Now that Glenn Roeder has stepped down and Sam Allardyce is conveniently also out of a job, there's been a lot of speculation linking Allardyce with St. James's Park. I don't much like Allardyce or the team he put together at Bolton, but I think that he could be good for the club -- and they'd be good for him, too.

It's no secret that Big Sam has been aiming for a bigger job than the one he had. But he didn't get the England job, and he wasn't likely to make the jump from Bolton to one of the top four teams anytime soon. Newcastle may be below Bolton in the league table right now, but nevertheless it's a natural progression. They still think of themselves as a "big club," and with their resources and fan support, they should be challenging for the European places every year.

And that's no less than their fans expect, which raises the question of how Allardyce will cope with 50,000 Geordies analyzing his every decision. He's going to be under a lot more scrutiny than he ever was at the Reebok -- and he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who likes being second-guessed. But if he doesn't let that bother him, and he can bring out the club's potential, then it would be an excellent opportunity for him to enhance his reputation.

Part of that reputation, at the moment, is tied to Bolton's image as a long-ball club. And I think that Newcastle fans want their team to entertain a bit (and not just the sadistic, "how will they fuck it up this time?" kind of entertainment) rather than just to grind out wins. So would Allardyce impose the same tactics that he did at Bolton, or would he adapt to the new situation? (Right now I'm trying to picture wee Michael Owen fighting to win headers against some giant centre-half, and laughing a lot.)

I think it would also be interesting to see how the club takes to Allardyce's Prozone-and-psychologists approach to management. He's been doing a good job of coaxing performances out of some aging legs at Bolton; applying the same methods at Newcastle couldn't hurt, what with their apparently chronic injury problems.

Of course, there are a few other names being linked with the Newcastle job, most notably Gerard Houllier and Sven-Goran Eriksson. The biggest issue for any manager, though, is probably whether or not he can persuade Michael Owen to hang around for next season, rather than using the escape clause in his contract and running to a Champions League team as fast as his little legs can take him.

I've only watched Javier Mascherano play a few games for Liverpool so far, but I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with West Ham? How did they not realize what they had?

I remember when I first heard that he and Carlos Tevez were joining the Hammers, with everybody thinking it was too good to be true. The most obvious hitch was the supposedly dodgy transfer deal. And on top of that, if these guys were really so great, why would they want to go to a club like West Ham (who are not exactly part of the European elite)?

And for the first half of the season, our suspicions seemed to be proved right. The more details that came out about the terms of the deal, the worse it sounded; both players were having trouble breaking into the squad, and when they did get into the team, they weren't exactly setting the world on fire. West Ham went into a nosedive in the Premiership table, and signing the two Argentines seemed to have been the catalyst that made the team disintegrate.

Nevertheless, Rafa Benitez, still saw something in Mascherano and wanted to bring him to Liverpool. I thought it was idiotic, because not only had Mascherano flopped at West Ham, but Liverpool already had three good centre midfielders in Gerrard, Alonso and Sissoko, so I figured they didn't need him. Surely there were better players to spend their limited transfer funds on?

Rafa, however, is obviously a lot smarter than me (or Alan Pardew, or Alan Curbishley), because Mascherano has already proved his quality over the past month. He's been snapping into tackles all over the pitch, and he's a decent passer too -- so unlike Sissoko, he doesn't give the ball away immediately after he's won it. I think I like the combination of Mascherano and Alonso in the middle best so far -- Mascherano sitting deep and shielding the back line should let Xabi go forward and get involved in the attack more. But I'd also like to see how he'd work with Gerrard, because I think Mascherano would provide the defensive stability to balance him out. (Sissoko, although he's also good at breaking up attacks, tends to play too far up the pitch to be effective with Gerrard, I think.)

So he's slotted in well at Liverpool in a relatively short time. But why couldn't he do it at West Ham? I realize it takes a while to adjust to a new league, but it's hard to do that if you never even get to play.

Liverpool 0 - 1 Manchester United
John O'Shea's late goal robbed Liverpool of what would have been a well-deserved point and meant that United maintained their lead at the top of the table. The ironic bit is that O'Shea probably wouldn't have been on the pitch at all if Wayne Rooney hadn't had to be substituted after Jamie Carragher took a chunk out of his thigh with his studs.

It looked at that point as if the game was heading for the inevitable scoreless draw -- and even more so after Paul Scholes was sent off for taking a swing at Xabi Alonso in the 86th minute. But then Ryan Giggs won a free kick just outside the Liverpool box. Cristiano Ronaldo swung in a shot towards the near post, which Pepe Reina stopped but wasn't able to hold on to, and there was O'Shea to poke home the winning goal.

There's no doubt that United were lucky to win; they probably would have been happy with the draw. For 90 minutes Liverpool had done everything right except put the ball in the net (actually, that's not true: Craig Bellamy did once but it was correctly ruled out for offside). But the bottom line is that you can't win if you don't score.

