shurlock

Back from the game - a fair result. we didn't play badly by our standards just that our top gear isn't very high. Barnard, having brilliantly worked him into space, should have made it 2-0 and the game might have been different. It was a surprisingly open game and we were given the space and possession to hurt them, but we didn't mainly due to ongoing poor distribution (tonight's principal offenders were Mills and Wotton). Apart from Kelvin, nobody really covered themselves in glory (though Fonte and Semi had encouraging games). Seaborne incredibly cannot head the ball, or at least direct and can make firm contact with it - is like the defending equivalent of nonalcoholic beer. Hard to say who should have been picking who up from the cross that resulted in their goal but they had a free, unchallenged header - with nobody around. Lallana looked subdued yet again and with the return of Holmes and options on the right, there is an argument for resting him. Papa needs to start, simply so that our attacking play isn't as frantic as it is with Antonio. Wonder how long James will be out for -didn't look serious on first glance but its hard to say- only adds to the incentive to bring in another midfielder or two. By the way, their number 11 weston had an excellent game - what a winger should be. Was my MOM.

No reason why he can't be involved in both clubs, especially if he appoints somebody trusted to hold the fort on the day to day basis. No reason why it can't be a good thing - we've had feeder teams/twinning partnerships before.

Maybe its fiorentina - the same connection that brought Papa here?

Nah simple prejudice - people will always find some evidence to justify their preconceptions about players and teams. Im interested in watching the movement around the player with the ball - does so much to determine what he can or can't do. Usually not hard to keep an eye on both as the best option/pass will be the one closest to the ball.

poor man's bumpkin jim davidson. a total irrelevance in 2010.

Really looking forward to tomorrow - tight little ground. probably have a sh*t view on the terrace but we'll see. I envisage this being a bit of a dogfight and us setting up nice and tight that's what AP has intimated. Typically we've gone 4-4-2 in games like this to bypass the midfield stalemate and lessen the reliance on Lambert for the outball - defensively, Brentford have been very strong this season- been esp impressed by Marcus Bean. Maybe we'll start James on the right to give extra cover as we did at Walsall and Hartlepool - similar type games, though I wonder who that leaves in the middle, especially as we had Hammond for those two games. The game will be won and lost by our ability not to be overpowered there.

Jeez, when does that ever happen?

Oh John (groaning), you cad/cod, I didn't know thats what you really do with the bell.

Not like pompey's mercenaries will have any better understanding. We easily have more players who've come through the youth system and/or British-based players. A dream tie.

Would be useful to have a westwood chant handy.

Maybe I'll give them some of my loose change (I do not condone coin-throwing)

or we could batter pompey at SMS

anybody who wouldnt want 5th place has a screw loose.

they haven't decided which ones will be televised yet, so means nothing...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/00035-Monopoly-Money/dp/B00000IWCW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=toys&qid=1264359149&sr=8-2 instead of confetti.

Hope it didn't sound harsh - was in fact defending Barnard in response to chez's post that suggested we only brightened up after Pards switched things and Antonio was brought on. The bigger issue is that we've played better this season with 4-5-1/4-3-3. If we go with that formation, what does it mean for the number of out-and-out strikers we play? Can Barnard adapt? Or does playing Barnard force us to go 4-4-2, a formation with which we've struggled at times? Perhaps Barnard will be the missing link to playing an effective 4-4-2. Who knows but its a nice selection headache to have...

Only willing to make a judgment based on a full match - each time he's come on -Millwall, Birmingham, Ipswich- we've been hanging on or trying to close a game. Hard to find your feet in these conditions. Midfield is probably the hardest position to come into as the game is hurtling/happening all around you. Did enough last year to warrant a closer look, possibly even a start.

Yes...but Barnard played 25 mins of the second half - a period we did dominate. I'm pretty sure AP changed the formation at half time/gave players different instructions - no doubt Barnard included. We didn't suddenly pick up after Barnard was subbed, though the injection of pace added a more natural menace. Ultimately, I'm trying to find a positive in things - that we were able to stifle Ipswich and create chances with Barnard on the pitch after a woeful first half in which nothing clicked. The other, more pessimistic interpretation is that we will struggle with Barnard and Lambert in a conventional 4-4-2 and this is not necessarily an Ipswich thing as you suggest- ever since Connolly put himself in the frame with some excellent goals, we've had similar problems against some very ordinary L1 teams. As I say, I cant believe that Barnard was brought in to warm the bench. But that's one possible conclusion if you believe that 4-3-3/4-5-1 is more effective than 4-4-2 and there are other players who while not head-to-head/individually superior to Barnard or Connolly (and I think Connolly is a better player than Barnard) nonetheless fit that formation. What to do???

I'll be quite interested to see how AP rotates the strikers. Surely Barnard hasn't come to the club to keep the bench warm or give Lambert an occasional rest. My starting assumption is that Barnard will start most games but where? 4-5-1 clearly suits us - is there a role for Barnard in this formation? if so what? We perked up in the 2nd half while Barnard was still on the pitch, so its possible that Lambert and Barnard can play together without disrupting the shape of the team in a way that perhaps hasn't possible with Connolly - obviously its too early to tell. Maybe its me but barnard seemed to play slightly more on the right in the 2nd half. Alternatively could he do a Teddy Sheringham type job just behind Lambert - people say his awareness and timing are some of his strongest attributes. Otherwise Jaidi was my MOM. I truly hope we get two midfielders in before the close of the transfer window- a ballwinner and an AM. Pards is intimating that bodies are tiring, so I expect at least one arrival before Brentford.

Recognition for keeping us up/deferring relegation for a year and being treated like s**t under Lowe? Water under the bridge and all that. Or vooed for his summer footdragging and not wanting to be part of the leibherr revolution, even though Pards seemed to prefer him over Rasiak or Saga? Or utter indifference as the c*ck keane gets all the stick?

Lee Croft or Stephen Pearson

They have the best stadium in the division. Totally wasted on them. Many grounds get decent atmospheres in L1, even if crowds are small because the stadiums are smaller and so fuller.

pay up pompey

Southend aren't the most prolific scorers in L1 (29 goals in total)- perhaps poor finishing or lack of chances.

Wont be sorry to see him go - saw alot of him last season and his few appearances this season. Generally, I've been disappointed. Perhaps it was a bit unfair to throw him into the CCC and he's looked bright without being threatening as a sub (if i remember got a good goal at Portman Road). But he doesn't have many raw attributes to work with - he's tall but too lightweight; his touch is tidy but nothing more; he's not especially quick and isn't a natural born finisher (i actually preferred Jordan 'ipod' robertson to him). He's a long way off the first team. Ideally we would send him on loan and see how he fares before making any decisions. But if we need to clear the decks before we bring new players in (a fair enough policy) and/or he can be used as part of an exchange, it will be in everybody's interest.