Dolly Potter MD

I agree with the sentiment, but think Ranger's an odd choice. I haven't seen anything that suggests he'd perform well in the role you describe, in short I don't think he's got a "footballing brain", the kind of viison you need from a player operating in that role. I'd probably liken to Ranger to an early version of Cort. When i speak of the said player i mean the pre-injured Cort, the player who impressed as a raw & talented footballer [as opposed to the protypical Wimbledon style clogger] while being fed painkilling injections by a selling club as means of firmly maintaining his spot in the shop window. I certainly don't envision Ranger in all-out creative role, playing in the hole. He's no Bellamy, it was a loose comparison and i probably should've elaborated further at the time. But off-the-ball he offers more work-rate & movement on the counter, and around the box he offers more of a threat running at defenders. I'm thinking more of a Heskey type of role - a selfless, simple & efficient role player in the final 1/3. On the ball the lad keeps his head up - he has been previously criticised for looking for the link-up/give-off too often, and that's an important and overlooked attribute.

He covers alot of ground inside our own half [defensively], but alot of defensive midfielders can lay claim to this. The crux point relates to having the needed peripheral vision and positional awareness [knowing where your immediate defensive/zonal marker is] at the crux point of any transitional phase of play. Tiote's got that all-important attribute, as a deep-playing link-up man. He knows where his immediate defending midfielder is, and his 1st touch takes him away from immediate danger. In Tiote's case it's often a lateral 1st touch, and little in the away of back-tracking & spinning [ala Parker]. With that he doesn't become blind to the passing lanes, on the break, and thus become a speedhump for transitional play as was so often the case when Parker was our 1st receiving option at the heart of the midfield. It's an attribute shared by Carrick, and recently in our case by Speed. Good player.

Nolan occupying the final 1/3 compresses our attack, there's not enough wide/exchange passing play in the wide channels. It isolates our wingers, as too often they lack an 'inside outlet' [a simple passing option, a get out of jail card when under heavy defensive pressure]. Providing that consistent inside option is a pre-requiste of that floating/roaming forward role, epitomised by Bellamy. I'd rather Ranger in that role tbh, over Nolan that is, for the overall good of the team. His link-up play and technique are both solid, he has the athletic/physical attributes to play sideline-to-sideline and more importantly he keeps his head up while on the ball. He suits the wide workhorse type of role i speak of imo, with Vuckic slated in as Barton's possible replacement in the middle [over time]. It may well prove to be the ideal way to blood the lad over the short-mid term. It will allow Ranger to play with a bit more abandon/freedom, and being more of a workhorse in the final 1/3 there's less pressure of having to become a prolific striker straight away.

Echo those sentiments. There's a touch of West Brom [in their recent relegation seasons] about us at the moment. We're gaining a solid foothold in the engineroom/midfeld, and playing some good passing football [on the deck] as opposed to the football on display under Kinnear & Shearer and a few of their predecessors, Keegan not included. But ultimately we're short on quality & depth in key areas [these have already been extensively discussed] and it's costing us in the form of lost points.

De Jong has quickly garnered himself a reputation for being a midfield sniper [he broke a lad's leg during the last set WC qualifiers]. Compared to the great technique-based midfielders Holland have produced [as well as their overall approach when educating their youngsters] over the years De Jong is a sad indictment of the direction the Dutch have employed in recent times - probably in the wake of Rikjard's stint in the top job if one were to put a time frame on it, as to when it started. Too many snipers, or shitkickers within that set-up now. Sad really. On a side note, 'top 4 team' refereeing was painfully apparent today.