Liverpool mustered 15 shots on goal to United's 5, but not enough of those were really a goal threat, and they were also denied by a couple of excellent saves by Van der Sar. I was surprised that they took Bellamy off so early, because he'd been terrorizing Nemanja Vidic all game, and although the end product hadn't materialized, he still looked the most likely to score. At the opposite end of the pitch, Liverpool's other outstanding player was Jamie Carragher, who was a defensive rock as usual and threw himself into some vital blocks.

The game was really a battle of the two midfields, though: Liverpool closed United down quickly and pressed them high up the pitch rather than sitting back. They didn't let them get their passing game going -- Michael Carrick was particularly invisible; in fact, the first time I noticed him was when he got booked just before halftime -- and closed down the service to the strikers. But Liverpool struggled to settle into their attacking rhythm too, especially since Momo Sissoko seemed determined to give the ball away as often as possible.

Liverpool could find it demoralizing to have dominated this game and still lost, but I expect that Rafa will get them to focus on the positives: they've beaten Barcelona away and shut down United at home, so there's no reason why they can't similarly shut down Barcelona at Anfield on Tuesday. As for United, the main repercussion is that Paul Scholes' red card means he'll miss their next three matches, although he can still play in this week's Champions League game against Lille.

United will be aiming to pick up another three points and expand their lead over Chelsea, who don't play until later that day, to 12. Liverpool, on the other hand, have the opportunity to take themselves to within four points of second-place Chelsea if they win. And they would dearly love to stick a wrench into things for United.

In their last few games, Man United have eked out a 1-0 win against Lille in the Champions League and a nervy 2-1 victory over Fulham in the Premiership, plus a 3-2 defeat of Reading in the FA Cup that they made much more difficult than it should have been.

Liverpool may actually be in slightly better form at the moment: they're coming off a 4-0 drubbing of Sheffield United last weekend and a 2-1 away win over Barcelona a few days before, which may have been ugly but will certainly boost morale. Although it's also possible that they'll be distracted from Saturday's match by the upcoming second leg of the Champions League tie.

There's no question that Liverpool are very tough to beat at Anfield. They're currently on a string of 30 unbeaten games and 9 clean sheets at home. But if any team can do it, it's the Premiership leaders. Although they've been winning ugly in recent matches, I think they actually play better when they go in expecting a tough game -- where they give themselves problems is if they don't respect the opposition.

I expect Sir Alex to stick with his usual starting XI, with Henrik Larsson getting the nod ahead of Louis Saha so that they can make the most of him as long as he's here. The only question is whether Gary Neville will be on the bench, or if he'll be let out of the doghouse after his snit against Lille. For Liverpool, I've given up on trying to predict Rafa's lineups. The only thing you can predict is that he'll be unpredictable. Oh, and that Peter Crouch, who broke his nose in the Sheffield United match, is probably not going to play. Javier Mascherano and Arvalo Arbeloa have both made their debut for the Reds recently, and it's quite possible that one or both of them will feature on Saturday.

Honours have come out even in the last three meetings: Liverpool beat United 1-0 to knock them out of the FA Cup last year and drew with them 0-0 at Anfield in the Premiership, but United won 2-0 at Old Trafford this September, with goals from Paul Scholes and Rio Ferdinand.

My prediction: A 1-1 draw. Which means that neither team will really be happy.

Congratulations, Lille! You have been officially awarded the prestigious title of Pissy French Bitches 2007 (previous holders: Arsenal). They are now (a) blaming Man United for the over-crowding in the away end and (b) claiming that the game should be replayed because the referee let Giggs's goal stand. Both of which are bullshit.

Let's start with the free-kick. Yes, quite often the referee tells the teams that they have to wait for the whistle to restart play. He didn't do that this time. So when Lille spent too much time faffing around setting up their wall and Giggs took advantage of that, they have only themselves to blame. It's understandable that they feel hard done by, especially since they'd previously had a goal disallowed for a push on Vidic, but reacting as if they were going to take their ball and go home is needlessly petulant. It's the sort of behaviour I'd expect in my rec league (where, instead of referees, you call your own fouls and the teams award each other "spirit points" after the game; yeah, it works about as well as you'd expect), not from professional footballers.

As much attention as is being paid to this -- and when I finally saw the game, I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting a bigger kerfuffle -- the more serious issue is the trouble with the away fans. There are conflicting reports as to what exactly happened, but basically: there were too many fans in the away section of the stands, possibly because of people using fake tickets, possibly because of stadium staff not actually checking tickets and just letting people in. Some of those fans felt that they were in danger of being crushed and tried to climb out, and the security people dealt with this by spraying tear gas at the crowd. Which, as you can imagine, was a big help. The whole thing is just boggling to me. I mean, having to segregate away fans behind wire fences is boggling enough in the first place, considering that I'm used to North American stadiums where you can sit anywhere. I can accept that it's necessary in other places, but if you're going to do it, isn't the point to make it less dangerous for the fans, rather than more so?

