LaticsChris

I really can't decide on him. I was all for him joining, then as soon as it became clear he wasn't I felt a huge wave of relief come over me. I think he's the kind of man that could bring great success or leave you looking like a circus, there's not a great deal of middle ground with him.

So what your saying is if we made a T34 the focus of our attacks not only will it cope much better with a harsh winter out on the steppe but it will also be appreciably more mobile than the majority of our centre forwards since dropping into this division?

It shows we're planning for the long term, which is something the club have been accused of failing to do in the past. Admittedly it could be costly to get rid, but there could be clauses. We don't know I think this is positive news, though admittedly with a bit of risk.

I'm not sure, ex-United player after all...

It's true that that's the only definitive way of knowing. You could argue that the system was proved underwhelming when Baxter was played there, admittedly with different players around him.

I'd like to agree with this. However I think Harkins playing in a centre midfield role wouldn't necessarily mean lack of defensive solidity and an increased goals against column, but more a lack of general solidity in the middle. It's all very well having a player in there but if we can't get a good hold of the ball in order to supply and support him he'll be neither use nor ornament and we'll both concede more and score less, if possible.

Stephen Bywater can battle it out with Gilkes for the No1 jersey. Paul Edwards (not that one) can slot in at the back.

I'll agree he was nowhere near his usual standards but he was also nowhere near the worst player on the pitch. Smith's trouble is he's trying to make things happen at the minute in a team that's on a bad run. For players like him - and with the responsibility he no doubt feels as captain - this often results in dropping deeper and deeper for the ball, which no matter how good you are makes it harder to really influence things in the final third. I suppose he needs Johnson to tell him to leave the dropping deep to Wes, who can then get the ball to Smith further up the pitch or play it wide, allowing Smith to break from midfield to get on the end of a good cross. Easier said than done though I guess.

I disagree. But those that were to agree I would assume would base it on his poor final ball throughout the match. A final ball that was not bettered by anyone else. I wasn't voting for who had played well, just the best of a bad bunch. On a side not, why can nothing ever be just bad or poor? Nothing and no one on Saturday was the worst of anything Latics related. I've only been watching Latics for fifteen years but I've seen much worse individual performances, much worse finishing, much worse passing and much worse lack of invention than on Saturday. It was a bobbins result. But a 0-1 at Vale Park - where we've only won five times in thirty-odd attempts - is nowhere near the worst of anything. There's no hope for reasoned debate with such overreactions. (This isn't aimed at you youngen, it's all over this particular corner of the internet)

In the first half Dayton looked threatening when running forwards. Despite his wayward crossing this was enough for my vote that half. In the second half no-one got it, though Oxley saved a pen and did nothing wrong he wasn't tested enough to be man of the match.

My favourite bit was the bloke shouting at the stewards for breaking up a fight. There are some special cases amongst us.

Port Vale 1-2 Latics (1-0) MacDonald 6276

John Oster

An odd set of figures for us. Third in terms of corners per game at home, third bottom in term of home goals.

Why yes, I suppose it is.

Is that shots to shots on target or shots to goals?

Walsall 1-1 Latics (1-0) Philliskirk 4,250

No not at all. I'm just suggesting that on this occasion the media might possibly have made a little exaggeration.

Latics 2-1 Stevenage (0-1) Philliskirk 3,725

That seems a ridiculous number. I just googled it and it came from the Sun. So think of that what you will.

I've never understood this when it pops up in football reporting/conversations. What difference does players' combined ages make? Will one player start to moan about his joints and start eating Worther's Originals just because when he stands next to a team mate their ages added together equal 61? Utter codswallop.

By my reckoning all of our reasonably successful managers have been novices. It's by no means a guarantee but looking at history it appears to be the best route for us as a club.

I don't foresee us getting players on the verge of the first team. There are plenty of Championship clubs to take them. We'll get - if there is a link at all -the level below, as we have been doing. Some might work, others will almost certainly bomb like Plummer. Such is the lot of a League One club. As for John Guidetti, he scored twenty for Feyenoord a couple of years ago, I can't see him arriving at Boundary Park!

Having heard of a number of fans demanding refunds for travel, tickets etc after having watched their side get hammered after long away trips (most recently West Ham tonight) I wondered what my fellow Latics fans think of this? Personally I think demanding a refund is utter nonsense, we pay to watch a team, we don't pay to watch them win. Thoughts?

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you there. It's a solution less likely to cause disruption to the team's shape etc. Though there's always the intangible effect that a settled goalkeeper has on a back four...