Grover

A lot better tonight and some quality balls into the box, but as always still room for improvement. Onward and upward young Stewart.

What a night. One must ask why this sort of determination and willingness lacks in other games. I for one cannot wait for the final.

I must have missed the link, but where has Lord Ouseley suggested this?

This content is not viewable to guests.

I have no plans for tonight aside from the match, so I will assume it is not me. Nonetheless, I hope you have a pleasant date.

Indeed, it was more of an opener than anything too deep. If there is something that you'd like to discuss, or anything specifically youd like me to poke into, then feel free to make a suggestion.

The short answer is drop the defensive midfielder deep to pick up the inevitable deep lying forward and create a back 5, with a further midfielder shielding. As i mentioned throughout, one of the important strengths of this formation is fluidity, and the movement of one player can solve a lot of problems. The gameplan would then be to force the ball wide and rest the fate of the game largely in the hands of the 4 attacking players.

I can assure you I am much more handsome than Mr Logic.

They have longer tongues.

I think there are more pertinent issues than shoddy awards.

I would like to pose that it is a myth that January signings are rubbish, and that it is entirely dependent on the player in question.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I have a poster of Rafa beside my poster of Glen Johnson. What a man.

Possibly not, but I was concentrating on the lack of "Will Harrys issues affect Spurs in the long run?" type articles on the back pages.

A good example of the standard of sporting journalism in the mainstream press can be evidenced by the Harry Redknapp. Prior to the case itself, whilst there was nothing much to say with regard to the case itslef and the focus could only be on its potential to upset the football matters with Tottenham, not many sport journalists were interested in the case. I imagine reasons for this would include both lack of knowledge on the journalists behalf but also their "pally" nature with Redknapp himself, and their unwillingness to give their opinions on the matter lest they upset the apple cart. Roll forward until the present day, and we now see a lot more interest being shown by a lot of media outlets because it has moved from being a sporting matter to a judiciary matter.

Indeed, and as such it cant be held as criticism with too much force towards the owners. Naivety would perhaps be the best choice of word.

My theory - Moneyball is not understood by the owners in a context outside of American sports, where stats are inevitably more detailed and readily available, and indeed, perhaps more meaningful.

I would agree with this. Porto are notorious for hardballing too, and i would put forward that it would be more fun to do business with an overtired Alan Sugar than this lot.

I suspect that, with the case continuing on transfer deadline day, this could be a common feature on the news of the day.

I have not stated, nor will I ever state, that if we sign player X he will be a total success, mainly because that is idiotic. I will however suggest that £10M for a physical striker who has been on form in a top world league for 12-18 months is a gamble worth taking. If it doesnt work out we could sell him back without much financial loss, and thats worst case scenario.

I have no idea how to interpret this. I dont think its a case of saying whether we should or shouldnt have signed people in hindsight in general terms, and that we should have procured X instead of Y. That said, Mr Carroll was a poor buy, and I am wary that we have escaped two top strikers within Europe for more reasonable fees. I see nothing incorrect with these statements.

Well allow me to pose you a question, if I may. How does it sit with you that two prolific scorers in the French and German leagues have passed us by for reasonable fees, given that this an area we need to correct sooner rather than later?

I thought as much. I must make clear that my point was not a criticism of his use of the english language, rather that certain points may be interpreted as sharp when the purpose is not as such. Like I said, I find his points interesting and well thought out.

Fear not for I take no disencouragement from negative criticisms, I merely take them on the tip of my face and prepare to improve my efforts in future offerings. Molby offers a good point in the absence of any other serious constructive criticism, in that this fine effort would perhaps have served best as a conclusion rather than an introduction. I do feel the salient points are still of useful insight, and I intend to build upon this opener in timely fashion.