yellow jumper

have you seen much of cani at zaragoza? seems like a player who could do the free role. was impressed by benfica's manuel fernandes too, although he played wide-ish at anfield. ribery's been doing well centrally for marseille i believe. there's always a few diamonds to be found in the dutch league too. i think most of the obvious choices are beyond us. but isn't to say there aren't plenty of options out there.

it's just an opinion. i condemned the booing of him earlier in the season. and would have no problem supporting the team if he returned.

i actually like it. and advocated it for a long while. not now convinced crouch's quite dynamic enough. i think that lone striker does need to threaten to run in behind once in a while. also think we lack the personnel in midfield; gerrard's a better player in that position than either nolan or lampard, but isn't quite the natural finisher. width helps too. ibrahimovic would be my choice, despite being s**** last night and not scoring for ages. needs to simplfy his game though. stop the flicks and tricks and look to keep the ball when his side is under pressure.

they do. bolton too. i think you need a lot of goals from midfield and a certain kind of striker for it to be truly effective.

champions' league has become their focus. it's tougher and tougher to win or compete for the major european leagues and the european cup in the same season, especially for a side with limited resource like arsenal. 4-5-1. seems to work in europe. s**** in the prem. as we know. the madrid performance has hardened the resolve and confidence of not only a lot of talented young players, but also the likes of pires and henry.

yeah. didn't expect so much from them though.

obfuscation. hurst certainly did not become "undroppable". greaves was regarded as a goalscoring genius, there was a clamour for him to return to the team with immeadiate effect. no you shouldn't.

the only time england have won the world cup they dropped their numer one goalscorer. or doesn't that count, cos he couldn't do assists and win penalties and stuff? had defoe played the last two tornaments instead of owen there'd have been absolutely no change in fortune or results in my opinion. owen's still good, but he isn't all that good.

robbie fowler's liverpool's no.1 goalscorer by the same reckoning. sounds good, but means very little in the here and now. owen certainly isn't engand's no.1 centreforward based on performance, nor is he un-droppable, and, in my opinion, does not represent england's best chance of winning the world cup. i'm not blaming him. i'm just looking at a way to remedy it, as i think generally games are won and lost in that area. in crouch and rooney you'd have a pairing that'd immeadiately take immense pressure off an england midfield that has struggled to compete in the latter stages of the previous two tournaments.

i wouldn't pick crouch on the basis of his goals, it would be purely on the basis of trying to win a tournament. crouch's ability to take pressure off his midfield and defence at premiership and champion's league level is proven. it's a genuine problem for england in recent times, and one owen's inclusion does not solve. his figures don't impress either. says something that you need to bolster his paltry goal returns with 'penalties won' and 'assists'. facts are his performances beyond those few goals have been generally unmemorable.

england have scored 21 goals in the last three tournaments, owen's got 4 of them. rooney managed that in the last euros alone, and contributed much more than owen beyond that. goals aren't a problem. england should be looking at crouch-rooney, and a way of integrating their attacking midfielders into a solid, ball-keeping unit.

weren't spurs trying to sign agger at one point? whichever signing he was commenting about, seemed to me to be more about casting aspersions on rafael benitez's judgement in the transfer market than anything else. for that alone he should be considered a fool.

or because he's a rabid rangers fan?

wonder if we could ever see all 4 play at once? perhaps against chelsea in a 4-3-3. with sissoko detailed to break makele. hamman doing his usual job on lampard.

i'd go for an aimar/rooney type ahead of a defoe/owen option, harder to find at the right price, admittedly. but without garcia, and he lacks reliability in posession and that bit of electric pace to be quite in the top bracket, i think we lack a little mystery in attack. i was prepared to give morientes the benefit of any doubt, because of his history and also the fact that he just looked like a class footballer struggling after a long lay-off and various niggles whenever i've seen him. now, unlike crouch, i just think he was probably the right striker at the wrong time. maybe a year or two over the hill, and also perhaps arriving a year or two too early in our development. two quality wingers and an established goalscorer would have helped him no end. i like ashton more and more. didn't rate him at all on first viewing (in an england u21 shirt, i think). but since then a couple of times for alex, and norwich and, now at west ham, and he looks proper. think he could give benitez exactly what he had hoped nando would.