True, taking into account the financial state of Cameron Hall - in particular the latter timeframe pointed out ie. the last ten years. Another & unrelated point, pertaining more towards a possible buy-out of Ashley. This points more towards the character of the man,. his ethics. There's a degree of spite about the man as to how he operates, and the lengths to which he will go to keep a 'hated rival' in his place when he is in a position of power ie. his mooted shut-down of Whelan's health club venture, as an saboteur shareholder writing to building/site landlords requesting they stonewall Whelan's project. It's gone beyond the realm of business competition between those two, it's personal imo - has been for years. With that said and the following is hypothetical of course. If it ever comes down to a choice of selling to 2 consortiums, both offering up the requested pricetag. One being a locally [although it doesn't necessarily have to be local] based consortium with the right motives, the other being a hedge fund. I wouldn't put it past him handing the keys to the hedge fund, a proverbial & final one-fingered salute to the club's supporter base.

I had doubts about him from the get-go, simply based on character/ethical related issues concerning the running of his business empire. Struck me as being a a con-man, who went beyond the boundaries of simply being ruthless ie ratting out Whelan & Umbro, the mock 'closing down' sales aimed at squashing local & independent operators. Ashley is and always will be a razor-cutter with a few tricky sales-orientated gimicks to come with ie. wearing the club shirt/sitting with the fans, the fan-friendly King-Kev appointment. To dispell the 'he gives a fuck about the real club's heartbeat/it's supporters' take on him one just needs to rewind back to the footage of him at White Hart Lane, when Spurs were handing our heads to us on a plate amidst a relegation fight. Understandably one-sided article when taking into account the standard of ethics currently enveloping the running of the club. As for Ashley personally financing our summer spending spree, or loaning the club more money. Ashley will get that small chunk back, with interest recouped when Tiote's resale value peaks.

Repo Men: wasn't that bad, bit of a surprise really. Enjoyed it.

Saw a copy of "Salo" the other day, but opted not to purchase it. I only the know of it by it's reputation - sick stuff, hasn't dated through sheer content contained in the film. Not meaning to sound off-beat, but it sounds like [through it's content] a groupie flick for pedophiles. Somebody will correct me, wasn't Passolini [the film's director] murdered by a sexual abuse/pedophile after the Salo's release.

I'm sick of all these US remakes, of old classic horror films. The Wicker Man was destroyed, among others. So i've started watching some French inclusions. Martyrs: Tough viewing, great movie though. A film of two halves, and makes the Hostel films look like Walt Disney flicks. High Tension: Same director i think. Inside: with Beatrice Dalle starring. About to score a copy of French e-bay site.

Perch: a slightly more athletic version of Ramage. He makes for uneasy viewing. Granted Ramage was a product of what has been a mostly 'miss' academy over the years. But in Perch's case this is the performance level you get, and should expect somewhat, when the club/Ashley [with minimal backing afforded to it's managers] is travelling down the route of attempting to pick-up players for relative peanuts, in most instances.

Exactly what I was thinking. Carroll back tracks enough to act as Nolan, plus is quicker lol How many times we seen big Andy in defence? Scrap Nolan, and double our aerial threat Pound-for-pound [considering his height] Shola is one of the weakest aerial threats around, and doesn't lend anything towards a twin-tower type of set-up aimed at bashing them up aerially & physically in the final 1/3. Stick with the same outfield [midfield & forward line-up] which bossed the game away at Everton, as others have suggested.

Shola comes up with a 'bolt from the blue' type of performance, from time-to-time - completely unexpected ala Chelsea in midweek. With that said you can't trust him to back that up.

There's the benefit of having watched both Jonas and Zoggy, when both have been employed on the edge of the defensive four. It's a somewhat loose comparison comparing the two, as Zoggy was unable to temper his running/attacking game in accordance to the attacking/defensive balance needed. BTW you're correct re- the risk factor involved. As for Jonas [and we have only a handful amount of international fixtures to go by] he definitely reigned in that aspect of his game [with better players available around him] and there was plenty of simple of simple exchange/one-two based passing involved, more measured passing. Jonas doesn't carry the same baggage as Zoggy in this regard, the same risk or turn-over factor. BTW this isn't a 'fan-boy' thing, getting Jonas out on the pitch. To the contrary the said player has won too many plaudits, a cult following, when it's fair to say that he isn't fit to lace Robert's boots re:productivity.

