Is anyone now prepared to give me a bit of credit for my argument that the holding midfield role is one of the least demanding? The fact that Emerton can come in and play well there with little Prem experience of the position (against seriously good teams) is evidence of that. As I said before, if you have reasonable technique to retain possession, good work ethic and decent mobility - you can do a adequate, or better, job in that role. It's the very reason Phil Neville played there for Man U. It's the reason that Vogel can come in having not played competitive football for yonks and play okay. And it is the only reason Aaron Mokoena passes as a Premiership footballer. But now Emerton has done a good job there, and we have Vogel and I'm sure Reid could play that role - I see absolutely no reason for keeping the Axe.

Good point. I vaguely sensed something illogical about Wright's published comments and you've put the nail on the head. (Although, no doubt, there were other explanatory comments which might've made the whole thing make a bit more sense). I, like you, am not that objecting of Wright on Motd. He can be quite amusing (even if unintentionally) and besides, at the end of the day (comes night), football is only a game.

Wright acts like a jester (did anyone ever listen to Wright 'n' Bright on 5Live)? He shouldn't be surprised if he is thus treated like one. I agree, however, that Hansen and Linekar are far too complacent in their presenting.

Fife, you've missed the point. I'm saying that WW2 MADE Churchill. He was in the right place at the right place to immortalise himself in the history of Britain. Previously, his achievements were hardly amazing. My history is not great but as far as I know, he invented the concentration camp (Boer War), was an engineer of the Gallipolli landing, was an avid and ruthless imperialist who wanted India to remain with the Brits regardless of the cost of life and was at times a boorish individual and after the war, well, he lost the election. He lead the country superbly during the war and thus made his name. Er, yeah, OT.

I'm with Jan on this, as everyone knows. I don't hate Souness personally but I think that he is a bad manager who benefited from the circumstances at Blackburn Rovers to somewhat redeem his managerial CV. Otherwise, since leaving Rangers, he has regularly flopped, and even abroad, he was by no means outstanding. He did good things for us. But consider: Sgt Wilko won the league with Leeds Graham Taylor took Villa to 2nd in his first spell. Glenn Hoddle got Swindon promoted to the PL, FA cup final Chelsea, League Cup final Spurs Peter Reid took Sunderland to 7th in the league and promoted. Glenn Roeder took West Ham 7th(?) Steve F'ing McClaren took Middlesbrough to the UEFA f'ing Cup Finals!!!!!, Sven won the Scudetto, Dennis Wise took Millwall to the FA Cup finals Bryan Robson performed the great escape with West Brom and took Boro to the Premiership, FA Cup final, League Cup final John Gregory taking Villa to 6th, European footy and FA Cup Final Gerard Houillier won the plastic treble with Liverpool Iain Dowie took Palace from the base of Champ to the Prem As the above evidence, circumstances can elevate an individual far beyond their talents merit. I haven't even included Winston Churchill on that list. Souness' Rovers achievements, imo, rank alongside the above in being considerably derived from fortunate circumstances - more, certainly, than from talent. Edit: It's only fair to point out that I know little of Wilko, GT and Hoddle's early achievements and have only included them because the trio are now roundly mocked by most. Perhaps, they do not deserve to be there.

Assuming Tugay was fit for the last game, Moko and Vogel were preferred over the Old Turk to sit on the bench. So, just going on that, it doesn't look great for Tugay. I would prefer us to move on. Let him go back to Gala and have his swansong.

Well reasoned. You don't think that the holding midfield role is undemanding and does not take a genius, or even a good player to perform it okay? Well, are you aware that Aaron Mokoena was pilloried by South African national media and fans for his dire performances in the run-up to the recent African Cup of Nations AS A HOLDING MIDFIELDER? (As was their manager for the selection). Are you aware that in response to Mokoena's technical inability, the South African boss, gave him the specific remit to not try any long pass, if he can help it? Are you aware that South Africa flopped badly in the ACN. And I believe that now, Mokoena is back to playing centre back for them. (Edit: for all those slamming Mokoena for injuring Santa Cruz, you must bear in mind that he was captaining a South Africa who are under intense domestic pressure from media and managers for recent failures and the fact that they lie outside the top 70 in the FIFA world rankings. They had something to prove).