Right, so: Massive organizational fuck-ups aside, what about the game? Well, United started brightly enough, with lots of possession, but not enough of it was in the final third of the pitch. Although they lined up in the 4-4-2 I was hoping for (hallelujah!), they were lacking the final ball to the strikers or players really driving forward from midfield. Lille did a good job of harrying them and closing down space in the midfield; I thought Jean Makoun was their best player and it's easy to see why United were interested in him. Gradually, though, it was looking as if the game would peter out into a scoreless draw, until Giggs stepped up to give United a crucial away goal. I hope they'll go all out to win the return leg at Old Trafford, because I thought a lot of their problem on Tuesday was due to their usual caution in European away games, despite the purportedly attacking formation.

I haven't wanted to talk about it before, just in case I jinx them, but with less than a dozen games left in the season and Man United still firmly in first place, the idea that they could bring home the Premiership trophy for the first time since 2003 is starting to look like a real possibility.

There are a few key issues that could determine whether this is their year:

Will their key players stay fit?
United have been incredibly lucky with injuries this season. Compare that with last year, when they were without Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs, Gabriel Heinze, Louis Saha, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Alan Smith and -- perhaps most importantly -- Paul Scholes for long stretches of time. You only have to look at Chelsea's recent problems to see how injuries to even a couple of key players can throw off the rest of the team. Edwin van der Sar is out with a broken nose at the moment, but that's about it, and Tomasz Kuszczak is a more than able replacement.

Will Henrik Larsson go back to Sweden once his loan is up?
Larsson is supposed to rejoin Helsingborg once the Swedish domestic season starts up again on March 12. But there's a possibility that United could extend his loan spell until the end of the English season, and I think they should take that chance with both hands. Larsson has proven his quality and his importance to United over the past month, and it goes beyond just scoring goals -- he's got the experience of playing, and coming through for the team, in the big games.

Can they keep their players happy?
Again, you only have to look at Chelsea and Andriy "Teacher's Pet" Shevchenko to see what an impact dressing-room tension can have on a team. United seem to be, well, united this year: no Roy Keane storming out, no Ruud Van Nistelrooy sulking on the bench. I think the main challenges in this department will be juggling the strikers -- with Larsson, Saha and Rooney all fighting to start, plus Alan Smith coming back from injury -- and keeping Cristiano Ronaldo from being distracted by thoughts of a transfer to Spain.

How far will they go in the Champions League?
I'm sure Sir Alex would love to win another treble, but I think that would be asking too much of the team. The Premiership and the FA Cup, sure, but adding the Champions League title to that puts a huge burden on a squad that doesn't seem to have a lot of depth. There's always the possibility of injuries, not to mention the physical and mental drain that comes with midweek European games. This is not to say that I'm hoping United get knocked out quickly, but if they do go out, I hope that it's relatively painless, unlike the mediocre group stage last year, which I'm convinced put a huge damper on their domestic season as well.

Who do they have left to play?
United's run-in looks like this: Fulham (H), Liverpool (A), Bolton (H), Blackburn (H), Portsmouth (A), Sheffield United (H), Chelsea (A), Middlesbrough (H), Everton (A), Man City (A), West Ham (H). The fixture that stands out is of course the match against Chelsea on April 15, which the Sky programming department is no doubt salivating over even as we speak. But apart from that and the visit to Anfield, it's not too bad. And I should note that Chelsea play five of the same teams (Bolton, Portsmouth, Sheffield United, Everton, West Ham and Man City), plus Arsenal away, so they won't have things any easier as they try to make up some ground.

I'm only mentioning Chelsea here, because with Liverpool and Arsenal 16 and 17 points back of United, respectively, I think they're out of the equation. But now that Chelsea seem to have got their act together again, there's still enough time left for them to catch United. At the moment, United have a 6-point lead over the forces of darkness, not to mention that +45 goal difference, which Sir Alex is only too happy to tell you is as good as an extra point, but that only translates into two or three games. So it's not a done deal, but United have momentum on their side, and I think the title is theirs to lose.

And now, if you'll excuse me, having tempted fate sufficiently for one night, I'm off to make a sacrifice to the footballing gods.

I know this weekend's match between Arsenal and Manchester United has already been covered to death here, but not from a Man United perspective, so bear with me.

It featured two teams who are probably playing the best football in the Premiership right now, and as you'd expect, they were fairly evenly matched. If I'd been a neutral (or, god forbid, a Gooner), it would have been a great game to watch. As it was, meh.