i think you can only go so far with statistics. shearer's record at southampton was less than one in four and struggled initially for england. andy cole scored goals in bucket loads wherever he went, but never looked the real deal at international level. ashton was at crewe, bent was at ipswich. i'd prefer to judge them all as footballers first, and then consider their goalscoring records afterwards. i don't think goalscoring is, or ever has been the problem for england anyway. the major area for concern would be an ability to hold onto the ball in midfield against technically superior oposition, or even the dogs of war approach northern ireland implemented. on that basis alone crouch should go. he's head and shoulders ( ) above any of the other candidates in that regard. he represents something totally unique for most international defenders, and a plan B for sven, albeit a rudimentary one. he's also looked comfortable in terms of his sureness of touch and his awareness at champions' league and international level, and proved he can change games. he can also work in partnership with just about anyone and on his own. as for liverpool, i think crouch represented the right striker at the right time. i don't think he's anything like ashton though. ashton to me is more like a fowler in terms of instinct, or a shearer in terms of approach. as well as additions in wide areas which will instantly improve our goal threat, i'd like an elusive, creative type with some pace, and then perhaps a technically sound goal-getter like ashton on top.

there records might suggest that, but from watching them play i'd say ashton is technically superior, can finish with both feet and scores a greater variety of goals. bent's impressed me in the same way that cisse impressed me at auxerre. he plays at the point of a 4-5-1 in what is essentially a counter-attacking team. he gets more in the air then djibril no doubt, but his major threat seems to be running powerfully onto a ball over the top and hammering home. was talking to a west ham fan about this. he was basically saying ashton should go to the world cup instead of crouch. whereas i was arguing he should go instead of d-fo or bent. comparing any of them to crouch is like comparing apples and pears, or lampards and makeles. if awkwardness to play against, touch and awareness were given half as much emphasis as pace, power and statistics (or cosmetics and marketability for that matter) in this country then there wouldn't even be a discussion about crouch's international credentials. i spoke to a brazilian shortly after the world club championship and the first thing he wanted to know was "why didn't your manager bring on the giant sooner". he'll be one of the most effective substitutes at the world cup in my opinion. bent on early evidence looked out of his depth at that level. if ashton could be compared with shearer, then crouch should be compared with sheringham.

personally think he's a better footballer then either defoe or bent. and probably a better goalscorer too. seen nothing of kuyt, but i imagine, from reports, that he's in a similar mould to ashton?

This content is not viewable to guests.

it's certainly a big shout on armstrong's part. there's something in the build and running style i'll give him that. but perhaps more than that too... i think he works hard, in that he's the equivalent of a gerrard or carragher for athletico; the young, homegrown captain of his club. his movement is lively and he has a bit of pace that allows him to run onto through balls and finish relatively reliably. he gets his fair share from in and around the six-yard box too. not sure about the hold-up, although he does play on his own much of the time. he falls over very easily. and infuriatingly. i think he's talented, but my reservations would be based entirely on his ability to adapt quickly to the premiership. for the money we're going to be spending we'd need more or less instant returns. and there's never any guarantee of that when importing foreign talent.

venables was vindicated, but shearer wasn't the shoo-in you suggest. fowler was a credible alternative, as his own statistics at the time testify.

shearer hadn't scored for england in two years going into euro 96, and had hardly been prolific before that.

gerry armstrong calls him the closest thing he's seen to ian rush in the modern game. not that his word should ever be considered gospel. i think he is a reliable finisher, but a terrible diver. suspicions about his ability to withstand the physical rigours of the premiership may be well-founded, but unlike morientes he does have the benefit of pace.

This content is not viewable to guests.