WooJung

That would mean playing Clark and Baker that's a very bad idea!! Let Okore renew his partnership with Clark as they need to grow together. Why would it be a bad idea? They have been bad in the past as a partnership, but I would say that would have more to do witht he fact that they were both worse players individually. They both seem to have improved this season, and if we were to have injuries/suspensions I'd rather have Baker with an extra game under his belt. That, and I think Okore would benefit from a rest. Neither of them is a right sided CB both play better on the left. Baker needs an experienced head alongside him to help his game that's why when he played with Senderos he looked decent. He looked back to his old self against Liverpool at home yet was MOM in the away one! We need to start our best team and at the minute our 2 best CB are Okore and Clark. If Baker can get some composure in his game he has all the attributes to be a good CB. Clark has already played on the right, and if anything it will be a good experience for him to play there again. Besides, lots of teams play with two right sided CBs (Wasn't it with Dunne and Collins that we had one of the best defenses in the league?). I think Clark can play the role of the experienced head. After all he's done that brilliantly with Okore.

That would mean playing Clark and Baker that's a very bad idea!! Let Okore renew his partnership with Clark as they need to grow together. Why would it be a bad idea? They have been bad in the past as a partnership, but I would say that would have more to do witht he fact that they were both worse players individually. They both seem to have improved this season, and if we were to have injuries/suspensions I'd rather have Baker with an extra game under his belt. That, and I think Okore would benefit from a rest.

I would give him a rest on Sunday, I think it would do him well. It would also be good for Baker to get another game after being out for a long time.

I'd let Johnson go, personally. He's looked (almost) decent in the few times we've seen him for the first team, but he was outshone for years in the U21s by Gary Gardner. Gardner is the better of the two players, and even he can't make it in our team yet. Well, Delfouneso was supposed to be outshining Weimann, and this season he scored just as much (or as little, I should say) as Weimann, only in the Championship. The way they perform at U21 level doesn't always reflect on how they will perform in professional football. Not that Weimann is great, by any means!

He might not be ready yet, but it's not like he has to replace Robben or Ronaldo. He has to replace Gabby/Weimann ffs. He might (or more likely, he WILL) be inconsistent, but I'd rather have inconsistency than being consistently poor. How do I know he will be better than Gabby/Weimann? I don't know, but techincal ability alone makes it much more likely he will make something happen. Might be 3 times a game, might be once every three games. But when was the last time Gabby made something happen?

I mean that is the problem. Lambert brought in both Sanchez and Cleverley for basically the same positions that Delph and Westwood play. Surely in the summer we required a winger or forward greater than yet another plodding midfielder? Just like he bought Kozak for around 6 mil when he was always going to be second choice after Benteke, when what we really needed was a different type of player. Lambert is great at spotting good players, he just doesn't seem to know what he and his team actually need!

Guzan Okore Baker Sanchez Westwood Herd Richardson Cleverley Delph Gabby Benteke If this goes on our starting lineup will look something like this

Fair enough, but I'd guess even Lambert would rather have signed him up for one year. Older players want long contracts, and he might not have come here otherwise. Don't worry, there's more than enough hysteria about the management without getting worked up over Joe Cole's extra year. I'd guess that as well and I agree with the premise. I just think that it might have been positive to find a compromise. Say, for example, put a clause in the contract with an option for a second year based on appearences. But yeah, that's hardly one of the major issues right now.

No, he is on a two year deal. Brilliant management. Oh, please. We needed creativity, and don't have any money. Nobody expects him to be fit for more than half the season, but if he plays ten games, 20k a week is a good deal, and probably not one that Cole would have signed for only one year. Edit: And we already have two points we wouldn't have had without him, so even if he never plays for us again it may be money well spent. You misunterstood me, I'm glad he's here, I just think that given his obvious injury problem it was very unwise to give him a two year deal. In very much the same way it was madness to give Given a 5 year deal (which was obviously a worse mistake).

No, he is on a two year deal. Brilliant management.