As for Argentina they're entire outfield was defensively dishevelled/disorganised, and defending starts at the front-end - football basics. I've never seen a more technically abled [or a better side based on it's individual players' ability] outfield shown-up through lack of structure & defensive discipline off-the-ball in any form, at club level & orn the international stage. Most full-backs, especially a makeshift fb or converted winger, would've been hung out to dry by that midfield unit who couldn't grasp the most basic of defensive requirements, tracking back - even Robert got that right when asked to do so by Souness. At least under Hughton [and i'm starting to warm to him, as at the moment he's making a fair crack at the job despite minimal backing from Ashley] there's the aforementioned structure/shape & discipline, he won't be running around trying to jam his fingers into too many leaking holes in one wide channel. As for the comparison with N'zogbia. The problem with Zoggy [and i raised this point elsewhere, and Oztoon is correct btw] was that he failed to temper his game in accordance with his new role, to alleviate the risk factor that comes having a converted ball-carrier/winger slotted in the back-4. As a winger [albeit a more one-dimensional man-beater as opposed to Robert who was more allround as an attacker, Robert had a measured passing game in his repetoire & he knew when to play the simple ball] he was more damaging than Jonas, with better players around him could've been just as effective as Robert with better players around him. His key attribute made him a liability in the back four, when turnovers in your half carry a greater weight of punishment, and i never saw a willingness [on Zoggy's part] to temper his game. Zoggy was too instinctive, as a ball-carrier, and lacked the sort of measured passing game required to compensate for a tempering of the running/ball-carrying game. Ashley Cole and Lauren [and others] have that attribute in their respective lockers, and they made this positional conversion - in Cole's case earlier in his career, and Lauren later on. While moonlighting at the full-back slots for Argentina there was a lot more simple, inward & one-two based passing on Jonas' part, and the blind-alley dribbling [seen from him on our left flank] was far less prominent. In this capacity, as opposed to Zoggy, there's more variation in his game and subsequently far less greater risk factor involved. It's not about doing whatever to get Jonas on the on the pitch, on a consistent basis. It's not Jonas-fanboy type of thing, as a left-winger he's not fit to lace Robert's boots. With the Arfa & Enrique on the left, and with our weaknesses on the right, we are an imbalanced ourtfield unit

Apologies for bumping this, i was comtemplating this while on the shitter earlier................. I'm starting to think it's best Hughton converts him into a more attack-minded right-back. With him filling the right-back slot [over Perch] we lose little, or nothing, defensively. The trade-off being we gain more run & carry out of the back from the right-back slot, and with Enrique already delivering technique-based play [posession retention, efficient short-based passing] in spades we'll finally have that left-right balance/width in our own 1/3. With lacked this overall balance since the days of Distin/Bernard-Hughes, and it was a strong feature of KK's sides - having technically proficient book-ends at both full-back slots, effectively providing a pair of 1st receiving outlets for the central defensive pairing thus alleviating the defensive pressure apllied to our deep playing transition passer [now Tiote]. Forces opposing outfields to defend a little wider, left-right that is, and makes their zonal defending strikers/forwards work harder for their pounds. This may be the ideal way to maximise Jonas' greatest attribute, his ability to retain the pill. And as shown in the LC via his corner [and his debut against Man Utd] he can cross when given time & space. Attacking from a deeper slot [whether spotting our forwards in the box & crossing from a deeper position, or as the extra man when overlapping] he'll get that dual combination of extra time on the ball & extra creative space, and more importantly delivering his final ball via his preferred and natural right foot as opposed to his scattershot & weak left-peg.

