Shouldn't have to. If you knew your Rovers history (ie, extracted your digit from your rectum, bought a book and sat down and read it), you would know how good they were. The question is, are we voting for the best all-time team, or the all-time team containing the best players? If it is the former, you might as well vote en bloc for the 1995 championship-winning side, or for those with longer memories, the team that dominated English football before the turn of the 20th century. If it the latter, then I would suggest that only Alan Shearer from the modern era is a worthy of a place in the team. Friedel I can accept (reluctantly), but the choice of Le Saux is laughable.

Yes, you've got that one by the scruff of the neck Brownie. No discussion needed. Maybe it should read "Who were the second & third best centre backs?" I'd go for Kevin Moran. .. and there speaks someone who has never seen Mike England play. Hendry will win because the pimple-faced oiks on here can only see as far as the end of their nose. Those who have been watching Rovers down the years know better though. Welshman England is the best Rovers centre half I have seen.

John Connelly, a member of England's World Cup-winning squad in 1966, joined Rovers from ManU in 1968 (I think).

Good move by Hughes who has been quick to recognise the lack of quality in the squad. Djorkaeff is a class player - even at 36 - and we don't have too many of those (none, in fact). He says he wants to play for another two years, so hopefully he'll be bursting to make an impact, which can only to be our benefit.

Do you really think so? He was caught in possession quite a few times last night and often look heavy-legged and ponderous. One thing is certain - he is not a midfield player. His forte is using his twisting and turning skills in tight spaces in the penalty area - witness his winner against Portsmouth.

Quite right. Anyone who has played football would know that airy crosses are easier to defend against than a driven cross. Delivered from deep, like Emerton's pathetic attempts, and they will never trouble top-class defenders. The ideal cross is delivered from within ten yards of the byline and driven across the goal (Beckham is a brilliant at it and so were Wilcox and Ripley). How many times did we manage that last night? Not once that I can recall.

Quite so. No true Rovers fan would vote for Le Saux. I demand a recount.

Which doesn't say alot for the rest. Emerton is unable to beat his man and get to the byline; he is a poor passer of the ball, both in the timing of his passes and direction; and, for a so-called "wide" player, a terrible crosser of the ball. His crosses are either too long or too short or (8 times out of 10) he hits it straight at the man in front of him. Why he is given the job of taking corner kicks beats me. It all begs the question, why does Emerton exist?

Poor performance. Basic defending let us down again. Some observations. Jansen's feet look as though they are stuck in cement. Still way off the pace. Emerton is a worse crosser of a ball than Gillespie - either too long or too short or hit against a defender. Neill continues to go to sleep at vital moments - viz the goal. Stead worked hard but we're toothless in attack.

What about the free header from anothet set piece? Poor defending.

....

Flitcroft hit post when it was easier to score

Jim do you not read what keeps being said. If you can be bothered to read back you will realise that I have kept saying Newton was so good that he should be selected at left back.

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance. I give in. Douglas right wing, Clayton midfield, McEvoy striker, what's the problem Jim? They've as much chance as anyone else. As the positions are announced, if you want any player included, just say so. Arrgghh! You're talking about a different era. Douglas was a beautiful winger who could beat any full back in the world: can you imagine him "tracking back" (in modern parlance) to defend on the right side of a 4-4-2? Clayton was a classic wing half who linked up with the inside right and right winger and probably wouldn't know what midfield means. McEvoy, Vernon and Dobing, like all good inside forwards, were made in heaven. Striker is too ugly a word for players like them.

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance. I give in.

Conversely, in that era EVERY team had two wingers. Eckersley was brilliant at defending and did not venture forward because full backs of that era were not expected to. Newton was an excellent defender too but also supported the attack in the modern manner. My gripe with Le Saux is that he is not really a full back but a wing back. How many orthodox right wingers did Le Saux play against? Not many that I can think of, which gave him more scope to go forward like the converted winger he was. I repeat what I said before: I do not think Le Saux, for all his attacking qualities, was a particularly good defender. What should have been decided before the start of this exercise was the formation of the all-time XI. A contemporary 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 might contain a completely different set of players to an old-fashioned 2-3-5 containing traditional full backs, wing halves, inside forwards and two wingers.

or Newton.

Nonsense. Just because he played for England does not make a "great". Carlton Palmer anyone? Equally, Simon Garner qualifies as a Rovers "great", but he never came anywhere near a senior England cap. No one is "deriding" Le Saux and you are probably right that he was the best left back in the league at that time. But he is not the best left back to play for Rovers, not by a long way.

..... good player, not great. In the modern era, Bailey was his equal in my opinion. The greats are the likes of Eckersley and Newton.

Then the whole thing is a waste of time.

Just wait till you apply for a (decent) job, matey. Then you'll find out.

Condemned by his own hand, showing the extent of his footballing knowledge and his understanding of Blackburn Rovers history. Nil.

Unbelieveable. If ability were the only criteria (or longevity, or loyalty, or honesty, or character), Le Saux would be bottom of the list and Newton and Eckersley near the top of it. Le Saux's lead in this vote is a farce and makes the whole exercise a waste of time.

Not to be picky, but periods should go before ending quotations, even if the quotation is not for the whole sentence. For a journo, you sure make a lot of grammar mistakes on here, Jimbo. Pardon? Can you rewrite that in English please?

Not idiotic at all. There is a saying in sport that a "good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un" and it is usually true. It doesn't always work but nine times out of ten the big guy comes out on top. Forest probably had to make a choice and they went for the big 'un. You only have to look at Arsenal and Chelsea now; full of athletic 6 footers. The Rovers championship-winning side was a big strong team. Martin O'Neill has always had big teams - look at his side at Leicester and the way his Celtic team outmuscled Rovers at Ewood. Men against boys. Football is littered with stories of players who were rejected because of their size. Back in the 1960s, Bolton rejected Alan Ball (one of best players to wear an England shirt) because of his size; Rovers turned down Tony Green, a skilful Scottish inside forward, for the same reason. Both players were taken on by Blackpool. Generally, though, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Forest rejecting Wright-Phillips because he was small was not "idiotic" and had nothing to do with stereotyping or discrimination. The odds were that he would not make the grade.