Howaythelads

TT You should have posted that earlier on, instead of being stupid about it. Beats me why you didn't, but there you go. The bottom line is I don't agree with what you've done or doing because I don't think it can be justified on the back of your reasons why, but I admire that you're sticking by a principle that you clearly believe in.

Tottenham have Young-Pyo Lee as left back The only team that would guarantee him 100% first team football is us But that doesnt mean he will choose us and the young lad they signed in the summer. How many times do we have to beat spurs to the signing of a player until people start to believe we can? Its Spurs!! Aye its spurs!!! But i think that their scouting is way better than ours :confused: They signed some magnificent young talents while we were doing...nothing When you looked at their squad you start wondering way they are not in the fight for the top 4 places They have 6 England internationals:Robinson,Dawson,King,Jenas,Lennon,Defoe :confused: My point is that their scouts are always active and where their is some young talent there are always there :wullie: I hate that... And btw they beat us for Malbranque and Chimbonda at the start of the season so thats why i hate them even more :wullie: See the post by Merliin. We've signed loads of young players over recent seasons, even appearing to have a specific policy of doing so ahead of established players for a few years under Robson, but it didn't quite work you know. Said young players going "off the rails" as Robson lost control of the dressing room etc etc.

:roll: Suppose it depends on whether the players we want are available, will be released by their club and want to join Newcastle.

Really? Let's hear your argument. I'd say he's been the most consistent, but he hasn't struck me as our best player. Does consistency equate to being "the best"? works for me after watching the rollercoster ride of a season we've had. it's hard to say really who's been the best for us this season If things carry on to the end of the season as they have recently though it'll go to Solano as far as I'm concerned.

BTW Some outstanding posts in this thread from people who obviously place more credence on a stat' than the evidence of their own eyes and brain. Talk about people clutching at straws tbh. We play better with any centre pairing that hasn't included Parker, there's not a shadow of doubt about that.

:roll: He's average as an individual and his partnership with Emre is shit, would be much more accurate.

Please God! Yeah, because he's THAT much better. I despair. He's already a better player than Parker at 22 and he has the potential to be a lot better when he's Parker's age. Agreed.

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree. Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that? Agreed that it's not a great partnership.......but why is it Parker's fault? Parker has actually outscored Emre since he's been here and despite being a gifted player, Emre has hardly pulled up any trees since he arrived has he? I already answered that in the post you quoted. Emre's own performances are better with another partner, whereas Parker's are not. His own performances do not improve with the absence of Emre from the team. The player partnered with Emre also generally performs to a level you'd expect of them whereas alongside Parker the other players don't do as well. The team performance overall is better without Parker. Whether it is Parkers own fault or not, this is the effect he has on the team and other players around him. I would not change the team to accomodate such an average player. All In my opinion.

Still waiting for you to start that thread for you and me to debate just a single point of your choice.

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree. Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position. That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better. PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter. Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off.... I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture. What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile? OMG. Graft and sweat. That's all he was last season too. Not much point in me posting about Parker anymore. Some of us can see the reality and others can't. I expect a load of u-turns when he eventually leaves, as we saw when Jenas left. Cheers Okay Mr Patronising. It's what happens when head bangs against wall. :winking: Why don't you discuss the attributes of this player. Comments like he was "our best outfield player by a country mile last season" remind me of the Jenas argument. People said Jenas was 'ace' because he won the Young Player of The Year Award. Well "so what" was my answer then, and "so what" is my answer now about Parker. He unbalances the team. We play better without him, we are more creative without him and the team has a better shape without him, so we defend better too. In what way was he our "best outfield player by a country mile?" People are now acknowledging his partnership with Emre is a poor one, it was a poor partnership last season too. XVentura has probably hit it on the head about last season. We were under the cost and outplayed in loads of games, so of course a player who runs around diving into challenges is going to look like they're doing something under those circumstances. Bucket loads of sweat and effort is always appreciated, is it not? Well, effort and desire are needed but there is no substitute for outright quality when there is also some application. It takes two to f*ck up a partnership. So what's your appraisal of Emre? Does his overall contribution - or, often, lack of it - not deserve to be analysed every bit as much as Parker's? In most away games - and pretty much every game against top-class Premiership opposition, Emre is a passenger. As for his temperament, it's only a matter of time before he gets sent off. Well I'm not a professional football manager, I just call it as I see it as a fan. We've seen plenty of games with Parker/Emre, we've seen plenty of games with only one of those players while the other was either out of the side, or used in a different role in the team. It's my opinion that of the two Emre is a better player, he performs well alongside Butt for example, and Butt performs well alongside Emre, the team looks better. Parker doesn't appear to complement any other player. That doesn't mean I'm entirely happy with Emre, I'd really like to get rid of them both in the end, it's just that I'd get rid of Parker first if possible.

