Hughesy

Solano was a completely different type of player to Robert. Yes, Robert was more direct and quicker and 'could' have allowed us to play an even more counter attacking game away from home, but Solano, as has been pointed, worked harder and was a superior player to Robert in terms of his tactical awareness and passing ability and the way he linked up with the central midfielders. Solano was at the hub of a hell of a lot of our good work - he pretty much matched Robert for end product (Solano scored 7 goals to Robert's 8 and made 11 assists to Robert's 16) and I would say contributed a whole lot more to the general effectiveness of our team. To be honest, they were both great players and I miss them.

Eh? You reckon we'd have been a better team with a hypothetical two Laurent Roberts in than Robert and Solano? That is complete madness.

Selling Jonas would be a huge huge mistake.

I suppose it helps your argument if you ignore the fact that the team we had at the end of Shearer's career was worse and Shearer was 2-3 years older?

I think everyone knows that the team became better with the additions of Bellamy and Robert - but surely all that proves is that with a more balanced team we achieved more? I think my point still stands that without Shearer in that team, Bellamy (and Newcastle) wouldn't have been half as successful as he was because Bellamy's goalscoring record was average. So yes - Bellamy and Robert helped Shearer score goals - but so did Speed, Solano, Lee, Dyer etc. And Shearer's ability to finish helped the rest of the team.

Never quite understood this whole Shearer's career was saved by Bellamy etc etc because Bellamy ran around and had pace. Alternatively, you could say that Shearer's ability to actually score goals helped Bellamy not contributing goals to the team. They were a good partnership that helped each other out and covered each other's weaknesses. Regarding Bellamy as saving Shearer's career is pretty naive.

I think you've blinked and missed the last 4 years. They're hardly riddled with talent. I am pretty certain I haven't blinked and missed the last 4 years. Certainly not if your argument re N'Zogbia is the basis for that comment.

N'Zogbia good enough to be in the French squad? Er.... no.

It's not meant to be flattering. It's training kit, not something you wear for a night out.

Couldn't really care about his arrogance. More interested in the fact that he's a very good player.

Would love him here.

Mancienne would be a great purchase if he wants to leave Chelsea.

Only if you use a narrow definition of target man.

I know, absolutely brilliant. I think he got a bit too much stick after that though. He wasn't too bad, the rest of the team were worse. Would've probably helped had he not given the crowd stick during the game n all like. Another in a long line of players who should've gone on to better things for us. In fairness, it was ridiculous the way the fans ever got on his back in the first place. So can't say I really blamed Parker at the time.

Has KP Boateng still not moved yet?

Isn't it all a bit of a pointless argument anyway? There aren't many players in the world who could be so limited and one dimensional as to be described as a 'target man' in the way some people are interpreting it and be playing for a team who would be winning things. The fact is that most successful clubs will have a player who can fulfil the role of a target man, whilst also bringing other attributes with them. Drogba is a good example - he does perform the role of a target man, but also brings far more than that to the Chelsea team.

Just watching some videos of Ben Arfa. I want him.

How much did we pay for Tozer?

Speed was criminally underrated.

How is that irony? We were brilliant that season. We were also brilliant the season before, most notably when Dyer was in the side. Away from home we relied primarily on Bellamy, Dyer and Robert. It's ironic because he was usually injured, but during that season played more than any of the other midfielders (yet still had a woeful statistical return despite his large number of appearances).

He does love to crack out any reference to his past career at any point he can. I also never understand why he is always presents his opinion in the first person plural.

I'll have you know he's worked at a multimillion dollar company before. That's real responsibility.

Dyer played the most games out of all of them ironically.

Happy to agree to disagree - but to be honest, dismissals of other people's opinions seems to be pretty much par for the course on this forum. But thanks for the life tip.

In 2001-02, he played 18 games. This was the season that we got more points than in 2002-03, but finished 4th. In 2002-03, Premier League stats are as follows: Goals Solano - 7 Jenas - 6 Robert - 5 Speed - 2 Dyer - 2 Assists Robert - 5 Solano - 5 Dyer - 4 Jenas - 3 Speed - 3 Dyer's passing and touch was poor. I just don't know how you can argue any differently? His technique was appalling and his awareness of what was going on around him and the 'bigger picture' was average at best. In terms of him unbalancing the team - I am not saying Dyer was a bad player. He was a good player, but nothing more. When on top of his game, he could be quite destructive (even if the stats show otherwise), but again, he was nothing more than a good player and he would never have amounted to anything more than that. As has been stated already, he often left Speed overexposed which meant that against top teams we were often overrun in midfield. Any central midfield containing Dyer would never have mounted a proper title challenge.