Howaythelads

Aye because we really should have to score 4 goals to win a game :lol: :lol: Don't expect that one to register. No, he can see the bigger picture. The one where we win games 5-4 I explained the shape of the team. Keep possession first. I'm not surprised you don't understand. Oh right so our defence wasn't shit today and we dont need new defenders... lets see now, we were possibly the better team until the first goal went in, then missed a penalty ....... This sort of thing didn't happen when we had Shearer and Bellamy, still we have replaced them haven't we ? So we didn't concede 4 goals because of the defence? So you understand ( correctly, surprisingly ) that better fullbacks would give us a better attacking flow to our game which may result in us scoring more goals, yet you blame the conceding of goals purely on the defenders.... Good one, even for you, Jon.

So you ignored my point including Dyer et all but you will include Bernard who hasn't and isn't likely to play for us this season or ever again? What a joke! Eh? Ignored? WFT is the matter with you, man? Dyer is NOT a forward. Bernard IS a defender. You can argue against that all you like.......

I'd go for that too, rather than see Parker selected.

XVentura from the match thread said.... With the number of injuries throughout the squad it was always going to be a problem when Ramage went off. My main concern is that we once again started with an unbalanced side, just as we have in other recent games. Dyer and Milner should have been the wide men with Sibierski/Martins up front and Butt/Emre in the middle. The thing that bothers me is Roeder fannying around with a team that was playing well and winning without Parker, changing the balance and shape the moment he is fit again. It reminds me of Souness being unable to select two from Kluivert, Bellamy and Shearer. Something that cost the club badly because he should have dropped The Captain at that time but didn't. I'm not happy about this at all. It is ultimately going to lead to problems, we will not make much progress if Roeder is unable to make these big decisions.

9 defenders for 4 positions is actually plenty of defenders. We're having exceptional injuries right now. 3 strikers ( one of whom isn't PL standard anyway ) for 2 positions looks more than slightly thinner resources to me. As has been said time and time again, it's easier to get players to fill in at the back than it is to get someone to score goals.

Solano has played many times at RB through his career, he's not inexperienced in that position and can really be counted as a RB, tbh. Yeah he can be counted but then we still have less full backs than strikers. We have Carr, Solano, Taylor, Ramage, Moore, Bramble, Huntington, Babayaro and Bernard for 4 defensive positions. We have Owen, Martins, Sibierski and Ameobi for 2 positions. Who have I forgotten? As others have suggested, it's easier to get players to fill in at fullback than it is to score goals. Someone even suggested Parker at RB and it's not a bad idea, killing two birds with one stone like. You wouldn't put him up front and expect him to score goals, for example. If you don't score goals you are relegated. If we are including people like that we have Owen, Martins, Sibierski, Dyer, Duff, Ameobi and Milner up front for two attacking positions. I said we needed a striker but to claim we have plenty of defenders is mental! No, those other players you've mentioned are not strikers at all. The players I listed as defenders are defenders, even Solano given his experience over the years in the position. We really only have 3 strikers if my information is correct because Sibierski hasn't been a regular striker throughout his career, we're just using him there since signing him, so including him in that group of 4 was a concession to you, tbh.

Solano has played many times at RB through his career, he's not inexperienced in that position and can really be counted as a RB, tbh. Yeah he can be counted but then we still have less full backs than strikers. We have Carr, Solano, Taylor, Ramage, Moore, Bramble, Huntington, Babayaro and Bernard for 4 defensive positions. We have Owen, Martins, Sibierski and Ameobi for 2 positions. Who have I forgotten? As others have suggested, it's easier to get players to fill in at fullback than it is to score goals. Someone even suggested Parker at RB and it's not a bad idea, killing two birds with one stone like. You wouldn't put him up front and expect him to score goals, for example. If you don't score goals you are relegated.

Where are all of these people who think a new fullback will score the goals if Martins is injured? You really are desperate to make yourself look stupid, are you doing this for a bet? if you think it is daft, so do I. Maybe you should ask these people why they think a full back and/or a central defender is the priority, not me, because it isn't me who is saying it. Maybe they have a crystal ball like you, maybe the one they have tells them that we'll suffer injuries at the back in the way yours tells you that Martins is going to get injured. Maybe they see Shola being injured and Rossi returning to Man U as a need for a replacement, then again they may see the injuries to Carr, Moore, Babayaro, Bernard and Bramble as reasons to get somebody in to play at the back. We have plenty of defenders. We don't have plenty of forwards. Make a judgement of the shape of the team and how it plays. The defence is doing well enough, if Martins is injured we have nobody. There is no crystal ball, just common sense, but I realise that is beyond you as all you want to do is apply hindsight and criticise accordingly. We don't have "plenty of defenders" though do we really? We have a few young centre backs filling in at fb and a rw doing the same. We don't really have any natural full backs that are good enough! Solano is doing a good job but as soon as he is injured we don't have anyone who can defend and attack from the full back position. Solano has played many times at RB through his career, he's not inexperienced in that position and can really be counted as a RB, tbh.

