cotter

arsenal have a clear weakness defending in the air. one of morientes or crouch is a must.

you only seem capable of looking at players in isolation. and have little or no understanding of building a team. in terms of the development and construction of benitez's liverpool side crouch was the right striker at the right time at the right price. whatever the statistics tell you. crouch has helped our midfield grow and taken pressure off our defence, particularily in away games. it might not be barcelona, but it's the next step in our development. a work in progress. we could have blown our entire budget on michael owen or fernando torres or dirk kuyt, and done without one or more of reina, sissoko, or zenden. there's no way we'd be better off for it now though. in the last window we secured two ball-playing defenders something we've lacked. next summer i imagine we'll secure more of the attacking options we're missing. by that point we'll be a defensively secure unit, with a very good midfield pool, and a variety of striking options.

it's a debate of your own invention. and a stick with which to hit players you don't fancy. and pretty disingenuous at that. of course cantona held it up. as did hughes before him. and dwight yorke after him. rooney and henry do too. in different ways perhaps. crouch holds it up as well as any of them. he mightn't have the flair or the goalscoring prowess of some, but he allows a team to play long or short and keep posession of the ball through the midfield. he might look like a streak of piss, but he's a very rounded player. everyone accepts we need more goals. but in terms of development of a team capable of winning the league i'd take crouch and what he contributes ahead of a whole host of more heralded, but one dimensional strikers who who despite admirable finishing abilities haven't the first clue how to hold the ball up or integrate team mates. aren't physically or technically equipped to do so. demand a counter-attacking system and a subservient strike partner to make them most effective. been there, done that, the longer time passed the more we relied on that predominant goalscorer and the further from the league title we fell. how often did cantona terrorise champion's league defenders like crouch has this season?

the kuyt hype is no different from the cisse hype before it.

personally i believe he was happy to stay at city and they just felt they couldn't afford not to sell him in the face of £60+ million worth of debt. there was never a transfer request. just an insinuation that he'd asked to be allowed to speak to chelsea. just depends which bit of spin you choose to believe i suppose.

not sure how SWP has ended up being compared unfavourably with defoe. SWP repeatedly said he was more than happy where he was, he's ended up at chelsea largely because it was the best outcome for manchester city. defoe's one of the biggest mercenaries around.

it wouldn't have changed our style of play. that was my point. although i accept owen brings more than cisse in terms of goal threat, i don't think he'd bring a whole lot more in terms of build-up and our ability to carve out chances. which was where i felt we really fell down against the glams. perhaps we do need a direct, nippy, goalscoring option of that style. but at £17million + wages and with a huge reputation, owen doesn't (and nor should he) really consider himself "an option", as madrid found out. personally i dread a return to the heskey/owen type relationship, the long balls, the lack of movement from midfield, the deep lying defence and the counter attacks. i haven't seen much evidence that owen can be encorporated effectively into any other system. i'd prefer to see us develop the ball playing midfield. the good wing play and crosses. and the goals spread evenly throughout our front 6. i think we'll become a better team that way.

morientes plays behind crouch, he's acting as the link man in the majority of instances. owen can't play nearly as effectively in that way. crouch/owen would get goals, but it would also make us more direct, and lessen the influence of our midfield. aimar/crouch would make us a better 'team' imo.

it's nonsense. every time we fail to score are we going to go through the same thing? we are developing into a good side very quickly. all the best or improving premiership sides this season have a hold-up striker and use powerful midfields to dominate their opponents: spurs, chelsea, liverpool have all prefered to bench their supposed most natural goalscorers. only united play with a true goalscorer in horseface, but then they've paid £50+ million for their strikers and look to be in decline. why? because their midfield is shite. crouch is integral to our success this season and also to our midfield strength. when he went off on sunday we began to lose control of the game. we became a counter-attacking side again. owen's not a player who plays particularily well outside the penalty area, back to goal, linking, or even operating out wide. he wants to run away from his midfield and towards goal. that is his single intention. because of this, and also because he lacks the physical presence to dominate defenders, he's most effective on the counter, for both club and country. why would you want to alter the dynamic of a team that is developing so nicely. i agree there is still room for improvement and that we could do with other options, but not a player as one dimensional as owen. we've done that. it doesn't work week in, week out against packed defences. there are better options if we want to continue to develop our world class midfield; a quality right winger, a tricky link man, more ball playing full backs. creating more and more opportunities is the way forward, not returning to a way of playing that relies so heavily on a predominant goalscorer hoping to take one or two chances per game. those who are advocating his return also have to accept they are advocating a change in our style of play.

that's moronic. so if tranny had schevchenko they'd win the premiership?

newcastle are in free fall and their fans are increasingly suspicious about owen. they could have bought a couple of top-quality and much needed defenders for the same price. his injuries will always be an issue. he scores goals, but he misses games and is streaky. a lethal finisher might have won us the game yesterday, but we shouldn't settle for being a side that just goes to old trafford and looks to grab a goal from one chance. the disappointing thing about yesterday was our failure to dominate the midfield in the way we're capable of. on top form i think we would have created and taken more chances against that united side. owen wouldn't have added anything to the over-all quality of the performance. and that's where we really fell down. if anything we seemed to be missing a quick and creative forward like rooney or aimar. garcia's absence and gerrard's under-par performance didn't help.

don't know about all the parry intrigue... seems to me for some fans it's just easier to stick the knife in on a generally faceless executive when (in their view) things go wrong, then dare criticise a manager who just won us the european cup. benitez, wenger, mourinho have all shown you don't need to spend big money to win big prizes. ferguson, picked up cantona for next-to-nothing, integrated five kids from the academy and produced one of the best united teams in history. hasn't faired so well since they started signing blank cheques for him. you don't need to sign headline names or superstars to win big. in fact as madrid and inter have shown it invariably backfires on you. what you need is a clear idea of who and what you need to buy and for how much. why pay £30 million for veron when you can pick-up alonso for 10? or 17 million for owen when you can get crouch for 7? whatever your judgement on the various qualities of the players is, benitez stuck to his guns because he had a fixed idea about how he could use crouch to help the team improve. we paid over the odds in most peoples estimation on that one, but no one mentions it beacuse he doesn't fulfil any of their superstar fantasies. but benitez was right all along and parry was right to give what most people thought was stupid money to buy the lanky bastard. meanwhile over at newcastle owen looks increasingly like a £17million mistake. prudence isn't always a bad thing.

anyone who thinks the walcott deal constitutes good business is fucking deluded. arsenal are knee-high in debt and pinning all their hopes on a bunch of multi-million £ kids they'll still be paying for five years down the line. interesting to see what happens if they miss out on a couple of champions' leagues or struggle to fill asburton grove.

isn't it the case that he's (probably) going to go to arsenal because he or his family want to remain in or around the south coast. and this despite him being a reds fan. if he does go to arsenal it'll be clear that it's less to do with money and more to do with football development and off-the-pitch issues. in which case the summer "offer" seems a bit of red herring, whether it happened or not.

newcastle would have been better off with crouch and shearer up front.

newcastle are shite. saw them on saturday.

presumably being a good winger is about more then just standing there and swinging in decent crosses. most midfielders could probably do that. if you have a wideman who is comfortable hugging the touchline, and can beat players with pace or trickery and deliver those crosses instantly, that'll naturally stretch the game and give more space in central areas. doesn't mean crouch will suddenly become gerd muller, but it probably does mean there will be more space for our central players to operate.

we're neither bust, nor failing.

the flipper theme tune comes to mind, only problem being he's not "faster than lightning"