Howaythelads

I tend to agree, but availability has to be taken into account. If he knows Emre is leaving then we do need a replacement, for example. If on the other hand this could be a swap for Parker I'd snap their bloody hands off. I'd be chuffed to bits if Parker wanted to move back to London, or somewhere. Anywhere really. Don't get me wrong, we need to look at the midfield (Parker is clearly good enough for US, but only because we are, at best, a mid table side). Its just that we need to prioritise. Roeder showed with Duff that this is not one of his strengths, but i can't stress enough how important it is that we don't start next season with the idea in our heads that Babayaro or Ameobi are first team players. I'd extend that beyond Babayaro and Ameobi.

Remind me what he's done since he went to Everton bluebigeek.gif The only ferguson we'll end up with is Barry, on loan, got a sneaky feeling. Just down the road from where he is now and another crack at the PL with a bigger team blueyes.gif well he clearly has done nothing since he went to everton but i dont think he will cost much, he has nothing to lose there will be no pressure on him and at the end of the day it wont matter when he ends up being 3rd choice! Beattie would still command big wages though, Loan deal maybe, yes True, again a good shout although even with owen fit we still need another striker so id rather a permanent deal. I dont want ameobi anywhere near the first team! Have to agree on your last point, ameobi FFS, 6' 11" and you couldn't get a chronicle under his feet when he jumps tongue.gif Aye. Someone posted a class about 18 months or so ago when they said he's about 6' 3" standing up and about 5' when he jumps.

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. To play as a DM you need discipline though. I don't mind Dyer running around because he is suppose to be 'floating around'. I also don't mind it when he's playing in the AM position because it shouldn't affect the way we defend that much if the rest of our midfielders are disciplined (which they clearly aren't btw - Emre can't even stay on the left when he's supposed to, Parker doesn't understand the word 'controlled aggression' etc.). Parker isn't REALLY a DM though, is he. As for Dyer, his inability to stay in the vague area he is supposed to is one of the reasons we commonly lose our shape when he plays. And neither he nor most of the rest of the team are good enough to react to that and change things - we just end up with Dyer and Parker chasing the ball like schoolkids, and the defence being left under pressure they are ill-equiped to cope with. No, he isn't, which should call into question the idea from quite a few people that he should be used in that role. It's seems he's a favourite despite not having the attributes, it's without doubt down to the 100% graft you get from him. I'm not a great fan of Dyer mate, but tbh as an attacking midfielder he offers far more than Parker does. He makes things happen, he frightens the opposition and effects the way they set out against us. Even on a bad day they know he's always got the potential to do something.

Sorry, but jumping on some comments made about Parker being to blame for a goal is too simplistic. When I talk about Parker I'm talking about his contribution over the entire time he's been at the club. During that time it's clear his passing isn't up to the role of anchorman, he is nowhere near as good as Butt in this role and never will be because he doesn't have the range of pass, he doesn't have the ability to read the game as well and see the pass before he's even received the ball. This is what really good anchormen do. Butt does this and also like really good anchormen he does it in an unspectacular style that goes largely unnoticed. Meanwhile, Parker dives into last ditch challenges, wonderful 100% blood and thunder stuff, but he twirls as though he's drilling for oil and passes the ball backwards 90% of the time, slowing down our attacks in a ridiculous fashion. All in my opinion of course. I can only think of one midfielder who could hold their head up high on that point, and evan THAT'S a tenuous one. Rob Lee, Ginola, Solano, Gary Speed... That took me barely 10 seconds to think of. You might also be able to add Robert and maybe some of the underrated ones such as Acuna in as well. Christ, this is becoming a habit. I guess what I meant in the original sentence was their quality of contribution. I wouldn't question the commitment of Parker, in that respect he does seem to contribute everything he can, it's just not very good.