The board's succession plan [giving SBR one final season] was the right thing to do. If anything it came one year too late, as there were signs in 02/03 that SBR was losing his sharpness in the dug-out, among other things. Of course it was handled badly, on two counts. One being Shepherd announcing it to the press before consulting Robson, the other being the Halls' panic-button sacking after the Villa game - it was Hall Jr bleating 'he would of got us relegated!' to the press. There's little room for sentimentality in football, it's a sometimes brutal business where pride takes a backseat to footballing based decisions and egos are often bruised for the greater good. As inferred by Mourinho, it would have been hard to envision SBR standing aside of his volition. Apart from those two points raised earlier, i have little problem with the board's much maligned brutalness in this instance and SBR's rolling one year contraact made it easy for the board to faciliate. Over a decade ago [when Hall Jr & Shepherd first approached him to succeed Keegan] Robson was just as brutal in his assessment of the board's advances [when they tried to headhunt him, he wasn't appreciative of either Hall Jr & Shepherd's brazenness back then] when he was at Barca. There was little room for sentimentality at the time on SBR's part, when there was a cushy & well paying upstairs job awaiting him within the halls of the Nou Camp. I'm grateful for what he accomplished here, and during his better days here [when he was sharp, and at/or near the top of his game] he was the architect behind what was a successful rebuilding period. But he was an extremely career-minded individual, and basically took up post here after his prospects of managing another big club on the continent had expired. It's an unsentimental game at times, and in this sense Robson was another dice roller and by no means shitless saint either.

Um but Shepherd employed fat Sam, his backroom staff and the technology in the end anyway. At least SBR would have used it for positive tactics. I'm not backpedalling here but that was the price of the admission, when employing Fat Sam - a well thought of manager at the time, a current exponent of the system [and thus a far more effective salesman] with what was perceived to have years ahead him in the management caper as compared with a manager [sBR] who was on the last legs of his career. SBR at the time was a peripheral figure in the club's long-term plans. As for SBR, and what he would or wouldn't have used it for, i don't entirely buy into your argument. I'm sure Robson approached the board [to have it used here] during his final two seasons, and during this time i felt that he started to lose his feel [or instincts] come matchday ie. the recognition for appropriate positional changes & use of substitutions, particularly changes at half time [or shortly after] to change a matches tempo and momentum. Compared with season 01/02 [where he was at the top of his game in the aforementioned department] he displayed an overcautious approach with his subs bench usage, and placed an over-reliance on his favoured 1st choice outfield. He bled that 02/03 first choice eleven [particularly our midfield unit] for all that it was worth when he had some very effective deputies being wasted on the bench ie. players of Acuna & Lua Lua's ilk, effective role-players. Too much 'chin in hands' stuff in the dug-out [from SBR] in his final 2 seasons, hoping that his chargers would turn it around by themselves and not enough proactive management from the dug-out. Managing from the dugout, or the terraces, and applying the appropriate changes is an instinctive caper. Matchday management, using ProZone, and basing one's tactical decisions based on a set of live-fed figures to a laptop is for blokes [who place an over reliance on it] who have lost these aforementioned instincts, or the feel for the game [sBR applies here]. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight now, when placing Sam into the argument, he was berefit of such match-day/dug-out skill from the outset. ProZone, in SBR's case, would've served at prolonging a manager's final days, a manager who was nearing or past his use-by-date already.

The more i listen to his waffle about live-fed ProZone data [and other psuedo-techno speak] and how it impacts/influences his everyday & matchday team management, the more it cements my belief that Shepherd was correct in stonewalling SBR's request to have it used here.

Dyer. Could have been anything, until Robson changed his pattern of play. A pure ball-carrier/dribbler when we signed him. Instinctive, creative & unpredictable: a dangerous package in the centre of any midfield to cope with, especially with further maturity. But Robson tried to convert him into more of a Scholes-type of midfielder, receive-release-and break into/or to the edge of the box at pace. Robson actually used to run the table of praise about him, by mentioning the miles Dyer would cover over 90 minutes. The way Robson changed his game, as per mentioned, were at odds with his strengths. He largely coached the flair out of him, by entrapping him into a more robotic/standardised pattern of play between the boxes. The Scholes-like work-rate [off-the-ball, but at full pace] probably played a role in his lack of durability ie. hamstring issues.