Den, I was all for giving Mokoena a chance, like I am all for rewarding good youth players with chances or new signings. It's when the player has clearly, over a number of games - even seasons - proved that he is not good enough that I draw the line. If Treacy or Rigters came in for a bunch of games and made zero impression, I would accept that we have to look elsewhere. Mokoena has proved, on many occasions, that he is a poor player. And it's not as if he has age on his side to develop like, for example, Jamie Carragher of early 20s who was about as comfortable on the ball as Nils Eric Johansson wearing clogs. (exaggeration alert!.)

The fact of the matter is, anyone who does his research will not pay £500k for the man. He has many international caps, he has Premier League experience but he is crud. There are negligent managers out there who will spend ridiculous amounts for experience, so who knows what we may one day get for him. In fact, the more he stays on he bench, the better, because his inadequacies will not be overly exposed. Dominic Matteo was Leeds' star man in their relegation season, playing as a defensive midfielder. Did that make him worthy of a big money move to play CM at another club? Diagne Faye at Bolton played the totem in midfield to quite good effect. Is he a reasonable midfielder? Djimi Traore won the Champs League - would you want him in our squad, let alone team? My belief is, anyone can play DM in a relegation-scuffling 4-5-1, who has basic ability and more importantly, the physical attributes. Could Jon Douglas not come on for 15 minutes with a remit of holding his position in front of the back four? Of course - it is a truly undemanding role. Circumstances have a tendency to elevate people (and sometimes disparage them) undersevedly. Mokoena has been elevated far beyond his station. He has received the sort of cushy, unconditional love from Hughes that our youth players can only dream about.

Bentley needs more games to overcome his insecurities about playing international and getting accustomed to his team-mates. That's the ridiculous thing about international footy, new players aren't given games to get to grips with the new level. It's just like youngsters who don't make an immediate impact in the Premier League. If they don't continue to get opportunities, how are they going to fulfil their potential? If Capello wants to see Bentley putting in his best performances for England, he needs to play regularly.

I dunno but I have heard that Mokoena's deafening burps make Claude Makelele's sound pitifully like coughs of an ill man. Who would've thought that I'd ever be comparing Makelele to the great godliness of South Africa.

Please do not be fooled by these revisionist Eriksson theories. He still is a fraud. That's not to say he does not appreciate talent (Elano, Petrov etc.) but with the money he's had at his disposal, it'd have been a Kidd-ean disgrace if he hadn't brought in some goodies (even Kidd signed Jansen). Eriksson has been hugely fortunate that he's gone to a club with a bunch of exceptional youngsters (Sturridge, Etuhu, Onuoha, Richards, Johnson, Ireland, Hart, Schmeichel, even... Ched Evans...) and has also been armed with millions to recruit foreign flair. At the moment things are going well enough but I predict that the City fans will grow increasingly frustrated by the lack of substance from their team. Sure, they'll play some pretty football now and again (first 10 mins versus Rovers!) and earn some good wins but ultimately they won't get where they should be with all the money they've got. I appreciate Eriksson doesn't moan but he doesn't really say anything. I know English is his second language but still...."Wellllllllll...........to lose the game is neverrr aaaaaaaaaaa good thing..........................." Thank you, Mr Eriksson.

I agree with the second sentiment. ROvers shouldn't stall and potentially jeopardise a career by hording talent that they do not have use for.

Shouldn't have included Dickov but you see that Arsenal don't just buy foreign youngsters. They have produced a healthy amount of Brits who are now plying their game in the top two tiers of English football. Is there a club with a better record of rejects going on to have decent careers?

Derbs is a player who is far from top notch but has useful attributes that render him a squad player. Other reserve players should take note, and Hughes should take note that it doesn't take a world beater to contribute to our first team.

Ian Wright will be devastated. He was pushing him for a senior squad spot. Plank. (Sorry, I it has to be said).

