Smith and Ameobi need replacing, but we can't force clubs to take them, can we? cool, i can't write braille anyways as for your other stuff all well and good i say, you're right some people won't be happy unless we sign 4 players the quality/price of diego, but most right minded people have accepted that that is neither likely, nor in reality is it sustainable presently what should be sustainable, given the amount we've spent so far, is one top drawer signing either at CF or CM (that will cost money, that's unavoidable) plus 2-3 less established players to come in and prove themselves around the squad should that scenario happen i reckon there'd be few complaints...should nothing else happen this window then as you say being unhappy is entirely justifiable imo

guthrie was a "meh" signing, not too many "meh's" about the lad so far!

problem isn't behind the scenes though with the players you name there, it's on the pitch - where they're s****!! i think you're right about this however, trouble is in many cases we're not even talking about replacing (except FWs), we're talking about supplementing If we're talking about supplementing, why are the likes of Bassong ignored then? Guthrie is a weird one as I assumed he would be a squad player but looks better than that, but still - if we just need to fill out the squad, why the complaints when players don't cost £10m each? The squad fillers in essence should be Duff, Smith, Milner, Zoggy, Butt. Buy quality in those positions and the squad would look very healthy indeed. So only another 5 and we're laughing! Nice in theory, but adding five new quality players to the wage bill (and shifting the no doubt hefty wages of Duff, Smith and Butt onto the bench/out of the squad) just isn't realistic. Yet some seem to think we can accomodate this and should be doing so. We've got some shit players here, many probably on big money. But until they leave we can't just keep adding to them. Our biggest problem is nobody seems to want them. dave, you want me to send you letter in braille about this "complaining 'cause players don't cost 10m" bullshit you're always wheeling out? i have my opinion on the types of outlay the club should be putting into players as a WHOLE, i'm entitled to that, but i think you'd really struggle to find a post from me COMPLAINING about any of the recent signings we've made on the basis of price, nor going mental 'cause colo cost 10m anyhow back to topic: what bontempi says is basically right albeit tongue in cheek, as is what you say and that's the problem... i never discounted bassong, i counted him as the 3rd CB actually...i'd like to see cacapa replaced then we'd have a strong four CBs assuming the new guy was good CMs i'm like you, now counting guthrie as a starter and rightly so it seems...butt/geremi on the other hand need covering with either better players (preferably) or younger up and comers - so that's a supplement FWs owen/viduka can't be relied upon and need supplementing, smith/ameobi are shite and needs replacing fairly simple stuff

not seen enough of young, but he's basically a winger right? system i'm on about here the wider players wouldn't be wingers as such, has young got more to his game? Yeah he's basically a winger but he does have a lot to his game in terms of creating and scoring goals, as well as counter-attacking with pace. Basically I think we often complicate things with England, partly because we're trying to fit in the star players, and partly because everybody wants to be the playmaker. We need less players that get the ball and look to play the killer pass, and more than are content just to pass and move neatly. Everyone wants to be the star, we need one or two of those but far more tidy players. strong back five plus this then! ----------hargreaves---------carrrick-------------- ------bentley--------rooney----------young----------- -----------------------ashton--------------------- could play barry ahead of the other two, even fwanky...no place for gerrard unless in the rooney role imo

obviously don't follow england as much as everyone here but is rooney not also suffering a little from the lack off a settled partner who scores goals? what i'm getting at is when he came onto the scene owen was around as the main goal threat in the team and i specifically remember rooney getting space, coming in late onto balls and scoring now what's the alternate threat up front? as far as i can see there isn't one granted his 'new role' at manu will be affecting things but i think we need to get owen (or choose another striker to stick with) as the FW and let rooney drop back a bit, if he's doing the dropping back and there is either noone ahead of him or that player offers no threat then it'll not get any better typical of england really to not be able to get performances out of the most talented player for decades

problem isn't behind the scenes though with the players you name there, it's on the pitch - where they're shite!! i think you're right about this however, trouble is in many cases we're not even talking about replacing (except FWs), we're talking about supplementing

what happened to milan?

I agree with your general point (especially about the squad being better than many think); I'd prefer to see a midfielder take priority over a striker though. Not saying we're flush up front but unless we can shift Ameobi and/or perhaps Smith I just don't think the wage bill will stand yet another one. Don't get me wrong, I'll be disappointed like everyone else if we don't shuffle the pack a bit more, but I'm not going to be calling for Ashley's head. not like you dave!

we could make do without more players but it wouldn't desireable would it? right now we've guthrie, butt & geremi for CM (who knows how long barton will be gone) - to imagine we can even make to jan with just them is criminally optimistic similar for the FW positions CB is slightly better but it's a big ask of bassong if taylor/colo got injured first 11 is decent, better than decent really, strength in depth has always been the issue

Very slow, very quiet, me thinks there is something big on the horizon. Wait until Keegans prematch this afternoon Yes it's either going to be "Next week we should see allot of new faces here and one is a WOW player" Or "It's been very difficult to get the players in as no one is moving we will have to strengthen in Jan" Please don't be the latter if he SAID the latter i'd personally EXPECT the former...

what crawled up your arse and died the day mate? what do you want to see people discussing at this time of year on a football website, out of interest....

not seen enough of young, but he's basically a winger right? system i'm on about here the wider players wouldn't be wingers as such, has young got more to his game?

