SportsTalk

Okay so now I am up to speed with what happened (MotD this morning and enjoyable non-defensive defeat to Chelsea).

Man City - poor opposition but worryingly good. Perhaps beginner's luck, and when Sven fucks it up I will be first in the queue etc.

Newcastle - first time Sam's had this level of club, and it could be what the prima donna "we deserve better" club need.

(side note: Sammy Lee is very old school dull manager, isn't he?)

Chelsea - untroubled really, but nothing truly special yet. A decent right back against Wright Phillips and it might've been a different story.

I think our full backs need to be given "Janet and John's book of defending". Nafti is good for the last ten mins when you want to mix it up but he's not my first choice. Forssell is stiil not 90 mins fit. Plenty of time to grow in the next three games, which will give us a better idea.

Incidentally, Sky's action replay provision is shit.

Newkie has an interesting team. A good striker, an overall nice team with some gems scattered around and, finally, a good manager and a thin, yet dependable defense. I can see them reaching a UEFA spot if injuries don't wreak the team.

Today's Man Utd vs Reading was hilarious. I heart Barry Kitson. Nani looked good, but what good are his crosses if they don't have any strikers? What was Fergie thinking? 2 strikers (constantly) injured, Tevez still unavailable and he ships Rossi to Villarreal?

Of course, there's always O'Shea. Moron.

If Crazy Bastard Midget's injury's serious and Liverpool and Chelsea win a few wgames in a row, I can see them dragging early.

Meanwhile in Spain, Sevilla and Real Madrid play the Charity Shield and it's more of the same. Sevilla pound on Madrid for 60 minutes until they ran out of gas, luckily grabbing a penalty in the process. MAdrid then take over, but lack of Van the Man precludes to win.

Sevilla are a physical portent, have their share of classy players and now they are deep too. I'm sorry for whoever is pitted against them in the CL.

Rossi is basically identical in terms of position to Rooney and Tevez - dropping deep, turning and running at defences - and would never, ever have got a game if either of them was fit and available.

But I agree, no cover for Saha might cost them. Who could they buy, though? Or more pertinently, who would be willing to sell them an international-class striker?

I agree, but thing is, if you are one of the top clubs in the world, and you have two strikers who are constantly injured and you sign another you're not sure when you'll be able to field, it's pretty stupid to sell one of your two remaining strikers.

Of course Rossi wouldn't be fielded if the big boys are fit, but that's besides the point. You need rotation players, specially if your 2nd options are Solskajer and Saha, who have played what? 40 games between them in 2 seasons?

Or, you just bring up someone off the reserves. Which Fergie didn't, which I suppose means they aren't very good.

Re: replacement for Saha? You don't need a world class striker. Only a guy who can replace him and bag 8-10 goals a season, like Larsson did last season. Barça is selling Gudjohnsen on the cheap. Madrid got Saviola free. Germany's Olivier Neuville. Rosenborg's Johnsen. Holland is choke full of dirt cheap poachers, not good enough to start 60 games, but nice and proffessional enough to chip in when needed.

E.g. Van Hoojidonk is still playing there and bagging goals playing limited minutes.

Larsson got one league goal last season. Even O'Shea could probably match that over a full season.

Eidur will be looking for more regular first team football.

Van Hooijdonk?! He can manage about 20 minutes a game, and ALL his goals are free kicks or pens! And that's been the case for the last 5 years!

The thing is that Man U have to justify any purchases not only to their new(ish) US owners, but also their fans, neither of whom would particularly understand or relish Ferguson just settling for some "he'll do" non-entity for serious money, as anyone they sign, even someone shit, would add zeroes to the fee, just because they're Man Utd. Fifteen million for someone who's alright, and might bundle in seven or eight goals this season, would please nobody. Even if they won the title. Gudjohnsen would be a decent option, I agree, but he wasn't awesome for Chelsea, and the fans and the board *demand* someone awesome.

No, they have to be *seen* to be buying people who befit their status, up front at least. Midfielders they can afford to get promising youngsters, because (a) they have the likes of Scholes and Giggs being the mainstay, and (b) people are willing to trust Ferguson on that because of his track record, not least with Ronaldo.

And *nobody* would be willing to flog a world-class striker to Man U for anything less than a king's ransom, particularly because most of the options are playing for direct rivals in Europe.

