Howaythelads

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again.... :winking: That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt? Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield. Going round in circles, eh.

A very under-rated player. Somehow.

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate. I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove? I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre. Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer. By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team? Myth, tbh. We won matches with Parker in the side and without. The one common factor when we started winning was the absence of Souness. After he'd fucked off we won our first five or six matches (with Parker in the team, btw) until we went to Old Trafford. Once again, simplistic. He really is your HERO, isn't he, mate. I said "team performances", not just results. We looked a far, far better team without Parker, we created more chances and looked far more dangerous. In my opinion. I'm not sure what your problem is: I'm just sticking up for a decent, whole-hearted player who's getting a lot of unnecessary stick, imo. In my opinion, it was the likes of N'Zogbia and Shola that helped us over the line last season not the absence of Parker that suddenly caused the team to gel: I don't think performances post-Parker were any better than those with Parker in the side. We played some very poor teams, and we got a bit lucky: for example, Amdy Faye put in one of the worst performances I've ever seen against Wigan and we still won. Problem! What problem I'm just more interested in the team than a hero or a favourite. I see a whole-hearted player just like you see, but I see a whole-hearted player who holds back the team due to his limited personal abilities and his inability to gel with other players in the team. I see a player who doesn't fit in with how the team plays. His speed of thought is too slow, the *quality* of his distribution is awful. (Is this where you get all simplistic and show me a stat showing completed passes, or something???). He's not good enough no matter how whole-hearted he may be. If he proves me wrong I'll be happy, but I don't see any way in the world he will ever fit in a central midfield with any of the players we currently have at the club, and as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, it's a team game. He's definitely not good enough to bring in new players specifically to fit around him and the way he plays.

Macbeth Do you believe, like your close mate, that the Board(s) of 60's, 70's and 80's that almost emptied SJP showed as much ambition for success as the current Board? Yes or no will do. Thanks

Vote on as many categories as you like. Are we to imagine you can count, like? :winking:

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate. I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove? I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre. Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer. By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team? Myth, tbh. We won matches with Parker in the side and without. The one common factor when we started winning was the absence of Souness. After he'd fucked off we won our first five or six matches (with Parker in the team, btw) until we went to Old Trafford. Once again, simplistic. He really is your HERO, isn't he, mate. I said "team performances", not just results. We looked a far, far better team without Parker, we created more chances and looked far more dangerous. In my opinion.

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again.... :winking:

This isnt in anyway a defence of them but couldnt you say that the actual catalyst for our revival was the old board? After all if they hadnt had the ambition to bring in Keegan then he'd have had no reason to join us later as a manager. The measurement of ambition of that particular Board came when we were promoted. They failed completely to show any despite a fantastic opportunity at that time.

Mick I think you're confusing outright ability of the current Board members with the concept of whether they have the ambition to try to succeed. These are two different things. Even if you are right and they don't ultimately have the ability to bring success to the club this does not mean they have no ambition, and it is ambition we are talking about because that is what may be thrown away if the current Board is replaced. It simply can't be assumed that another Board could take over the club and show the same level of ambition, which if they don't it won't matter a jot if they are more talented individuals. I can assure you it is far more frustrating supporting Newcastle when the Board doesn't even try to bring success than it is supporting Newcastle under the current circumstances.

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate. I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove? I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre. Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer. By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team?

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate.

Stupid comment tbh He got clattered played on as long as he could and went off in the 24th minute (i think). He and Given have been our players of the season this year (again), we'd be screwed without them! bluelaugh.gif

You're very simplistic, but ok, you think Parker has good enough passing ability to be a holding midfielder and some others don't.

