You might notice that we haven't included a single mail about teams in pubs, because most of them were terrible. Instead we have a disgruntled Fulham fan and Scouse maths...
Villa are the latest team to get the pub treatment, while the morning mailbox also includes missives on Tony Pulis leaving Stoke and Chelsea's future under Jose Mourinho...
If you have anything to say on any subject, mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Right On Raheem
Spot on Glen Stuart. I had an unpublished mail calling for Sterling to be dropped the other week (before he got his second goal) and yet again on sunday he was anonymous and poor.
Why Assaidi isn't given more of a chance beats me. His first few games showed as much potential as Sterling has. Give the latter a rest, get him to 'beef up' and hopefully it should give him the kick up the arse he needs, so that he might start proving, instead of believing, the hype.
Mike Woolrich, LFC
Wrong On Raheem
Glen (unimpressed) Stuart, sighing loudly...seriously?!
You wrote in to criticise a lad who's just turned 18? He's our best prospect in years. Your assertion that he lacks strength is ludicrous. Anyone who has watched him this season can't fail to have been impressed by the strength he has for his size. You suggest that he doesn't go past defenders with any sort of regularity. Yet he has 42 successful dribbles this season, second only in our squad to Suarez, and more than Downing, Suso, Borini, Assaidi and Cole combined. And, while we're on the subject you fail to suggest which of the aforementioned should have been playing in his stead. I expect one more attacker to join, and when Sturridge and Borini are fully fit and the Ass-man is back from ACoN then you'll probably get your wish to see Sterling playing less.
But that should not detract from what was a ridiculous mail. Youngsters need to be given time and patience. Your ignorance suggests you rarely if ever go the match, but if you do then I can only assume you're one of the idiots who have booed Lucas and Henderson in recent years.
Kieran Garrard, Liverpool
...After reading a somewhat definitive description on Raheem Sterling's flaws, I had some questions for this all knowing footballing genius.
Firstly I wondered if he'd even seen the lad live, and no I don't mean on the television. Because the player isn't deployed in a wide midfield position, his movement and positioning in relation to where he is needed and where the balance of the team is concerned is very good; showing a great understanding and knowledge.
Then I wondered about the whole 'easily dispossessed' thing. Stats are very misleading and shouldn't be used unless in context. Given the player's position (and hype) I would expect him to be tackled frequently, a centre midfielder or central defender on the other hand should and will have better stats. One of the reasons why he isn't burning past his marker is that his marker is either touch tight to him and fouls him or stands off him preventing him from doing that. Defenders know what they're up against so they don't get caught out.
Raheem Sterling has a lot to learn and is by no means the finished article. But at 18 years old, regularly playing for Liverpool, being capped by England and playing alongside some great names he can only get better. So questioning his position as a starter is one thing, but I wouldn't question his ability to start and I certainly wouldn't back it up using figures on being tackled. He's practically playing up front for heaven's sake.
Of course Raheem Sterling is good enough for the Liverpool first first team.
He's over rated, poorly disciplined and of interest to no other team other than Liverpool.
So, in short, a perfect fit.
Martin 'it's almost too easy' Ansell
Mourinho At United? No Thanks
In response to the idea Mourinho replacing Fergie at Man Utd, I would have to say a resounding no. Okay, he does win trophies and is a world-class manager. And it is true that he is a darling of the English media. but I am not very keen on having a primadonna in the Utd dug-out. Before anyone cheekily says that we already have one, he has totally earned it and he can do what he wants!
Personally, and this may change in the future, I wouldn't care less if we never won anything in my lifetime after Fergie leaves. We Utd fans have been utterly spoiled since the Scot took over and started dominating English football and at times, European football. We have had more than a lifetime's worth of success. So, if Mourinho is being brought in just to keep the trophies coming in the immediate aftermath, then that's not a good reason for me, given his off-the-pitch behaviour, although it might be for other fans of the club. His short-termist nature is also a huge drawback for me. In order to counter the uncertainty following Fergie's departure, more uncertainty is not going to help!
Furthermore, I don't think the Old Trafford crowd like him very much, unless I'm sorely mistaken. So, it's not going to be a very nice tenure.
Although I wouldn't be overly angry if Mourinho did take over, I would prefer someone I could actually like and someone who can encapsulate the fact that it's a start of a new era and that we need to start building again. We don't want someone to mount a few extra shaky levels on the building just to appease fans' expectations. We want someone to steady the ship instead of someone who calls himself the special one. David Moyes is the guy for me.
Screw Champions League experience and trophies, he is a fantastic manager who's highly respected by everyone and someone who might be willing to stick around and patiently build his own legacy instead of making it all about him. Maybe I am too optimistic thinking that fellow Utd fans will remain calm, reduce their expectations and not start baying for blood as soon as we stop winning things.
Jay (apologies for mixing up building and ship analogies there), York
Three At The Back For Arsenal?
Having had time to reflect upon Arsenal's performance against City, I can't help but wonder if they would benefit from a change in system. With three of the better centre0halves in the league, there's no reason why Koscielny and Vermaelen couldn't start either side of Mertesacker, with Sagna and Gibbs playing the marauding wing-backs. The midfield triumvirate of Arteta, Wilshere and Cazorla could then continue to operate as before, with two central strikers playing ahead of them.
This would, to my mind anyway, solve a lot of Arsenal's problems. The two full-backs often find themselves high up the pitch anyway so there's little change there, but with an additional centre-half, crosses could hopefully be dealt with a little more effectively. It would also help Arsenal's seeming positional problems - Walcott and Podolski could play in their preferred positions up front, while Chamberlain could compete for his desired central role, allowing Cazorla to have a much-needed rest. Without wingers, there would also be no need for Ramsey to play on the left, and no need for Gervinho at all. The more physical presence of Giroud would also no doubt aid Walcott, who has so far flattered to deceive as a lone striker.