' Course Van Hoijdoonk was just an example.

Maybe them, by being Man Utd, would have to pay more than other clubs. But that's still not an excuse for such bad planning.

Madrid has 5 strikers, and none of them is as injury prone as Saha or Solskjaer. Bayern has Toni, Podolski, Klose and Sosa. Chelsea has Sheva, Drogs, Pizarro and Kalou.

And that "we pay more because we are United" works both ways

Ajax has just signed spanish old international Urzaiz, who is 35 and still managed to get a few goals last season , 'cause he wants to win a title and fancies Holland.

Madrid signed Saviola for free as a pure back-up for a presumably long season. 'cause it's Real Madrid

Inter still keeps Cruz on the roster simply 'cause he plays only when he's needed, makes no fuss about it and bags a few each season. 'cause it's Inter.

And those guys are there just in case. And those team's risks are much lower than United's walking injuries Saha and Solskjaer.

You can't afford to go to war with a team of strikers composed by a guy you haven't yet signed, two guys with a long history of injuries and Rooney.

I'm not saying they should have paid 15 mill for kenwyne Jones or anything. But half a mill for Salva, Andy Cole or Wiltord for nightmare scenarios just like this?

Or fuck it, just don't go to war with 2 and a half strikers. That's fucking stupid.

People expect the likes of Madrid and Inter to sign up all and sundry, as part of the game plan in those leagues is denying your opponents players, even if you don't use them much yourselves. Chelsea have been accused of this in the past, but the Italians are the masters of it.

The Dutch league is shit, I'm afraid, and Ajax have always had licence to be adventurous.

Andy Cole is practically retired, and Wiltord would cost a damn sight more than 0.5 million...

I get totally where you're coming from, and I agree that United face a fucking hard season up front, especially now it has been confirmed that Rooney has a hairline fracture, presumably of the metatarsal. But Ferguson is no mug, he has the backing of his board, and he wouldn't stumble into a new season without what he would consider a good choice of options. He's too wily an old bird to put all his eggs in one basket...

Of course, now that his hand may be forced, he could rush out and get a stopgap striker before the window closes, or do something like last season's Larsson deal. Of course, if Rooney hadn't been injured, there would have been no need.

On the 'pool front, Saturday was a game that we would have typically drawn so it was nice to get the win. We were alright without getting much out of second gear. Torres looked busy and eager and had a few decent shots on goal, which was encouraging. He looks like he doesn't want to be muscled out of play, which is a bonus for Spanish strikers in the Prem. Babel looked decent when he came on too.

If it wasn't for Shinawatra, I would absolutely love it if Sven took Man City to a few titles this season. They looked class on Saturday although I do have a feeling that West Ham may implode under the weight of its temperament/egos this season.

Spurs vs Everton (1-3 at halftime)

Spurs play some fun game. But they can't defend to save their lifes. This is a very, very disjointed team. Jol is trying to make them play passing, fast-paced game, but half of the team is completely wrong for such task.

They need a Riquelme-like facilitator, and Keane is clearly not such a player. He tries and sometimes suceeds, but he's still a striker at heart and always chooses flash and scoring when you need passing and efectiveness.

Bent has touched the ball once in 45 minutes. How much did this guys cost again? 25 mill? Christ Almighty, Jol is doomed.

Meanwhile, Everton are a one-dimensional team but has mastered their one trick to perfection. Rocky defense, quick buildup, long ball to their fast strikers, pile on the Spur's rejection, ball to Arteta.

Arteta does his usual. Nowhere to be seen for 40 minutes (hence why he's not in the national side), 5 minutes wreaking havoc on the opposing side. Both goals came from plays he initiated. And he has a great ally, Leon Osman who's quickly becoming a mini-Lampard with his play and goals.

I expect Spurs to pile on Everton's box, and receiving 3 more goals on counterattacks.

Unless Berbatov manages to score a quick double, this game's over.

Talking of not defending to save lives, Steve Bruce will be needing his "the new players need a while to gel" speech tonight.

I was optimistic after the Chelsea result but two mediocre teams have left St Andrews with our points.

Derby County next week in the first real relegation battle of the season? (And Bolton two weeks later.)