Mate, there's another thread specifically about Parker, but you've mentioned him here again with reference to the holding role. What attributes do you think he has that make him suitable for that role? How much importance do you place on the ability to move the ball quickly and accurately, and for the pass to be the correct one, ie decision making. I'm thinking more defensive capabilities, rather than spreading the play, which i know he is not very good at. His tackling and doggedness should win him a few balls and will help the defense out massively, just like Butt does. I think he is an important player, and with him in that role, it's not as if he can screw up our attacks. But i'm not going to argue with you on this issue, because i know you will argue about Parker until you're blue in the face. And i don't know enough about the player to 'match' you, so i'm not going to bother. That's my opinion, you have yours. End! Tut tut. You surprise me, mate. It's all about opinions, we don't have to agree but that's no reason for you to duck the thing. So, I won't argue about Parker until I'm blue in the face because I've said what I think of him and I've said why I don't think he's that good. Rather than others (not you specifically) making statements along the lines of "Parker should be better than Butt" I'm interested in what it is people see in him that makes them believe he is a) good enough for us at all, b) can play the holding role, c) can play as an attacking midfielder.

Mate, there's another thread specifically about Parker, but you've mentioned him here again with reference to the holding role. What attributes do you think he has that make him suitable for that role? How much importance do you place on the ability to move the ball quickly and accurately, and for the pass to be the correct one, ie decision making.

So, how do you feel about Butt/Dyer in the CM, Alex? I've never been keen on Dyer in the centre, I believe he lacks discipline by making runs all the time, but in our current setup I think it would give us a good balance. What did you think of Emre yesterday HTL? I thought the only thing missing from his performance (if one is to turn a blind eye to his shite set pieces in the first half) was a goal, and he should have had one. I thought Emre was tremendous yesterday, and showed that he can indeed be an immense attacking threat. He runs with the ball well, is a combative little c***, and his left foot shot is ferocious. I think if given time to play in the center with Butt, the pairing will start to work like a dream. One thing I noticed yesterday was that Emre and Butt didnt bloody hold hands, as opposed to when Emre plays there with Parker. They each seemed to know what they had to do, and both are equally good passers of the ball, and with one touch can set the ball rolling in a dangerous position. Emre had an excellent game, yes. I think it could work too, I'm just looking for a bit more energy through the centre as we struggle for goals. With a pairing up front of Owen/Martins for example, I can see a midfield of Dyer, Emre, Butt, Zog working well too. Dyer and Zog wouldn't be expected to hug the lines, but to vary their game by sometimes giving us width but sometimes drifting inside. Sibierski would be available to change it and give other options if it's not working out, but that kind of setup looks nicely balanced to me.

So, how do you feel about Butt/Dyer in the CM, Alex? I've never been keen on Dyer in the centre, I believe he lacks discipline by making runs all the time, but in our current setup I think it would give us a good balance.

Parker does not have the same passing range and quickness of thought as Butt. Butt will cut out a ball, or win a challenge, and immediately its out from his feet and sprayed somewhere. Most of the time it's effective as well, and gets us attacking immediately. When Parker wins a ball, he has to turn around 3 full circles before deciding to give it back to Bramble or Moore, who consequently have to hoof it upfield as they see no options in front of them. Sorry, but Nicky Butt does the holding job perfectly, and is 10 times the player Parker is in that position. I would keep Parker as cover, and give him time to work it out in his head which position he wants to play, and focus on. At this time, he is not ready for the first team, let alone be club captain. Would he accept sitting on the bench? I doubt it. For that I say we should get rid. EXACTLY. Sorry mate, I made my last post before reading what you'd posted, which sums up Parker perfectly. I deleted it because you covered most of my points. Apologises to TT, who quoted it in a reply already.

so right! Must be shite having favourites......

:roll: Take a look at the league table. Cast your mind back to the team performances of last season during the absence of Parker.