Not much wrong with that. I'd be inclined to find a place for Joe Cole rather than Hargreaves, and change the formation to a 4-4-1-1. how do you suggest that would set up then? isn't it just recreating the problems we've had for years - no LW & the gerrard problem? if you want cole in drop bentley, done ...........Barry Bentley......Gerrard....Cole .............Rooney .............Ashton Joe Cole isn't ideal on the left, but IMO he's proved himself to be the best option. He always looks hungry to get involved and to take responsibility and I'd be loath to leave him out. carrick for barry it works for me yeah tbh any alternative to trying to play orthodox wide men who either (a) aren't good enough or (b) not wide men to start with would do me

you astutely ignore the possibilty of how devastating a martins injury would be! ST & CM to come in before the window closes & a LB...they won't all cost a lot though i'd reckon jesus i've changed my tune

Not much wrong with that. I'd be inclined to find a place for Joe Cole rather than Hargreaves, and change the formation to a 4-4-1-1. how do you suggest that would set up then? isn't it just recreating the problems we've had for years - no LW & the gerrard problem? if you want cole in drop bentley, done

this

i'd go for carrick due to his passing ability but the other changes i'd have no worries with - something like this is a system we have more than enough quality players to make work rather than having a good winger on one side then watching it fall down elsewhere in the team due to the imbalance manu are currently a pretty good model in this sense, lots of attacking flair (when fit) who can rotate around and fit into different positions

"beyewatch" is ruined for me now - just does't work if you pronounce it "buy-watch" instead of "bay-watch" gutted

Cheers Anyway, the point about Gerrard being played out of position; how about factoring in the point that Gerrard actually played up front in some of those games? Surely that's his best position for Liverpool, so why can't he recreate it for England? In the same way that mrmojo calls Owen "England's Michael Owen", I really do feel that Gerrard only gives a shit about Liverpool. not sure that's the right description - he plays behind the strikers i'd say and that's the position i'm saying he should be playing in the england team, when he's bursting through beyond the striker he's great as i've said earlier

That joke's only 2 posts above yours. Surely you saw it? I think we'll sign a new left back, and call it a day. i really hope that isn't how it pans out

we just have different definitions of devastating (see below for other options) then for what it's worth it's been a while since i thought gerrard was up to his earlier standards, seems to be suffering under benitez a little now with the stifling tactics, position changes, and as Ian W says carrying the team & club expectations someone else mentioned his "hollywood pass" shit and i reckon it's a good point; that's not what he's good at (whereas lampard is), he should be on the move roaming around getting on the end of killer passes from other people, when he does THAT he's virtually unstoppable/unplayable/devastating...i've rarely seen a game where lampard was unplayable, or whatever else you want to call it someone also mentioned lampards short pass and move game too, seems to make sense it not settling too well with ingerlund i suppuse given the lack of technical ability most of our players have anyway to end that argument personally i'd have a carrick/gerrard/hargreaves mid partenership with gerrard told be very, very attacking, carrick to sit spraying passes and hargreaves doing the up and down work...no gerrard then maybe lampard in that role coming in off the striker like he does at chelski to bag so many goals there, at international level i really reckon we need to give up on the idea of conventional wingers for a while if not forever back five then ----------hargreaves---------carrrick-------------- -----------------------gerrard------------------------ ------rooney------------------------owen----------- ------------------crouch/ashton--------------------- rooney/gerrard/owen all have licence to roam under that system, interchange positions with the striker staying as focal point...give it a few games to bed in it'd work i reckon

howay boys you know i didn't actually mean fwank should be made to carry the kit don't you?! jesus, sense of humour transplant?

well there are other factors rich, such as (to my knowledge) the amount of different MF positions gerrard has covered in those games...he's more versatile and thus suffers for it imo by being put left side, wide right etc... can't ever recall lampard playing anywhere other than CM anyhow i wasn't saying he is the focal point as you put it NOW, but given that freedom to roam in an ACM position he would be...when he does it for liverpool, i.e. when benitez isn't playing him LW either then he's devastating, i can't see how that word is ever applicable to frank lampard i may have exaggerated my opinion of lampard somewhat but i still don't think he's top class, i don't think he'll he ever take a game for england (against good opposition) by the scruff of the neck and win it for us...i believe gerrard has it in him

Agree completely. hadn't thought about it the shak puts it there before but i like it yeah, a strikeforce of pace, power & technique built around playing it on the floor as he rightly points out the CM would be key though Thinking about it further I would actually leave Owen in the hole as he was last season, and allow Martins and Saviola to really stretch teams with their pace, with Owen arriving late in the box. Support that front three with a hardworking midfield three that can pass the ball e.g. Jonas, Tiago(?) and Guthrie, and we are set. We would be especially devastating on the counter attack. agreed, basically get butt out of the midfield due to his criminal distribution and it'd work a treat imo