I tend to agree, but availability has to be taken into account. If he knows Emre is leaving then we do need a replacement, for example. If on the other hand this could be a swap for Parker I'd snap their bloody hands off. I'd be chuffed to bits if Parker wanted to move back to London, or somewhere. Anywhere really.

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. Which in a nutshell is what I've been saying about the Parker/Emre partnership since day one, except even when Butt was on loan we looked better and more threatening with Bowyer in the side, or Clark, or even with Faye, all players who despite overall quality issues can all play with some discipline and keep the team shape when we don't have the ball. Somehow that's been interpreted by a few people that I think Butt is a world beater....

Sorry, but jumping on some comments made about Parker being to blame for a goal is too simplistic. When I talk about Parker I'm talking about his contribution over the entire time he's been at the club. During that time it's clear his passing isn't up to the role of anchorman, he is nowhere near as good as Butt in this role and never will be because he doesn't have the range of pass, he doesn't have the ability to read the game as well and see the pass before he's even received the ball. This is what really good anchormen do. Butt does this and also like really good anchormen he does it in an unspectacular style that goes largely unnoticed. Meanwhile, Parker dives into last ditch challenges, wonderful 100% blood and thunder stuff, but he twirls as though he's drilling for oil and passes the ball backwards 90% of the time, slowing down our attacks in a ridiculous fashion. All in my opinion of course.

Aye, they're going backward this season. :winking:

Becasue Scott the magnificent thought "we've kicked off, Shay's got a groin problem, his kicking's been iffy all game, let's test him from the kick off." God I'm glad we didn't get beaten last night. I too think that it was a poor decsion to pass back to Shay, but Parker was maginificent last night, for F***'s sake. Just as he invariably is. Christ knows what he's done to deserve this abuse. Obviously no one can remember having to watch Clarence Acuna..... I'll assume that's a wind-up, Acuna being one of the most under-rated players I've seen play for Newcastle.

I think thompers is a good poster and wouldn't want to see him move, tbh.

Aye, just a shame that some want to constantly snipe about the Board though, don't you agree, Jon? Should all of those end up in the single thread, or is just the responses to that sniping that should go in that thread? BTW You aren't to blame for what's happened in this thread. I've already accepted blame, I replied to Ohmelads and I should have let it go.

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD. is it sinking in yet ? And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ? I posted after the appointment of Souness that a limitation of the Board is the way they seem to appoint managers for one apparent trait, in the case of Souness he was appointed because of his reputation as a disciplinarian. It was generally accepted many of the players were "naughty boys" and needed to be brought back into line. In comes the bully to sort them out. Dalglish, Gullitt and Robson were all sound appointments despite this, but Souness was always going to be a disaster. I've never said the Board are the most savvy when it comes to footballing decisions, but they back the manager which is better than a Board that doesn't. It really makes me laugh when various people snipe on about me not seeing anything bad in the Board. They couldn't be more wrong but hey, at least they're consistent. Sorry Andy, I couldn't resist a reply but that'll be my last one that's off topic, as it were. Transfers......hmm. I don't know. If we bring in a quality striiker I'll be happy enough, that should obviously be our top priority.

Good point, and highlights well why we need to bring in a quality striker if possible. Can you imagine how we'd play without Martins if he was injured next week, for example? People list various other players who *could* play as a striker but we would basically be knackered. Our entire play would be damaged badly should Martins be crocked. It will be a big risk to go into the remainder of the season with only Martins and Sibierski.

Hmm, I sometimes leave my computer switched on and logged on overnight......I'm obviously here all the time.

Not at all, mate. It's my fault for once again trying to tell the truth. Don't know why I bother, tbh.

Agreed. This was the post that kicked it all off. See paragraph #3. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,34735.msg670513.html#msg670513 Sorry that I picked up on it and replied on the following page, but I can't and won't let stuff like that go.

I've never really been into this allocating of blame business. Never will be either. It's overall performances and contribution that matter most.

