Who does wverbody think is the best team not to make it into the world cup? I am not particularly well informed on this but I would probably plump for Turkey.

TND is completely accurate here. If we do not raise the money to buy players through decent crowds then we are screwed. The entertainment on offer at Rovers is improving but the fact of the matter is that other teams can play awfully and still get in 25k+. If people are going to stay away for whatever reason, and that is perfectly their right, then we can expect, inevitably, to expire as a premiership force. Once the Walker money runs out it is all over. One bad manager and a relegation and that will be that as not only will we have tiny crowds but also vastly cheaper tickets than the other sides we are competing against. It is absolutely a personal choice, but it is a personal choice that will end the club as a top flight team. Lets just hope Hughes, his succesors and the board can put it off for as long as possible, or, somehow miraculously, BRISA can get 5k-7k extra fans in every week even if we play shocking football.

Ive never come across that but I have heard of people spooning out a bit. Still nothing compared to alcohol anyways. So to clarify normally people love each other, or at least are happier and have a larger desire to plese.

Well, okay, it's not weak. But its not outstanding either, certianly not in the same way that their attack is at present. Anybody else readily recall an attacking five as talented as Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano and Robinho?

The result against argentina shows really that there is a two level system at international level. England, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic all operate on one. Brazil are on another entirely. Just thank the lord their defence is average otherwise no one would stand a chance.

Maybe I am just being spiteful, and I do recognise that Beckham has been playing well, I still think we would be a more dangerous side with a midfield four of Cole-Lampard-Carrick/Parker-Gerrard. Beckham works like a trojan and is arguably the best crosser in the world, dead or moving ball. But in terms of really hurting opposing full backs he does not have the range of talents of the likes of Cole, SWP and Gerrard. Still, if he plays like he has been doing then it is hard to complain. If only the fecker could beat a man and had a bit of pace, eh.

Just to add something else to the debat- ecstacy has already been pointed out to be alot less dangerous, at least in the short term (the results for the long term have not come in yet as widespread use only started in the eighties), than alcohol. Another benefit is that it makes people be extrodinarily nice to one another, I mean unimaginably nice. If Blue Phil and Colin had one each within an hour they would be hugging each other and saying things like "without you man, Im not sure I would have thought so much about all these amazing issues! You bring out the best in me, dude" and discussing the brilliance of house music. That kind of thing. It does not make people who take it violent or abusive or inflate their egos. It is not addictive. Indeed of all the drugs it is the most benign in terms of effects, although weed hardly creates psychopaths in the way alcohol does either. Indeed the single largest problem is that lots of people being that nice to each other, all the time, becomes kind of obnoxious and boring. And also, obviously, it is not genuine.

AESF, I think you may of ballsed up a bit here. The game was staged in Geneva at Argentina's request, they are the home side. Blue/white posted some excellent reasons for this: Also I would be suprised if the FA made any more money from hosting the game in Geneva that holding it in the UK. Can I implore you to write a page long piece on something you like about someone, or something. Raindrops on roses, whiskers on kittens or Brown paper packages tied up with string, that sort of thing. Or if you are looking at something more 'gritty' maybe the many positive impacts of the tabloid press on British society, or how the queen embodies all that is valued in this beautiful country of ours. Make us FEEL your passion, not drown in the acid bile of your hate.

Goddammit this has to be the most circular debate in history. There has been no new infomation injected into the discussion to stimulate new opinions, just endless repetitions of the same arguments that have been used for the last two years.

Billy's picture looks like Big Bird's very very evil twin. Jesus.

In the current 442 system the does not seem to be anywhere we can fit him in. If he was to play up front I think Hughes would be looking to pair him with Kuqi, but obviously as long as Criags fit that is not going to happen. Having both Bentley and Craig in the team would mean we would lack height and physical presence- both qualities that Hughes demands. He lacks the running and the defensive side of his game to pay in a four man midfield. He cant beat a man when he is wide and he looks about as porus as it gets when the opposition have the ball. Indeed many of his disadvantages seem remarkably similar to Gallagher's. ps. I am sure that you have had your Username all the way back to around 2003. If that's accurate that is some remarkable foresight- player and shirt number!

Population has a huge amount to do with sporting performance. The pool of talent is larger with a larger population. Consider Scotland and England. The fascilities, funding and interest in the sport is near enough identicle across the boarder but they suffer from having less kids coming through to pick and choose from. Other smaller countries that do well in sports, such as yourselves and Holland, do so through excellent coaching and getting a higher proportion of kids off their fat backsides and out on the field. Indeed if Australia did not spread itself so thinly between five major team sports- cricket, rugby union, rugby league, aussie rules and football- I think you would have an excellent side.

Just as an aside, did anybody realise that Argentina is four and a half times smaller, in terms of population, than Brazil? I found this a bit shocking. Indeed around about 40 million live there, actually meaning they are a smaller country than England. I always had the impression that it was significantly larger, if not as economically powerful. ps. All you aussies out there- Uruguay is tiny! About 4 million people which is even more itsy bitsy than Scotland. You have to do them now or you are all a bunch of wusses.

There is absolutely no chance that Savage will be dropped if he is fit. He is Hughes talisman. A bit harsh on Reid but this is how these things go, although I am sure he will get a run out as a sub or will start on the right if Emerton is knackered from all the flying.

I would suggest that your friends stop smoking crack. I know quite a few people who started and around 80% of them became addicted within three or four months. Now two of them are in jail, and none of them are worth knowing anymore. It is a cancer, and it is no fun having your stuff nicked by someone you used to like in order to feed a habit. Honestly it is about the worst thing you can do to yourself.

