The OS states that Anichebe is suffering from an unknown injury...
Brings to mind: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don?t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don?t know. ? ? United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
That's cleared that up then.
Dick Fearon, Posted 15/08/2010 at 12:51:48
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 15/08/2010 at 17:05:52
Before anyone starts about wishing ill luck on our players, think about it ? it IS the only way we won't see him on the teamsheet.
2 Posted 15/08/2010 at 18:01:40
3 Posted 15/08/2010 at 18:08:16
4 Posted 15/08/2010 at 19:08:02
5 Posted 15/08/2010 at 19:54:43
6 Posted 15/08/2010 at 19:58:18
7 Posted 15/08/2010 at 20:33:35
8 Posted 15/08/2010 at 21:20:46
9 Posted 15/08/2010 at 23:48:14
10 Posted 15/08/2010 at 23:49:14
You two are just sad.
11 Posted 16/08/2010 at 06:40:22
Cotton balling them so they don't get injured and scupper any deals perhaps? Notable exceptions were Milner and Mascherano.
12 Posted 16/08/2010 at 10:34:00
13 Posted 16/08/2010 at 12:14:00
14 Posted 16/08/2010 at 12:57:08
15 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:08:53
16 Posted 16/08/2010 at 11:00:21
17 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:21:34
My point was tho, Ossie, Hibbert, Vic, Neville all seem to be getting slaughtered week in week out by Blues and I just cant believe Cahill is seen as one of our better players!!! My opinion is that he is a weak link in our team and should not be in the starting 11. Playing just one up top, Rodwell offers us SO much more in the support role than Cahill or playing 2 up top, it should be Yak and Becks with Tim on the bench!
18 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:31:28
19 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:32:08
Cahill is a tough call. I can't see that he offers a great deal to the team other than work rate and a goal threat.... but there's 2 things which are massively in his favour and that's his knack of getting us important goals and our win ratio with him in the side, compared to that without him.
I think it's unfortunate that he's so one-dimensional, but I'd still be loathe to get rid.
20 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:34:06
Also, would we play less hoof ball without Cahill up top/behind the 1 striker?!?!?
21 Posted 16/08/2010 at 13:39:48
22 Posted 16/08/2010 at 14:02:28
But I think comparing him to Rodwell is perhaps a bit like comparing apples and oranges. If I wanted to try to pidgeon-hole the two, I'd say Cahill is more of a second striker, whereas Rodwell is a cultured midfielder.
I think the problem yesterday was that the delivery in the final 3rd was poor. There were too many balls in front of the defence for Cahill to be effective arriving in the box.
I can see why Moyes persists, but I see the frustration as well. The problem with Cahill is that he can do nothing for 85 minutes, but win us the game... at which point do you think, he's not gonna get a goal today?
23 Posted 16/08/2010 at 14:16:44
I would like to see us go into games with our best 11 and for me right now, I would love to see: Howard, Neville, Jags, Heitinga, Baines, Coleman, Arteta, Fellaini, Pienaar, Rodwell, Yak/Becks if we are going to continue with 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 (Coleman playing RM, i think he has shown pace and skill to be useful on RM).
24 Posted 17/08/2010 at 01:06:03
How about Cahills 2 headers from set pieces v Villa, yes people mark him tight and he still does the business.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.