nd

He was, as was Shevchenko. But these days I don't know of anyone who I'd rather see play as 'striker' for us.

He is both. He scores more goals than most out-and-out strikers, and sets up more goals than most 'forwards'. The bloke is a f***ing phenomenon, and it's only because we've been privileged to have him in England for years now that we take it for granted. If he plied his trade in Spain or Italy we would, I think, look on in sheer amazement. 2nd best player in the world, after Ronaldinho. I'd still rather have Gerrard and Carragher though. As for wanting him to stay...well, as I said we've been privileged to have him in our league. But he doesn't play for us, so in the end I wish he would nob off to Barca. Those who say that Arsenal would cope without him are probably right, but he is their most potent weapon and they could only be weaker without him.

As a 'pure' striker, B- would be pushing it. But in terms of contribution to the team, B+ at least. So B+ it is then, cos it's the team that's important.

Yup.

17 goals when he's not even playing well suggests to me that he might be worth keeping for another season. But if Rafa gets rid I won't be that arsed.

It would make more money if it didn't annoy the f*** out of its visitors.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what, but what exactly is brave about being paid s***loads of cash to criticise single mums/asylum seekers/the poor/inheritance tax etc.? Personally, I think anyone who isn't white and lives on a council estate is a no-good layabout drain on our taxes who should be sent back home or sterilised before their brood don hoodies and commit crimes against innocent English property. Can I have my £150k a year now please? And sod honouring squaddies or people giving up years of their lives to serve their communities, I'm brave, and I want recognition! I'm taking up the fight against 'gone-mad' political correctness, don't you know?

Our defence will need to be solid as a roque. Fort Anfield, that's what's required.

Owen for 12m is no-brainer. We'd have taken him for that last summer I reckon.

Personally, I'd rest Reina, Finnan, Carra, Sami, Riise, Gerrard, Alonso, Kewell and Crouch. Garcia and Morientes could manage a game inbetween. I'm only half-joking. Benfica wouldn't know what's hit them, while the likes of Dudek, Hamman, Traore, Fowler, Kromkamp, Agger, etc. *should* be more than enough for Charlton.

Couldn't comment on Juve's, I don't catch enough Italian footie these days. I think Kewell/Alonso/Gerrard/Beckham (firing on all cylinders) would *just* pip Chelsea's first choice midfield (pick four from Duff/Essien/Lampard/Robben/SWP). Maybe not. Kewell/Alonso/Gerrard/SWP sounds tastier still. Of course, Kewell is still nowhere near his very best. But if he carries on improving as he has done this year...

Gotta be good for his confidence. That's two out of two England games where he's come on and we've come back from behind. He was on the plane anyway, but this cements his place. Carra might well get some LB action too, given that Cole and Bridge appear to be f***ed.

Kewell - Alonso - Gerrard - Beckham On form, the best midfield in Europe?

It's a national f***ing disgrace that Carragher hasn't been picked for this extremely important friendly. Sven is obviously in hock to the Southern media. And Chelsea.

Do Carrick and Bent count? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/4754630.stm

We shall see.

He *was* unlucky, but cast your mind back. Who made that image stick? Carragher was mooted to play about a week before the match, with Eriksson making all the right noises. Then the press started banging on about how he couldn't possibly be trusted to play against Henry, that King was the better defender for this game - because he has 'pace'. Lo and behold, Eriksson changes his mind and King plays. Now, fair enough: King did very well. But I've watched that game again and how many times does King use his 'pace' against Henry? None. He earned the plaudits that day for the kind of bread and butter defending that is Carragher's hallmark: blocking, tackling, getting in the f***ing way. Henry didn't get a sniff, but it wasn't because of King's pace. It was because the whole defence - and the midfielders in front of them - did their job in keeping him away from the ball. A job that Carragher was eminently suited to. Since the France game, King and Carragher are now spoken of in roughly equal terms. Which is horses***. Carragher still holds the record for U21 caps. We all know he's a f***ing brilliant defender, one of the best in Europe let alone England, and miles ahead of Ledley King. He's played 22 times for England, starting 9 times, in six years. Yet King has 15 caps himself, including 7 starts, in three years. Go figure. Playing Lampard for 45 minutes would strike a balance too. But he's all of a sudden 'injured'. I've already said that Gerrard should be allowed to play in front of his home crowd if he wants to. I had forgotten the game was at Anfield. But it does f*** me off that Mourinho gets to rest Lampard while Gerrard trots himself out against f***ing Uruguay - the dirtiest team on the planet - in a pointless friendly.