And there was one simple reason for that: Sir Alex's spineless decision to field a 4-5-1 formation instead of their usual 4-4-2.

Now, there are certainly some arguments in favour of doing that:

- United were playing away from home, against one of the best teams in the league.
- Chelsea's loss to Liverpool the day before gave them some breathing space and meant that even a draw would be a decent result.
- Arsenal often play 4-5-1, so matching that would make it harder for them to build play through the midfield and get their fullbacks forward.

But there are some equally good arguments against it:

- United are playing great football right now, whether they're home or away, and they shouldn't have to be afraid of the other top teams.
- Chelsea dropping points meant they had an opportunity to increase their lead even more.
- Arsenal actually started with a 4-4-2 formation, so why not switch too -- especially since United's formation was demonstrably not working.

And the most important argument against: It simply doesn't play to their strengths. For Arsenal, 4-5-1 is still an attacking formation, as all of their midfielders seem to work interchangeably and get forward at various times. For United, on the other hand, it's just code for "play defensively," and it isolates the lone striker way too much.

All this is not to say that United played badly on Sunday. I think they deserved a point from the game, at least. But with Ryan Giggs in the hole behind Henrik Larsson and Wayne Rooney (mostly) on the left wing, they were only playing at about 80% of their capacity, and that's just not good enough when you're playing Arsenal in peak form.

You'd think that Sir Alex would have learned after their last Champions League game, where they started with the same 4-5-1 formation and promptly went down by one goal against Benfica. And then switched to 4-4-2 and ended up winning 3-1. Enough said.

Liverpool have beaten Chelsea in the Community Shield this year and the FA Cup semi-final last year, but they've been completely unable to overcome them in the league under Jose Mourinho. The record so far is five games, and five Chelsea wins -- the last one a 1-0 victory at Stamford Bridge in September, where the Blues prevailed despite Michael Ballack being sent off early in the second half.

But there couldn't be a much better time for Liverpool to try to end that string of defeats. Although both teams are currently struggling with injuries, Chelsea are arguably the worse off, with John Terry, Petr Cech, Khalid Boulahrouz and Joe Cole all out, as well as Claude Makalele suspended after picking up too many yellow cards. Liverpool have Luis Garcia and Momo Sissoko in the treatment room (and Harry Kewell in Australia recuperating or something), but they can still field close to their first-choice XI, while Chelsea have some key gaps, especially at the back.

Liverpool will also have the advantage of being at Anfield, and apart from the two losses to Arsenal last week, it's been a fortress this season -- they've only given up three goals at home all year. They'll also be trying to prove that they're definitely over getting knocked out of the cups so ignominiously.

Chelsea may have Petr Cech coming back from his head injury, although that's still up in the air at this point, and if he does play, it'll be in a protective helmet. And while having him in goal will probably boost the confidence of the makeshift defence in front of him, it's impossible to predict how Cech will cope in his first game back after such a serious injury.

The defence, I think, is going to be the key point for both sides. If I were Rafa Benitez, I'd probably start Craig Bellamy up front alongside Dirk Kuyt, get him to run at the defenders and goad them into making mistakes. The Liverpool back line have been decent this season but not outstanding, and they still look vulnerable to those long diagonal crosses. Dealing with those and containing Didier Drogba, who's been the Premiership's best striker so far, will be their biggest challenge.

Predicted teams
Liverpool: Reina; Finnan, Carragher, Hyypia, Riise; Pennant, Gerrard, Alonso, Aurelio; Bellamy, Kuyt. Subs: Dudek, Agger, Warnock, Gonzalez, Crouch.

Chelsea: Cech; Geremi, Ferreira, Carvalho, A. Cole; Essien, Lampard, Ballack, Robben; Shevchenko, Drogba. Subs: Hilario, Bridge, Mikel, Wright-Phillips, Kalou.

Looks like Jose Mourinho is about to throw a right little hissy fit.

There have been rumours about tension between him and the Chelsea board building up for a little while now. Mourinho wants to bring in new players during the transfer window to plug the gaps in his injury-hit squad, but the men with the chequebooks have been reluctant to back him after they've already spent about a gazillion dollars so players like Shaun Wright-Phillips can warm the bench.

Now Mourinho is threatening to drop £30-million flop Andriy Shevchenko from the squad for the match against Wigan and let him moulder in the reserves unless he gets the transfer funds he wants. Somehow I can't see Roman Abramovich backing down, though. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Special One in this situation, either. He's had free rein so far, and he's chosen to keep a relatively small squad, so if the players aren't good enough, it's really his own fault.

I don't know if the latest kerfluffle will actually mean Mourinho leaving -- at least not before the end of the season. But my one concern if he does leave is this: What happens if Chelsea bring in a manager that I actually have to respect? It makes my brain hurt.