Apart from being a potential threat (which is rather different from being an actual threat) on the counter, I fail to see what he adds to the team. His finishing is poor and he has a low goal scoring record. He doesn't create chances for himself or for his team mates, his first touch and ball control are dreadful and that results in slowing our attack or us losing posession. He isn't particularly good in the air. He doesn't work as a target man. People argue that he forces teams to play deeper because of his pace, but given our non-existent ability to create chances that hardly plays to our advantage, does it? If the only argument in his favour is that he tracks back and helps us defend we might as well play a fullback in his position. At least a fullback would (in theory) provide some crosses, which would at least be a starting point...

I agree. While I'm a fan he got a chance to state his case with a starting role a few weeks ago following some promising sub appearances. Unfortunately he fluffed it. How is starting ONE game in over half a season being given a chance? He only started due to injuries/suspensions and he was hardly horrible. He wasn't spectacular by any means, but he was the only player delivering dangerous crosses in the box, weather from set pieces or from open play, and his defensive play was good. He did everything Cleverley should be and isn't doing (and yet he has started every single game /United and has been anonymous at best). For me it should be Sanchez, Bacuna and Delph (if he stays) in our midfield trio. Each of them offers something different. Westwood has also been decent, but there's no reason to have him and Sanchez in the same midfield.

Hardly worse than Clark was 2 years ago. He needs games to improve, and I think we will have a good player. Not a world beater, but a reliable, solid CB.

If Vlaar and Clark are both fit I would give Okore a few games in midfield. It would be good for him, because he could still get accustomed to the League and I think he could also do a decent job as a DM, as a CB he know how to tackle and despite his hight he would win some headers in midfield (how often does that happen?). He would also offer some much needed pace, and would allow Delph to get into attacking positions more often.

We have 3 young and promising CBs in Clark, Baker and Okore (I haven't seen anything from Donacien yet) so it makes sense not to buy another CB. However it would have been a good idea to try to get an experienced one on loan until the end of the season toreplace Vlaar in case of injuries/suspension and perhaps even partner (which would've been harsh on Clark, he's done well this season). Hindsight? No. We started the season with 4 CBs, which is reasonable. But with Okore out until the end of the season (if he recovers from his injury before then, he will still need to get his fitness back) it would have made sense to replace him, as we did with Kozak and Holt (a position in which we were in lesser need of a replacement, by the way). To that, add that that both Vlaar and Baker seem to be rather injury prone, which could leave us seriously exposed. So the question is: Were there any Cbs available on loan better than Baker? And if so, wasn't it foolish of Lambert not to intervene?

5 at the back, 3 up front. We had no midfield, they bossed the game. We scored partly thanks to an Everton mistake. Lambert got the tactics all wrong.

Westwood needs replacing. I have lost count of the goals we have conceded because he didn't track the opposing midfielder's central run.

Why do we ALWAYS lose posession whenever a throw in is in our favour?

Paul Lambert is currently in his fourth transfer window since joining the club. I have lost count of the number of players he's bought, but it's much easier to count those he sold: TWO - Collins and Bannan. All the other players have either been loaned out (Bent, Given), released (Holman, Ireland) or left the club after their contract expired (Warnock, Lichaj). Although most of these players have/had little or no value, I am starting to wonder if Lambert is responsible and to what degree. Is he not good enough at negotiating, or does he act in a way that makes our players unwanted by other clubs? (I am referring to the Bomb Squad policy, I think it's doing us more harm than good, it makes the players look like they have NOTHING to offer. If Hutton doesn't even make the bench when we have zero right backs avaliable and resort to playing a midfielder in that position nobody will consider buying him, will they? This is just an example) Any thoughts?

He's played something like 10 games in that position in his whole carreer, I think he has great potential as a RB.

A Loan to the Championship might do him some good.

I still think he is a better defender than Lowton. He just needs to learn how to keep a cool head.

We always give it more of a go when we are not winning.

To be fair it was a brilliant goal by them, not much we could do about it.

How on earth is he still starting?