Hughesy

I'd be a little disappointed with 8th as I don't think that any teams outside of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Spurs should be finishing ahead of us. 7th I'd be happy with if we had a decent cup run as well.

nah, for a while we were just crap. We did that stupid kick-off under Robson, makes complete sense now. Don't remember that? Wtf is Lundekvam doing coming out with all of this, the numpty? We used to hoof the ball into the corner straight from kick off for the opposition to take a throw in near their own byline iirc. Ah f***ing hell aye. That little 'tactic' was so infuriatingly senseless, that it actually sounds remotely plausible we could've been involved. Was always quite funny when we lined up Shearer and Speed by the sideline for them to run up the line to challenge for the ball floated over by Nobby. Good times...

I think, in an ideal world, you need someone to fill and Ba/left hand side role in the 4-3-3 and a young striker.

Grates on me a little bit... Oh stop fanning the flames.

Would love to see France of 2000 play the Spanish team now - think that would be a close one.

You may be, but I'm most certainly not. They're not the same team and can't be judged as if they play the same way as they did 4 years ago. Thank you, some people just dont understand. Different coach, different back four and different front three. If anything a bit different philosophy too. If you are going to say best team ever over the span of 4 years, then sorry, Ill do the same and say the Brazilian side which won 58, 62 and 70 was a lot stronger and their achievement a lot bigger as the 66' was a given had it not been for awful refereeing and no cards being given since it was introduced at the 70' World Cup. And this was over 12 years. '66 was a given but for refereeing...? Interesting. Pele was absolutely murdered at the time against Bulgaria, was unable to play against Hungary and then against Portugal still a bit injured he was once again ''raped''. I sincerely believe that Brazil had a big chance of winning that World Cup. They had great player in Pele, Garrincha and up and coming players like Tostao and Gerson. Obviously, it wasnt a given, and it was probably Brazils weakest side during that 12 year span, but they still had a team capable of winning if they had had a fresh Pele. Either it was a given or it wasn't a given. You have to decide which option you are going for.

You may be, but I'm most certainly not. They're not the same team and can't be judged as if they play the same way as they did 4 years ago. Thank you, some people just dont understand. Different coach, different back four and different front three. If anything a bit different philosophy too. If you are going to say best team ever over the span of 4 years, then sorry, Ill do the same and say the Brazilian side which won 58, 62 and 70 was a lot stronger and their achievement a lot bigger as the 66' was a given had it not been for awful refereeing and no cards being given since it was introduced at the 70' World Cup. And this was over 12 years. '66 was a given but for refereeing...? Interesting.

Any team containing Roque Junior and Kleberson can't really compare itself to Spain.

. Oh yeah - I forgot about that. The most important signing this clubs made in about 10 years. FFS, read my post. 4 years isn't really the "next few seasons".

Mid-90s Shearer used to take penalties like the one Nani took the other day. They are basically unstoppable.

The insurance point, in isolation, does have some validity. I don't really understand the rest of the post.

I think the main problem I had with us not bringing him is the fact he has far better technique and ability than Milner, he is much better placed than the Ox. He's more consistent than Walcott and evidently, he would have been a far better option than Young. I know there are a fair few people on this board that don't rate him as highly as I do but he was the one major omission for me that I really couldn't understand at all. It's rare to have a player who is a goal threat from nothing situations, can beat his man 8/10 times and can link up play well Agree 100%. Would have been a great option to bring off the bench, even if he wasn't starting.

Exactly - nothing wrong with coaching at any age. Has to be a balance struck.

I would genuinely have rather seen Perch playing there instead of Henderson.

Was that a 'everyone on this forum said Terry was awful' or 'he played really great'? I was more referring to tv pundits rather than here. Wasn't on forum last night so don't know what people said. I thought Terry was quality last night. Fair enough - I thought he was awful. He was alright at the usual last ditch defending and heading the ball away, but I thought his positioning and decision making was very poor.

Was that a 'everyone on this forum said Terry was awful' or 'he played really great'? I was more referring to tv pundits rather than here. Wasn't on forum last night so don't know what people said.

Probably going to be pilloried for this, but I actually thought Milner played reasonably well yesterday. Would have taken Young off (regardless of penalty miss) way before Milner. Not quite sure why no-one seemed to pick up on how dreadful Terry was. Embarrassing to watch him at times.

Then why come into the pet hates thread, when the majority of people on this forum dislike most pundits and commentators?? It was slightly tongue in cheek to be honest - but surely my footballing pet hate of people complaining about commentators is as valid as a pet hate that actually complains about commentators?? In addition, I am not sure that it follows that I shouldn't come into a football pet hates thread because I don't get worked up about pundits and commentators?? Well my pet hate is of people who's pet hate is that of people who's pet hates are against commentator's pronunciation of players. That should - 'Well my pet hate is people whose pet hate is that of people whose pet hates are against commentators' pronuncation of players' names.' And that also isn't my pet hate. It works on many more levels than that. It applies to commentators AND pundits...

Then why come into the pet hates thread, when the majority of people on this forum dislike most pundits and commentators?? It was slightly tongue in cheek to be honest - but surely my footballing pet hate of people complaining about commentators is as valid as a pet hate that actually complains about commentators?? In addition, I am not sure that it follows that I shouldn't come into a football pet hates thread because I don't get worked up about pundits and commentators??

My footballing pet hate is people endlessly banging on about how awful commentators and pundits are.

Which half of the squad are dickheads? I was going through the squad yesterday trying to work out how many of them are truly objectionable and came up with Terry, Cole and Gerrard. And I have a grudging respect for Cole and Gerrard. So actually, bar Terry, I don't think the players that 'hateable'. Sure Downing and Henderson are rubbish - but their lack of ability doesn't make me think they are twats.

Stewart Downing?

http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=55986 Cheers.

His goalscoring record in the league for Twente is better than 1 in 2. True, but think about how prolific other have been in the Dutch league. I was almost expecting closer to a goal a game. Don't know why we're bothering. Not really my point - I haven't seen him play and was merely trying to ascertain if he has more than just goals to his game. Holland is undeniably a fairly 'easy' league to score in.