It's quite simple really: a. The best players should play in the meaningful matches, and Carragher is a better defender than King. b. For non-meaningful matches - such as 'friendlies' against Uruguay - I don't really want our players involved. Especially this season, when after a seventy game slog someone like Gerrard will be faced with a high-pressure international tournament.

They're after us, sammya. All of them. Growler makes a good point though. I had actually forgotten it was at Anfield. But the reason I'd forgotten is because of the Southern bias of the media. I so thoroughly associate Ingerlund with London y'see. You're talking to someone who still keenly smarts at all the 'Carragher's too slow to play against Thierry Henry, King is the only choice' stuff from Euro 2004.

What f***s me off about this is that Lampard knows he could put on five stone, have a gender swap operation, and change his name to Ulrikka - and he would still have an automatic England place under Erikssonovich. Whereas Gerrard, if he has a brain, must realise that with everyone* wondering if he and Lampard can play together in the England central midfield he maybe has to show that bit more willing. If he was 100% assured a starting place no matter what - like the two tarts, Beckham and Lampard - then he might be a bit less gung-ho on the old "must play for Ingerlund" stuff. The simplest explanation is that he actually wants to play. But I do think there's some pressure there. * i.e. the poncey, biased, Southern-based, Liverpool-hating football media.

I'm sorry, but this needs investigating. It's a serious offence. And if there's any truth in it then whoever is responsible needs to face the consequences. Unfortunately if it isn't true - and I doubt there's anything to it - then mud sticks.

I thought he looked fit as a butcher's dog out there today. With Sissoko out and Garcia playing like a girl at the moment we're gonna need him, so I pray to God he isn't carrying an injury. Eriksson will probably play him and Crouch and Carragher for 90 minutes though. Terry and Lampard will need their rest for Barcelona after all.

Where's the "as long as we're winning, I don't care who's up front" option? I voted 'yes'. Crouch and Morientes are our best options. *None* of our strikers are scoring, which to me suggests that's the problem *might* be due to something other than personnel. But as long as we're winning...I really don't care. Rafa will be vindicated on this I feel. Moro will score the goals that get us past Benfica or something. I agree with Lenin. The hounding of Morientes is degrading to us as fans: a striker low on confidence needs to be cheered. And why do I get the feeling that Fowler could go fourteen games without scoring and some people would still defend him?

Not if Houllier had won us the European Cup the season before.

Good post. The day football rids itself of all unsavoury elements is the day it dies as the national sport. I'm not arguing for the return of violence or racism, but there is a dark side to football and were it to be completely sanitised something fundamental would be lost. As OM says, there's an edge to the rivalries that adds so much to the games. And if the police do their jobs properly then it can stay in the grounds, in the songs, and on the pitch. Which is precisely true to the gladitorial ethos of stadiums everywhere - they are basically, after all, arenas where one tribe pits itself against another. Besides, the media is dying to give football fans a bit of a kicking: we're OK at cricket again now so it's safe for (most) journos to revert back to their toff roots. Gary Neville got it in the neck for a healthy bit of rabble rousing. We're getting in the neck because of a tasteless but witty off-the-cuff song, and because some idiots took it out of the ground and attacked a media-friendly target. Chelsea fans were criticised today for apparently threatening the ref (I very much doubt this was the first time that's happened). The British media has built football up, and we all know why it does that - to knock it back down again.