I dont think its all about Parker. It's about Glenn Roeder who should play him as dm, and force him to stop that fancy box-to-box horseshit which is anything but good for the team. You cant be a playmaker because you dont have a "football brains". So stop it! It makes Parker look bad and it makes Emre look bad. They never create anything and they are always late when its time to go defensive. But he doesn't have the ability to play DM. Just because you want him to be used there doesn't mean he's any good at it. Did it to great effect under Souness HTL so I don't know why you keep insisting he doesn't have the ability to play DM, he also did it to great effect yesterday. He broke up numerous moments of play, sat, pressed and even tried to get forward once or twice, culminating in one long range effort and a few moments of "shoooooooooot" from the crowd. That to me is good DM play. He's no Makalele of course but then many aren't. You rate Butt highly it seems, but he lacks two key attributes to play the role well IMO, and that's his passing which is often poor and his discipline, he can't tackle (not very well anyway) either. You say Parker goes to ground a lot and that because he appears to be making tackles, it looks good, I don't see it like that, however. Sure he misses a few and goes in hard and it raises cheers from the crowd, but he very rarely misses his man or allows players to escape his clutches. He did a great job on Rooney in the first-half for example who because of Parker was forced deeper and deeper and had to keep turning his back on our goal, that is first-class pressing and closing down. I think for many Parker has become some kind of scapegoat and people are failing to see the bigger picture, he isn't the problem, in fact none of them individually are, they all have their good points and bad points, its that midfield unit as a whole that is the problem - hence my opening post. I'm really surprised that even you're now into this deliberate misrepresentation lark that some others indulge in. And that's a serious comment mate, I'm really surprised at you doing it. Here's why I'm saying it: I don't think I've said anywhere how highly or otherwise I rate Butt, good of you to make that one up, like. As it happens I don't think Butt is in the same class as the likes of Makele or Gilberto, so if that's what you're trying to imply you're miles away. What I say about Butt is that he's far better in the DM role than Parker. He is a specialist at it. I also say that Emre is a better attacking midfielder than Parker. Now that isn't saying I think Emre is the dogs bollocks, but you may as well make that up as well while you're at it, mate. I also don't think Parker did anything to great effect under Souness. We were crap under Souness, which is why he got the sack. The midfield was shite under Souness and I was going on about it for ages. Just as you don't know why I keep mentioning Parker not being good enough I don't know why you keep claiming Parker did the business under Souness. You've been taken in by the grit and determination he shows, which are commendable attributes, but nowhere near enough. A lot of people have been taken in by it and still won't face up to it, however some are now seeing him for what he is, a very average player. Talking about 'big picture'...... it is people like me who are seeing beyond the individual and ARE seeing the big picture. Some prefer a hero, it's always the way.

No thanks.

Without meaning to sound like HTL/NE5, the theory is incorrect. Agreed.

I dont think its all about Parker. It's about Glenn Roeder who should play him as dm, and force him to stop that fancy box-to-box horseshit which is anything but good for the team. You cant be a playmaker because you dont have a "football brains". So stop it! It makes Parker look bad and it makes Emre look bad. They never create anything and they are always late when its time to go defensive. But he doesn't have the ability to play DM. Just because you want him to be used there doesn't mean he's any good at it.

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck? Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault. Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid. Is that your reply? Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault? On what evidence did he make that appointment? He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence! Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football? What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn? I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time. So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't? So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough :lol: Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right? so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period? The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement. We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened. He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on. As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend. :winking: Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ? No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record. Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'. I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet? You spoilt an otherwise decent post with the patronising bollocks at the end. Shame.

I think we've looked ok with Butt/Emre and I think Butt/Dyer could do quite well. It hinges on getting Parker out of there, tbh. We look better everytime he's not playing, we even looked better last season with 2 from Faye, Clark and Bowyer than with Parker/Emre, so poor is their partnership. As I've said before, nobody should be surprised. Parker and Emre were signed as a pairing by the worst Newcastle manager in decades.