Viana If anything he was a victim of the square pegs into round holes rule - when managers sometimes incorrectly envision a player for a certain role, based on attributes. It was suicidal to earmark him as Speed's successor in that deep-playing link-up role, in a midfield of four with a great deal more defensive accountability. The defensive demands [as was the requirement in Speed's role] were at odds with his so-called football education in Portugal [both at Sporting, and at Youth International level] where he was the loose creative outlet in a midfield line of five, a pure playmaker at the heart of the central midfield unit where he was always protected by two defensive midfielders with virtually zero defensive accountability.

A legally binding agreement was not established, between OM and ourselves. This crux point seems to be sadly overlooked [by many, with a 'black & white' tinted viewpoint] when looking for a stick to bash OM/Dassier with. It's up to the club to compromise, to comply to their terms: to find some common ground, rather than stick to bids deemed as being 'too low'. That's what ambitious clubs resort to when securing priority targets, players which are central to the manager's building plans. Yeah Ben Arfa went on strike because our bid wasnt good enough. If a legally binding agreement had been made then of course he would be here already. Am not sure what you add by pointing that out. It seems i can add something to understanding the situation by repeating that Ben Arfa went on strike because Dassier back-tracked on an agreement to let the player go if certain conditions were met. These conditions were met and then Dassier caight wind of 4m for Niang from Fenerbache and pulled out of the deal. Am not the one with a tinted viewpoint here, however i think the strategy of us deferring payment until we see how he fares is questionable. As many have pointed out, its false economy. You're the one mincing words here, and i've never brought HBA's action against his club into the equation. It's irrelevant as long we're a non-existent 3rd party, as long as our terms offered continue to not come up to scratch with Dassier moving the goalposts, as they're entitled to do so being the legal custodians of player registration papers. If anything it brings in to focus the power inbalance which exists between club & players, players' interests versus club interests. The lad is still on their payroll, and to the best knowledge hasn't had his pay docked. OM/Dassier, despite playing hardball, are in the right.

Ray? Hughton................ just to make you feel better

A legally binding agreement was not established, between OM and ourselves. This crux point seems to be sadly overlooked [by many, with a 'black & white' tinted viewpoint] when looking for a stick to bash OM/Dassier with. It's up to the club to compromise, to comply to their terms: to find some common ground, rather than stick to bids deemed as being 'too low'. That's what ambitious clubs resort to when securing priority targets, players which are central to the manager's building plans.

Houghton's comments place an over-reliance on team spirit, maintaining an upbeat morale in the lockerroom carrying us through the campaign. It's flying by your pants stuff if it's to be a major determining factor in getting this playing group up every week, to survive a low-table & season long slog. It was of little value in the 80's when the board hid behind the guise of a good for business 'youth policy'. How will team morale fare, in the event of Houghton not being afforded the necessary backing [a much needed injection of quality] before the window closes? It's bound to take a hit if a negative mindset attitude settles in among the playing group, a permiating feeling of having been sold down the river by an unambitious board. It will take all of Houghton's somewhat-hyped man-management attributes to lift this lot for an entire campaign, in the event of the above. Especially pertinant considering that much of the 1st teamer's respective futures are not symbiotically linked to that of the club's fate, whether that be relegation or simply treading water in the lower tiers of the top flight ie. Collocini, Jonas, Enrique to name the key figures. And this includes the youngsters recruited from abroad, lads like Vuckic. Injecting genuine quality into the squad creates a buzz in the lockerroom. Value wise, looking at it with a wider scope, it has it's intangibles. To be fair Houghton isn't Ardiles, a bloke who pretty much gave up in the end. But Houghton's motivational talks/man-management tactics will eventually wear thin, as was the joint case imo re-Kinnear [admittedly a shit manager, admittedly whose blue-collar/survival brand of football were at odds with our ball-playing outfielders at the time] and Shearer [damage was done by the time he took over] after the team sank like a stone towards relegation post the January window when Ashley opted for a short-term fix on the balance sheets.