I believe that the witch hunt is in full voice because of one major reason - Neill made some disparaging comments about Blackburn once he joined West Ham. I can't remember how damning these views were but they followed in the wake of some uncomplimentary things he said about the Blackburn area whilst at the club. He is a guy who doesn't care much for diplomacy and clearly puts his own position first and hence he made enemies of Millwall fans when he stalled on a new contract and left them for compensatory pittance to join us (where were the condemnatory Rovers fans then? Oh yeah, it wasn't Rovers so it doesn't count). The ridiculous thing is, if Neill had crossed his fingers behind his back and said some fawning stuff about Blackburn and the supporters and how amazing they were, Rovers fans would be wishing him all the best. That's how fickle we (some of us) are. My own position is that there is no loyalty in football, fans aside, and everyone is in it to better themselves. Neill left for West Ham's riches and regular football (he probably spoke to Craig Bellamy and got the low-down on how frustrating the Benitez rotation policy is) - we should accept it as a rational decision - and something we might do ourselves if we were him. If you want to criticise him, don't call him a money-obessessed so and so. Call him a disrespectful individual who doesn't appreciate what Blackburn contributed to his current success. That is, as far as I can see, his only crime.

What a few days for Mark King! He's had terrible injuries over the years which have restricted his reserve chances but was snapped up by Accy Stanley after impressing in a behind-closed-doors friendly and he made his senior debut today. (Stanley lost). Good luck to him.

Iceman is South African, if anyone was in any doubt.

Mokoena is a bad enough choice himself but partnering him with Tugay is just about the most silly idea a Blackburn manager has had since Dominic Matteo was picked as a defensive left winger. You end up with the ridiculous situation of having two guys in central midfield who want to stroll about in front of the back four.

I just think that the idea of a "Prem standard" is meaningless when used as a gauge to prejudge a player before he plays in the Premiership. Most Ipswich fans and Blackburn fans would've told you that Shefki Kuqi was not "Premiership standard" when he joined Rovers. And whilst his technique wasn't impressive, he made a useful contribution to Blackburn because of his brawn, workrate and pace. Even now, I don't think anyone would say that Kuqi was "Prem standard", but I fully understand why Lawrie Sanchez signed him for Fulham. If a player has one or two useful, rare attributes, they may still be of use to a team (even if only as a squad player) regardless of the fact every other aspect of their game is mediocre and most label them sub-Prem standard.

It's a sign of a healthy academy system if released players are doing elsewhere. It's better to let guys go, imo, than horde them jealously without giving them real opportunities. I know it's a slightly unfair comparison but look at Arsenal's Alumni in the top two tiers of English football: Bentley, Harper, Sidwell, Muamba, Kilkenny, Stokes, Matt Connolly, Chilvers, John Halls, Dickov, Jerome Thomas, Graham Stack, Stuart Taylor, Bothroyd, Richard Hughes, Livermore... And we're getting worried about Garner! (Admittedly, you can hear the sound of the barrel bottom being scraped at the end of that list).

I just want to make a comment about a phrase that is used very often by football fans, regarding players, and that is "'X' is not Premiership standard". It's often said that a reserve player or youngster does not meet Premiership standards. But who is Premiership standard? Why should a reserve player have to meet this amorphous, malleable standard to be of use to Blackburn Rovers? Martin Taylor, Jon Stead, Shefki Kuqi, Jon Douglas, Jay McEveley, Keith Gillespie, Paul Dickov, Nils Eric Johansson - could arguably be categorised as not Premiership standard. Even Aaron Mokoena could be called non-Prem standard because I cannot see him being good enough to get into the starting XI of any Premiership side - even Derby. However, all these players contributed something useful to Rovers in times of strife or times of strength. Thus, I am suggesting that when you appraise a reserve player - or for that matter a new signing - you should not ask "is he Prem standard?," you should ask "will he bring anything useful to the squad and (in the case of a signing) is that benefit he brings worth the money expended on him?." They may seem to be the same question but imo are importantly nuanced.

Hughes did want to keep McEveley, hence the contract offer. However, McEveley didn't rate his chances of first team footy so he left. Let me remind you, Hughes is a great manager but he's not God. I.e His judgment is not infallible.

That's a little simplistic. I'm sure that had Garner turned down a outbound move and declared his desire to be a Rovers player, Hughes would've been more than happy to see if he can develop in the reserves and become, at least, a squad player. Just look at how Hughes was keen to keep Gally and McEveley. I don't think you'd say either of those was, to put it into simplistic terms, 'good enough' for the Prem, but with young players there's the hope that they may improve with games and experience. And even if they don't hit the heights, they may become useful squad players who do a job cost-efficiently and then, perhaps, move on for an inflated fee. Put it this way, I doubt Hughes ordered Garner's agent to find him a new club.