Well, and this exposes me as someone who has used cocaine before, a gram sits at about £ 40. This works out at about 8-15 lines I think. Consumption of cocaine is mostly amongst well off people as far as I understand, and as a result does not result in the low level 'fix' crime 1864 was talking about. That mostly comes with Crack and Heroin use. I would support a massive toughening of penalties for Crack and Heroin dealing (20 years imprisonment). These drugs are so unbelievably destructive that if there is any chance of eradicating their proliferation then they should be persued. Cocaine should also be eliminated due to the simplicity of the process to turn it into crack. Ecstacy and Cannabis should be legalised for the simple reason that they appear to cause no more harm than alchohol or tobacco (indeed many studies show a much lower level of damage), and the vast majority of social problems associated with them come from control being in the hands of organised crime, and the huge amount of money it generates. A strong approach is required, but one based on the premise that it actually protects. The 'gateway' argument- the only one with any real credibility against cannabis and ecstacy- is insuffcient. As far as I understand this is a common opinion amongst police and young people alike- which is remarkable and damming for current legislation.

I wouldn't say that. We still have some tweaking to do in midfield and we need the friendlies to sort this out. If everyone is fit I think we all know what tactics will be used (a holding midfielder in a 442 system) and who the starting keeper, strikers and defenders will be in Germany. The two questions are who will be dropped out of Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham and Cole, and who is going to be the holding midfielder. The holding midfielder is the big one because whoever comes in will not have a huge amount of international experience.

He can pass the ball better from deep but Parker is far superior at breaking up play and can still distribute very well. With the attacking talent of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole I would say it is more necessary to have someone to get the tackles in. At any rate either of them is a better option than King. The Gerrard-Beckham comparison seems an easy choice for me. Gerrard can dribble, shoot, head, tackle, drive forward and get into the box much more well than Beckham. I would also say Gerrard is a superior leader and commands more respect which ridicules the concept of Beckham being left in as he is 'captain'. It can only be a matter of time until Gerrard gets the captaincy, why not just bite the bullet now? Indeed the only advantage in having the tattooed one in the side is for dead balls and crossing- and the diminutive stature of our forwards somewhat negates these benefits. Nonetheless I fully expect Sven to pick him

The England squad has been announced and parker is still not included. I find this suprising as I rate him as a superior player to King, Jenas and Carrick. Apart from that the rest of the squad was pretty predictable. Robinson (Tottenham), Green (Norwich), James (Man City), Neville (Everton), Young (Charlton), Bridge (Chelsea), Konchesky (West Ham), Ferdinand (Man Utd), Terry (Chelsea), Campbell (Arsenal), King (Tottenham), Beckham (Real Madrid), Gerrard (Liverpool), Lampard (Chelsea), J Cole (Chelsea), Wright-Phillips (Chelsea), Jenas (Tottenham), Smith (Man Utd), Carrick (Tottenham), Owen (Newcastle), Rooney (Man Utd), Defoe (Tottenham), Crouch (Liverpool)

Thats a fair point, it does make the board more interesting to read. But what I do not understand is why anybody resorts to insults. To illustrate when has anybody been been inclined to be convinced by an argument when the other party insults you? If there is one sure fire way to make an individual you are trying to persuade to entrench their position it is using insults. As far as I can work out insults are pretty much one of the most useless aspects of language. What purpose do they serve which is desirable?

To be fair what goes up must come down, they cannot win everhing forever. We need these teams to decline to inject some interest into football, and all major sides have bad seasons. Ferguson is arguably the greatest British manager of all time (although I would put Cloughie amongst others ahead of him) and the 'crisis' consists of not being in the top four. The fans just need to buckle down and accept that sometimes things don't work out, the baiting of him is unfair. If the next few seasons are affiars whereyou actually cannot predict who will be in the top four before a football is kicked that will be only good for the sport. On current form it does seem that Chelsea are in a league of their own, while Arsenal still have a bit more class than everyone else and you suspect they should take second. Apart from that it is much of a muchness. Who knows who will grab third and fourth by the end of the season? It will be interesting!

If we do sign Petrov then it will be an interesting battle between them as presumably both cannot play in the same 442. As a sidepoint, I have not watched Celtic too much but he seemed more of a skillful breaking forward kind of midfielder in the Scholes/Lampard type (I could well be wrong about this. I haven't seen the Hoops play in over a year and then only briefly and with minimal interest) rather than a deep sitting dictator of play like Tugay/Ferguson/Keane. ps. I have to say those who advocated a switch to 442 have been absolutely vindicated. I opined sticking with 451 and have been proved utterly wrong, much to my delight! It has to make you wonder what kind of force we would be with another true world class forward. Hughes has been tremendous and has proven himself as a manager who can achieve with few resources. Bentley aside none of his signings have been less than very good (Nelsen, Kishi and Bellamy have been sublime!) , and all have been bargains (apart from possibly Savage. 3.3m was a bit steep at his age but he has been doing the business!).

Do you always have to be so abrasive? It does not win you any admirers.

I think Matteo would feature before Amo, but tbh the way Hughes has organised the defence I think anyone could come in and be at least decent.

Certainly have- I am on a year exchange at the university of Washington in Seattle. The perverse thing about it is I get to see more games out here because of Fox Soccer Channel. The combination of a lack of car, my folks living outside London and student finances meant I got to see three Rovers games a year at best.