Instructions from the surgeon was for him to do some light running the day after the operation. It's not that unusual. I have back problems and I'm always being encouraged by the medical lot to keep moving rather than doing nowt.

It would be better if there was some ability to debate truthfully and with some integrity, to answer the questions in a genuine fashion. See the post after yours. This is the sort of pathetic post which spoils the forum. I understand why it's done though. True supporters might really be interested in the history of the football club, how it really was and how it compares to today. Grassroots is, that's for sure and I know some others are. However, it's impossible to get that across on this forum though due to the pathetic shite that followed your last post. This is a great pity. Just my opinion, as I can't really be arsed with this shit, which is why I don't bother replying directly anymore.

Agreed. And the pity of it is that the reason Emre was on the bench is likely to be because Roeder doesn't have the balls to leave out his Captain... ( a still hush descends over the forum. I look out the window as the rain plays a tune on my shed roof, the trees in the garden gently swaying in the breeze during this moment of quiet respect for The Captain) ... when he's fit.

To be clearer, I think we need 2 strikers, a LB and a RB. Quality strikers cost decent money and that's what we need the most imo, whether or not it takes the bulk of the money. In the ideal world that some inhabit I would like to see us get a great deal on Jan 1st for 1 quality striker, 1 quality LB, 1 backup striker and 1 backup RB (Solano has made the position his imo). If we don't do it until the end of the month I will still be happy though. If we don't get these 4 players I'll accept it, the manager may have other plans after all. :winking: In an absolute dream world I would add the money from the sale of Parker to the pot and use it to buy a quality CB.

Here we go again. What on earth makes people think Parker can play the holding role he is continually touted for? I don't think Barton is that good, but I'd swap him for Parker in the blink of an eye. the same Scott Parker then was our player of the season under Souness in the holding role. however i have seen your posts before about our Captain and there is no point debating Scott Parker pro's and con's with somebody who thinks Scott Parker contributes nothing to our team. :roll: ....And then you go on to try to debate the point with Thompers, who has the same opinion as I have of Parker and is running rings around you. Other than the possibility of a moment of losing my rag at another inept performance from him I doubt I've said Parker contributes nothing to the team, but if you want to make things up that's ok with me. What I HAVE consistently said for 12 months now is that his partnership with Emre doesn't work, that he unbalances the team, that I think he's over-rated and that I would sell him. But I've backed all that up with reasons why I believe this. I've said I don't think he can play the DM role and I've explained my reasons why. All you and your type do is say that you'd use him in the holding role, but you don't explain the attributes he has that makes you believe he can succeed in that role. I've explained before, and Thompers has in this thread, why he's not good enough for that role. His distribution of the ball is terrible, this is a major part of that role and it can't be overlooked. He also spends too much time diving in, too much time on his arse. But it looks whole-hearted and spectacular, eh. I also don't believe he's as good attacking as Emre and I've said why I believe this to be the case. Dyer will also be better in that CM attacking role if he was used there again. You will simply say Parker has scored 4 goals and that's your evidence of his CM attacking ability. Well I would say the entire team has more attacking threat without him, we score more across the team and so won't miss the few goals Parker may score. The bottom line is this. What you really meant earlier is that you don't have the wit to back up any positive points you want to make about him, in direct contrast to my attempts to at least back up an opinion with a reason. Thompers has been doing the same, giving reasons for his opinion, I'm not the only one to try to do this on this forum. BTW I love the reference to "our Captain" as though I should hold my head in shame or something. What a laugh. Oh, and as I've also said before, it's no use quoting the performances under Souness. We were shit under Souness, which is why he got the sack in case you missed it.