Well Jaidi and Ridgewell look a damn sight more secure than Djourou, and we really need a decent full back so perhaps the Arsenal kid can go there?

Watching Match of the Day, referees seem to have no consensus on penalties. Wigan should have had about five, and while the one that won the game for West Ham was generous to Bellamy's clear intent there's no question Dyer should have had one earlier.

As for the ball over the line in the Fulham game:
Dear BBC "Experts",
You saya there should be some technology, how would you stop the game to decide if it was a goal or not?
Award a goal kick if not? Or a drop ball? How many appeals would a team be allowed before they start getting penalised for time-wasting?

Do folks really want that technology? And if so, can we have it for corners too?

The actual gameplay mechanics of goal line tech are probably the hardest. The best option is probably to wait until the ball goes out of play and then check it, a fifth official could already have watched it a few times if play carries on. The big problem is a team going down to the other end of the pitch and scoring.

And if it happens at all it should only be for whether the ball is over the line for goals, the rest should be left up to the refereeing team's judgement (as bad as that is sometimes - how far off was Heskey?).

Oh exactly.
They seem to ignore that it's not like tennis or cricket where the game stops soon after the decision is needed.

Simple answer: "well he was wrong but the referees decision is final" and then give crap linesmen grief for wrong offsides during the game so they can compensate the offended against team by balancing it up later ;)

Did you see where that non-league team accidentally scored from a drop ball backpass and the other team let them equalise un-challenged?

Jeff Stelling mentioned it on Soccer Saturday yesterday.

Going back to the goal line stuff; American Football allows, I think, two challenges per half per team, but correct challenges don't count towards the two. So if you make a correct challenge, you still have two further that half, they are only lost for incorrect challenges. I'd assume a manager in proper football could make a challenge at any point between the incident happening and the ball next entering play after play had stopped. The best thing for a team that was worried about a challenge might be to try and win a quick throw and take it as soon as possible.

Bit of a shit day for refs, really.

Hehehehehehehehehe.

I'll take that.

Is that what Mr Styles said when presented with a bulging brown envelope? ;)

I'm sure we'll lose points we deserve, might as well take one we don't.

The rules in American football have changed a bit (2005, I think). You now only get 2 challenges in a game, and a third if both are successful. However, any failed challenge results in the loss of timeout (I don't know if there could be an equivalent punishment in football, as the loss of a substitution would be fairly severe).

Teams do try to avoid challenges by getting the play off quickly, before the other team has a chance to react. It's pretty hard though, since you need to set up your line before you can snap. The only one I can think of is Denver beating out a potential New England challenge in the playoffs a few years ago (it was doubly impressive because it happened on an interception).

I wasn't quite sure I had those rules right.

There really isn't an equivalent of a timeout to take away, but there would be many many less opportunities to ask for a replay.

It sounds like such a simple change, but there are always going to be some difficult areas to work out.

Fucking hell. (fail)

(Torres' goal was totally clinker though. But jesus wept that was depressing)

There's a couple of Mickey Mousers in work, I've had a big grin on my face all morning.

And, to be fair, the only surprising thing about the decision was which way it went. It isn't exactly unusual for there to be a terrible penalty decision at Anfield :P

How dare you etc

To be honest, by the middle of next month, assuming that results go our way it probably won't be too big a deal. I've been impressed by us so far. Babel has settled in well and Torres' goal will silence those who couldn't wait to slate him (I've been well pleased with him thus far anyway, goal aside). Our typically rubbish start to the season seems to have been avoided. It's interesting to say the least.

United, on the other hand, are unbelievable at the minute.

No, two points probably won't make that much difference at the end of the season. I'm happy to have the hardest game of the early season out of the way without losing.

United are class...

Man, the Russki sure has closed his chequebook!

You wanted Alves and you got Belletti. That's like trying to sign Cristiano Ronaldo and settling for Dwight Yorke!

BTW, Sevilla are serious Champions League contenders, mark my words.

They pushed us too far on Alves. £21M is too much for a fullback, however good they are. £27M would be ridiculous. Belletti for £3.5 will more than do the job.

Aargh, I'll remember the sig this time...

OK, I'm lying. It still won't work...

Belletti is no bargain at that price.

And he's old, slow and distracts easily. You were better with Boulahrouz.