Well clearly we both got far too arsey

Perhaps I just don't revere Huckerby in the same way others do. I love what he has done for us, but if Roeder reckons he isn't worth his place, that's good enough for me.

What I don't really get about this debate is that everyone understands how wide open we would be if both Huckerby and Croft start and everyone understands that on current form, Croft starts.

So what exactly is Roeder to do? Picking players on reputation or past performance is madness. Isn't that exactly what we all say about Lampard and England?

If Huckerby was still the terror, the scourge that he was three years ago, and it was obvious that he and Roeder had fallen out over something then this debate would have some legs.

But Huckerby isn't getting in to the side for very sound reasons. What is the problem with that?

Posted By: The Judge, Feb 15, 20:59:03