Why? Not being funny like. He's not a bad player and is definitely better than Carr. He was almost as bad for Brum as Carr is for us. Only his size helped him out now and then. We can do better imo. I'm not suggesting we sign him mate, just that he's much better than Carr and we do need to bring players in without breaking the bank. I think he'd do better in a better team than Birmingham, he also has experience, which is needed at the back. After saying all that, I'd be happy if Solano stayed at RB for the rest of the season. He'd be a body true, i'd even take him if we sold Carr and bought a proper RB and he was cover, that would be a better plan. I just think we need to get someone solid in the fullback positions in this window, if we do, we'll have a decent season, allow the CB's we have to progress. Get some of the injured players back and then make attacking changes in the summer window when we have time and chance to get rid of more of the deadwood, and next season we'll be laughing. Well I think he's not great but he's adequate. There are so many weaknesses that need to be sorted the money can only be expected to go so far. My preference right now is still for a quality striker, then LB before looking at the RB position anyway.

Quite probably correct what you're saying there, January is a difficult time to buy players because clubs don't generally want to sell, prices will go up in many cases so if people want the club to buy in January they should expect ( and accept ) this kind of thing. A couple of people have already said they'd be happy if the club was to pay over the odds to bring in the right players, to get them sooner rather than later. Well I wouldn't normally want the club to pay over the odds for players, but we still desperately need at least one striker (2 really) so if the MANAGER ASKS THE BOARD to try to bring in a player valued by the seller at ~£12m, and the Board is able and prepared TO BACK THE MANAGER's judgement to that extent, then so be it. Injuries to Martins and Sibierski anytime soon and we're in the relegation mire again. Relegation would ruin the club and is obviously worse than paying an extra couple of million for a player like Crouch, who is a decent player really, although I'd rather we looked elsewhere. Some people are already winding up for a Board slagfest no matter what happens, which doesn't surprise me in the least. We make no signings and the Board is slagged. We sign players certain people don't want and the Board is slagged. Even if people do want new signings the Board is slagged for agreeing to pay a fee that is too high. It should be an interesting month as this irrational hatred begins to unfold once again........ theres that thing you didn't say HTL bluewink.gif Fell straight into that one, didn't you? Think about it. You're the one who babbles on about people twisting what you say (when they aren't) and putting words in your mouth (which they aren't). I wasn't twisting what you said though was I? I didn't say "well some people seem to think (add made up bollocks here)" I copied something you said and changed a word to have a bit of a laugh. Thats a bit different to claiming you said something else when you didn't, isnt it? Jesus wept! You STILL don't get it!!!

Here we go again. What on earth makes people think Parker can play the holding role he is continually touted for? I don't think Barton is that good, but I'd swap him for Parker in the blink of an eye.

Why? Not being funny like. He's not a bad player and is definitely better than Carr. He was almost as bad for Brum as Carr is for us. Only his size helped him out now and then. We can do better imo. I'm not suggesting we sign him mate, just that he's much better than Carr and we do need to bring players in without breaking the bank. I think he'd do better in a better team than Birmingham, he also has experience, which is needed at the back. After saying all that, I'd be happy if Solano stayed at RB for the rest of the season.

Butt was shite for Birmingham last season but he's doing ok right now in a better team. The argument of which club a player goes to doesn't wash either, it was used against Bellamy for example, when he joined Blackburn.

Why? Not being funny like. He's not a bad player and is definitely better than Carr.

We did bring in players we needed last summer. We needed strikers and we brought in Maratins and Sibierski, without whom we'd be in the relegation zone right now without any doubt. We still need more strikers though.

A typical short term view by the 'football journalist' of the Tiems then. bluebiggrin.gif

Quite probably correct what you're saying there, January is a difficult time to buy players because clubs don't generally want to sell, prices will go up in many cases so if people want the club to buy in January they should expect ( and accept ) this kind of thing. A couple of people have already said they'd be happy if the club was to pay over the odds to bring in the right players, to get them sooner rather than later. Well I wouldn't normally want the club to pay over the odds for players, but we still desperately need at least one striker (2 really) so if the MANAGER ASKS THE BOARD to try to bring in a player valued by the seller at ~£12m, and the Board is able and prepared TO BACK THE MANAGER's judgement to that extent, then so be it. Injuries to Martins and Sibierski anytime soon and we're in the relegation mire again. Relegation would ruin the club and is obviously worse than paying an extra couple of million for a player like Crouch, who is a decent player really, although I'd rather we looked elsewhere. Some people are already winding up for a Board slagfest no matter what happens, which doesn't surprise me in the least. We make no signings and the Board is slagged. We sign players certain people don't want and the Board is slagged. Even if people do want new signings the Board is slagged for agreeing to pay a fee that is too high. It should be an interesting month as this irrational hatred begins to unfold once again........ theres that thing you didn't say HTL bluewink.gif Fell straight into that one, didn't you? Think about it. You're the one who babbles on about people twisting what you say (when they aren't) and putting words in your mouth (which they aren't).

