The Prophet

Baisically I think we need to utilise the strength and depth we have in the squad. We don't have the quality of a Manchester United or a Chelsea so I don't think we can be as rigid with our formations as they are. I still wouldn't feel comfortable with us going to somewhere like Villa or City with two banks of four, we'd get picked apart by their pace and quality. Same goes for the personnel who play in those formations. I think we can afford to try something different at home like a Coloccini-Bassong centre back pairing or Guthrie in defensive midfield.

Personally I'd ease Gonzales in, any old muppet can see Butt's best days are behind him now, but particularly away from home I think it would be foolish to assume the new boy is going to come in and be the playmaker we so desperately need. I think Hull at home would be a prime time for him to show his credentials. He'll get plenty of time and space on the ball and they aren't the greatest presence physically. It's important if he isn't brilliant against Hull we don't write him off and similarly if he has a particularly good game we praise him as the man we've been looking for. I'd continue in this fashion playing him against teams that will attack us at home but aren't anything to fear in terms of stature. Hopefully this will help him grow in confidence and eventually I'd consider playing him away from home. It's important to remember he's an unknown, just because he's an attacking midfielder, a position we've begged to be filled it doesn't mean he's going to come into our game and set it al alight. I think if he's decent I'd even consider taking him on loan for a second season before we think about a purchase. In either scenario at home I'd go with the 4-3-1-2 with either Owen or Gonzales in the "hole". The new role for Owen reminds of how much I love KK as a manger. His timing and arrival in the box on cue has increased ten-fold since he was deplyed in the attacking midfield role. Alternatively if Gonzales is played his service can only help Owen in a centre forward role. The problem there is if the playmaker role is filled who do you play up top. Do you go big man little man with Viduka or Xisco knocking balls down and laying passes off to either Martins or Owen, or do you go with two little men streching the opposition back line (I have considered two big men for obvious reasons). It depends on the opposition for me. Those with a high back line or slower centre backs can be expolited by the latter, while against better back lines it may be better to mix it up a bit. That of course poses a very nice selection dilema to have. Away from home as much as I'd love to go all guns blazing I'd like to take a sightly more cautious approach. Now I'm not saying we go ten men behind the ball Allerdyce style, but perhaps try something like 3-5-3. This dissolves the boundries somewhat between defence and counter attack. Under pressure the wing backs come back and provide cover and when going forward they provide supposrt. I'd seriously consider someone like Jonas in that kind of role. It may even benafit Beye in terms of confidence, being able to venture forward a bit more. Alternatively there's a 4-2-3-1 which is a bit narrow but you hve two men ala Butt and Guthrie protecting the back four and three midfielders in more attacking roles. I think this could work with Zoggy and Jonas in the more attacking wide roles. Also I would't worry about Butt too much. I see Guthrie as a natural replacement. I think his distribution and ability to create a yard for himself on the ball means he should be able to do well in that role, maybe not at this moment in time but he will grow in stature as his career develops.

You taking the piss with Ronaldo? I'd have taken him 13 years ago. Kluivert MKII but 1000000000 times worse. See I didn't have a major problem with Kluivert. He stayed fit for a majority of the time and weighed in with some key goals. Everyone could see it should of been Bellamy and Kluivert who were the primary strikeforce but no one had the bottle to drop Big Al, I guess that's another topic for another thread though.

Bump

As much as Appiah would push Butt closer to the exit door he is exactly what we don't need. This might sound strange but bare with me. Over the years we've had far too many quality players come through the door who I've thought would make a real difference. Appaih has the potential to be one of those players, but there is a niggling doubt in the back of my mind due to two key reasons: The last thing we need is another injury prone player who would demand high wages. We've only just shipped out the likes of Dyer, Parker and more recently Emre who were all talented in their own right. You can have all the ability in the world but if your body continues to constantly break down then your nothing more than a burden on the wage bill. Is it just me who cringes when they hear the term "box-to-box midfielder"? Well that's the term of phrase often used to describe Appiah, but there are very few players who play the all action midfield role well. It requires stamina and a whole lot of footballing brain to be able to go about your game without disturbing the balance of the side. Does Appiah have that? Well I don't know, that's why I'd avoid the gamble.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01_wk4/gboycottDM230107_228x323.jpg The only Boycott your likely to see on TV in the near future.

No, not in the English game. The English are too wrapped up their ways and traditions. The manager is iconic, he picks the team, he brings in the quality and bins those who aren't good enough. It's a direction worth considering, but one that will never truly work in this country.

The fact is Wise has as much influence in first team affairs as Jimenez and Vetere one way or another. However people, particular our friends in the media love to single out wise simply because of their agenda against him. Now I don't Wise as much as the next person, but I still feel he's gone about the job he was given in a very professional and effective manor as have his counter-parts, but he has been persistently picked out by fans and the media as the man responsible for meddling in first team affairs. This begs the question why the likes of Roy Keane constantly have their hoop licked clean by exactly the same personnel. The man went out and ended a fellow professional's career, that's GBH on the street. Yet Wise is constantly singled out for his violent past. People need to get past this and realise Wise is not the problem to Keegan, the system is. I find this a real shame, especially after the psoitive start the club has made with this system in place.

Victim of the modern game I'm afraid gentleman. I don't have a shred of sympathy for West Ham. It doesn't help that I already had a general dislike of their fans, but to boo and jeer him after everything he's done for that club is a disgrace. Let's not forget this is the man who had the bottle to take the helm when they were neck high in the shit, saved them from relegation and then consolidated the following season with a solid mid-table finish. This behaviour is more than likely to have an effect on the board's confidence in Curbishley. Now that doesn't mean the board are bulletproof either. They should have had more sense than to let the knee-jerk reaction of the fans influence their treatment of the manager. In fact the influence of the fans may not have been more great, but the fact is their are now far too many men sat in board room's up and down the country who have far too much influence in first team affairs and are swayed far too easily by their respective fan bases. Get used to it I'm afraid, the new hands-on looking board rooms are here to stay whether we like it or not.