That's a good post.

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position. That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better. PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter. Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off.... I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture. What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile? OMG. Graft and sweat. That's all he was last season too. Not much point in me posting about Parker anymore. Some of us can see the reality and others can't. I expect a load of u-turns when he eventually leaves, as we saw when Jenas left. Cheers Okay Mr Patronising. It's what happens when head bangs against wall. :winking: Why don't you discuss the attributes of this player. Comments like he was "our best outfield player by a country mile last season" remind me of the Jenas argument. People said Jenas was 'ace' because he won the Young Player of The Year Award. Well "so what" was my answer then, and "so what" is my answer now about Parker. He unbalances the team. We play better without him, we are more creative without him and the team has a better shape without him, so we defend better too. In what way was he our "best outfield player by a country mile?" People are now acknowledging his partnership with Emre is a poor one, it was a poor partnership last season too. XVentura has probably hit it on the head about last season. We were under the cosh and outplayed in loads of games, so of course a player who runs around diving into challenges is going to look like they're doing something under those circumstances. Bucket loads of sweat and effort is always appreciated, is it not? Well, effort and desire are needed but there is no substitute for outright quality when there is also some application.

I suspect the cost of his wages was a factor too. Possibly, except I'm not aware of any history of the club being tight on wages for a manager, Alex.

Alex We were actually ahead of Liverpool in the league until Robson lost the plot and then Souness arrived. I don't want to go over old ground either, but it all comes back to one shit managerial appointment that messed it all up. It's not planning per se in terms of transfers as people are talking about now, but a plan I would have liked to have seen played out would have been moving Robson on without a rush after we finished 3rd. It wouldn't have been a popular move by the Board mind, but I'd have done it because that's when the signs first started to appear.

Under the circumstances Roeder was probably a decent choice. The club needs stability after the Debacle of Souness. The clubs needs a slow rebuilding job done and calmness restored. There wouldn't have been much point in bringing in someone who was going to demand access to another £50m given the amount that was squandered by Souness. I think that in the case of previous managers such as Dalglish and Robson, they were appointed based on their success and reputation at other clubs. Note clubs. Dalglish won the league at two different clubs under entirely different circumstances, it was also hoped that he would add that bit of steel and ability to win 1-0 instead of losing 4-3 that was required to bridge the gap between Keegan's team finishing second and winning the title. Gullit and Souness, although both also having a record as trophy winners, appear to have been appointed for character traits as well, something you rate as important so you should be pleased and actually full of praise for the Board. I suspect Roeder was also appointed for his character.

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question? Calm down, ffs. Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not wrong. Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson. Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest. They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead. Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available? In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage. I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV. But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them? Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed. Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh. So "Glenn was who the fans wanted" is just a little lie Freddy made up to defend the appointment was it, tbh? Could be. What do you think?

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question? Calm down, ffs. Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not wrong. Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson. Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest. They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead. Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available? In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage. I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV. But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them? Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed. Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh.

Ok.

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question? Calm down, ffs. Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not wrong. Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson. Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest. They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead. Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available? In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage. I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's a funny character when he's pissed on the TV.

But...but....but no one actually said that! :jesus: HTL claiming people said something they didn't SHOCKER! Pots....kettles..... Nice to see you admitting it at least, guess it would be too much to expect you not to say EXCATLY the same thing again in some other post. I admitted it days ago, it's just as per normal you didn't understand it. So why are you still banging on about it? Strange.. OMG. You STILL don't get it.

I feel the same. I don't expect it to be easy to get the quality of player in that the club will want.

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question? Calm down, ffs. Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not wrong. Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson. Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question. How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question? Calm down, ffs.