In response to yet another bit of sarcasm from you, may I suggest that your concentration span can't be very well developed if you thought that was a long drawn out *responce*. bluelaugh.gif It only took about 1 minute to write that, mate. BTW There's no doubt you will have read it, but sadly you're like a few other people on here mate. You fail to answer questions when it dawns on you that the only answers that make any sense go against what you've been saying previously. They are easy questions, Jon. Go on. Surprise me. Give them your best shot........ i didn't read it as i figured I have probably read it before 1000 times. My responce was very tongue in cheek, I would have thought you would have figured that out considering it was word for word something you wrote apart from one change! I've written it once, so it's doubtful you've read it 1000 times. You could also link to the post where I said the same thing apart from this one change you mention, if you like. BTW Your response wasn't tongue in cheek, you just have no interest at all in debating football. I seriously believe that all you (and some othes) want to do is make a statement and have everyone accept it as gospel. Is that it? You can't stand it when someone challenges your view. I'll happily answer any challenge made to a statement I make, mate. It's a forum full of different opinion. If I make a statement I EXPECT to be challenged for it and can cope with that. Some can't, unfortunately. We don't have to agree mate, but I didn't previously have you down as one of that small group. Cheers again Sorry lets get back to discussing football, how does it go again? Oh yeah WOOP WOOP!!! BORING ALERT bluesleep.gif gay.gif Please let me know if I missed anything bluewink.gif Looks like AS9 was right.

This is probably one of those rare times that I'll agreewith HTL and disagree with HTT. I just can't see how the Pirouting is of any merit or benefit to the team. Parker's swirl and turn is sideways unlike Zidane's who uses them to beat a player. In effect, it's just wasting time and as good as passing backwards, which in a way can also be seen as "keeping possession", yet hated unanimously by all fans alike. Parker slows down our attack and I don't buy the argument that he does the pirouting when there are no options. With fast players like Martins and Dyer and intelligent players like Solano around, there are always options available, it's just that Parker doesn't see these options. I do agree with HTT though that Parker is better than Butt as a DM, the problem is Roeder does not want to play him in that role which makes that comparison moot. If I had to sell one between Parker and Emre, and assuming we get the same amount of offers for both, I'd sell Parker first. Its not difficult to find an aggressive defebsive midfielder, most midtable teams have them, but only the top teams have a playmaker who can dribble in the final third, we have that in Emre. But knowing Newcastle, Parker's English and plays in typical British style, so its Emre who will go first. It is a primary part of the role of the DM to distribute the ball well, to set the tempo of the play. The fact that Parker does not have the ability to do this is one of the reasons he is not as good a DM as Butt imo. By Roeder simply putting him in this role and telling him to do it does not mean he will have the ability to do it. With players in the team with pace, such as Dyer, Owen and Martins, not forgetting Zog when he gets back to fitness and form, this failing will be highlighted even more. Not sure why you don't agree with more of what I post. I often agree with HTT once I've reached the important 10 or words from the 1000's he writes. Perhaps you aren't reading the posts properly? :winking: I think Butt is streets ahead of Parker, if Parker wants to play regularly he will have to play a forward role in front of Butt instead of Emre. Might not be a bad idea but he is going to have to adjust back to this role, which he played earlier in his career at Charlton. He holds the game up too much though and has to stay on his feel when he tackles. How often do you see Butt slide in ? It may look good but its crap, if he misses the ball or the man he's completely out of the game. If he plays the forward role he has to get into the box more and score goals like he did last week more often. Aye, which is basically what I was saying ages ago. I don't think he has the ability to play the attacking role either though, which is why I'd like to see him leave. I don't think the club would miss him in the slightest.

In response to yet another bit of sarcasm from you, may I suggest that your concentration span can't be very well developed if you thought that was a long drawn out *responce*. bluelaugh.gif It only took about 1 minute to write that, mate. BTW There's no doubt you will have read it, but sadly you're like a few other people on here mate. You fail to answer questions when it dawns on you that the only answers that make any sense go against what you've been saying previously. They are easy questions, Jon. Go on. Surprise me. Give them your best shot........ I doubt he will give you an answer, he's hit the bottle again, cue endless silly posts and childish behaviour.