Obviously, this is not a perfect solution - a worrying lack of squad depth, both up front and defensively, would need to be addressed. A way to offer some protection on the flanks would also be necessary, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Thoughts?
Diame Not The Answer
The reason he has excelled at West Ham is Sam knows how to coach a defence and Diame has profited from this.
Wenger on the other hand couldn't coach a defence if his life depended on it.
I am sure if Diame is signed gooners will be falling over themselves to hail him as the new Patrick Vieira.
The reason Paddy was such a success at Arsenal was due to the on-field defensive coaching he received from the Premiership's greatest ever defence.
Without these players combined with Wenger's defensive 'coaching', he'll be little more than another Francis Coquelin.
Giving Wenger any more money to spend is like giving a drunk your last tenner because he says he hasn't eaten that day - he'll only p*** it all away.
Graham Simons, Gooner, Norf London
Defending Those Ticket Prices
As an Arsenal fan who is pretty much anti-anything to do with the club's current regime, especially Mr Kroenke and the rest of the board, I feel I must defend the criticism coming from the media, and football fans regarding the £62 tickets.
Southampton, Swansea, Sunderland fans should all be defending this policy. These games were all graded category C games, vs Man city (category A) and thus the away fans of these teams paid £24 to go to the Emirates to see their team - which has to be one of the cheapest away ticket prices bar Wigan in the Premier League.
My Southampton away ticket in contrast was £38 and a Sunderland away ticket is £38 - a 58% rise on what their fans paid at the Emirates. This compares to a 29% rise for Man City fans vs Arsenal away fans at the Etihad (£62 vs £48).
The reason Arsenal have done this is to allow their own fans the chance to see their own team for £24 which is very reasonable. IF however you are a fan who is only interested in the big games, you are stung for more money, which is how it should be. If however you are fan who just wants to watch Arsenal, support your team in whatever game and go to numerous games, net net you are in a similar position, if not better off.
In an ideal situation the likes of Southampton and Sunderland should pay more and the category As, Man Utd, City, Sp*Rs, Chelsea, Liverpool pay less, but FA rules prohibit the category C games fans being charged more than a home fan.
I do have sympathy for the Man City fans paying such a high price, and am myself disgusted at the £59 I am paying for my Chelsea away ticket at the weekend, but vent your anger at the Southamptons and Sunderlands of this world, not Arsenal.
Clubs, the FA and Sky Sports stopped caring about the real fan long ago,you only have to see the midweek fixtures they manage to conjure up to know that their only real interest is the guy on his sofa watching the game on TV and the beloved neutral.
Marco (At least Ivan Gazidis first love won on sunday, how's the £80m ranch, Stan?) AFC
Sian Massey's Simply Good
T J (Man Tip - Defrost your nuts by microwaving your boxers) raises an interesting point, but misses the bigger picture. Sian Massey is not good at running the line because she is a woman, she is good at it because she has probably spent a long time training and is simply just good at it, or at least is holding her own at the moment. Or is that patronising?
Is she better than any of the countless men who run the line, or T J, did you notice because she is a woman, and a rather good-looking one at that? Or is that patronising?
Would women handle a game better because they are women and would command more respect. Or is that patronising?
I must admit I noticed Sian. 'Look, that's Sian Massey' I commented to a friend, and immediately wondered why I did. I think the biggest compliment you could pay her is not noticing her. Black managers, Indian players, female officials, none of these demographics would seriously want to participate in football solely based on their ethnicity, race or sex, but their participation will gradually increase, because people will come through on merit.
A compliment you could pay Sian, and all officials, is to introduce praise where praise is due, or do they deserve praise for doing their job correctly? Officials only get scrutinised when they err these days, or have we come to the point where officials actually take a lack of comment as praise?
Whilst writing that I encountered a problem I would like to raise with the female mailboxers. Is linesman ok for Sian, or Lino, or Linesperson, Lineswoman? Similarly, is Karren Brady the Chairman, Chairwoman or Chairperson? Or is that...well, you get it.
Chris ITFC, (experienced in patronising, apparently) Liverpool
...Without wanting to get all Emmeline Pankhurst on yo ass, I think T J is being a tad on the disrespectful side by suggesting Sian Massey's ability as a lino/ref is based on a couple of bumps on her chest (Jeff Winter would be a good counter-argument!). Why can't it simply be down to her, as an individual, being good at her job?
If you can provide a solid biological study which proves women are more adept at such roles, I'll back down, but in the meantime can we not just give credit where it's due and not dilute it with overly-PC hypothesese.
Paul Lennon, Wirral
Please God, Make Me Spanish
Thanks Mediawatch for giving me yet another reason to bemoan the fact I'm not Spanish. I can cope with the fact the weather's nicer, the women are hotter, the food is better and their national team wins stuff...but they get porn on freeview too?!
Pete (and with 50% unemployment, the lucky devils have plenty of time to watch) Altrincham
How To Lose An Erection
Apparently, Wojciech Szczęsny gave an interview to Playboy (calm down, stop getting ideas) and came across this quote from that interview: "In this club [Arsenal] the coach is God. Nobody can rebel against Arsène Wenger. There is only one god." All things aside, I'd be massively disappointed to eagerly open a Playboy magazine only to end up finding a quote + pictures of Szczęsny. Who wouldn't?