I'll have to disagree on the merits of the Souness CV, I've gone over it enough times while attacking him to try to see any positives after he left Rangers. I know Shepherd has tried something different this time but I think it's a massive gamble and one which will end in failure. It's not something which hasn't been done before, Dinnis, and McFaul were two caretakers who were given the job because of what they'd done while caretaker and add Charlton to that list when it comes to knowing the club. I can't see any logic in it other than it's different to what came before. Gaining control of certain players didn't have to be done the way it was, I think things could have easily been done better than the way Souness did them, he did what I expected and you probably expected, that's the worst thing about our last two managers, things have been too predictable and if the fans can see it then surely the chairman should also see it. Of course Roeder might turn things around, I hope he does but doubt it, we made one step today and need to keep going and make use of the next transfer window more than we have the last few. But making use of the transfer window in the way you suggest is an indication of the Board showing ambition, Mick. As it stands, I don't expect much in January simply because there is not a bottomless pit of money. Souness took a solid top 5 team, added £50m worth of players and took us to near relegation standard. There is a lot of work to do and I hope Roeder can do it although I'm far from convinced he's the man for the job. I wasn't even happy he was given the job as a caretaker but he did an excellent job, perhaps he'll continue do the business. He is going to need time and patience, that's for sure. The injury situation is very bad and although I hate falling back on that, it is a fact he was left a very unbalanced squad that is short on quality all over the place. There is only so much he can do under those circumstances.

Good post and one I agree with 100%. The difference is that I don't think Shepherd can get the right manager to spend the money wisely, I really don't think any good manager would be willing to work for him and the last two appointments back this up. Would Shepherd have appointed Souness and Roeder if top managers were after the job? I know we argue quite a bit but I must admit to liking your posts, even if I disagree with them. Mick, In terms of his CV, Souness wasn't bad, his previous track record was certainly as good if not better than O'Neill's, for example. I don't see him as a small time, unknown manager despite how shite he is. At the time the appointment of Souness was made it was generally accepted that a number of players were out of control and needed to be sorted out, I was totally shocked I have to admit, but it seemed to have some logic behind it. I don't know who else was actually approached at the time but I don't for a moment believe that the club was unable to attract a top manager. The Board has actually tried something different with the appointment of Roeder, that's all.

I don't see what managerial appointments before Keegan have to do with Shepherd or why they should be a defence for him. The club appointed Jack Charlton who had done well before and after Newcastle and knew the club, they appointed Ardilles who many people looked upon as being a very good up and coming manager, he'd done a brilliant job at Swindon, a team who played very good football, we also appointed McFaul who knew the club really well and so did Dinnis. You slate the old board for doing one thing and use it as a defence for Shepherd, how can you have it both ways? Roeder was a supporter of West Ham yet got them relegated, how does knowing the club help? It didn't help him at West Ham so why should it help him at a club that he didn't support? As for the spending, I don't see how spending more than you can afford with nothing to show except for a massive loss is any better than not spending, the end result is the same, no trophies and financial problems. At least one or two get some satisfaction out of wasting a lot of money, I don't. I'd rather it was spent wisely or not at all. My wife can spend all of my wages on crap, that doesn't make her any better than if she'd spent nothing. I think you're missing the point about spending, Mick. Nobody wants the money to be wasted, it's just that to have any chance at all of success any manager must be backed in the transfer market. If you have a Board that provides that backing then you have a chance. If you have a Board that doesn't provide that backing then you have no chance. The scenario where the Board does back the manager in the transfer market still has to rely on the manager making the right choices, making the right decisions about who to bring in and who to let go. It also relies on the manager making the correct decisions on a match by match basis, something Souness could never do because he put his reputation as a tough guy before what was good for the club. I think we could have won the Uefa Cup for example, had Souness not failed to manage Bellamy and Robert. We all know Souness was a terrible appointment and that's why the club isn't doing very well right now, it will take time to recover and that is what is happening now. The Board that is in place right now will back their manager, he will be given the resources to bring success to the club then it is down to whether or not he is good enough. Robson was given enough resources to build a consistent top 5 team, but even he fúcked up in the likes of the League Cup by sending out under strength teams. This is a competition we could definitely have won during his time here, and then who knows once that trophy is in the cabinet and the decades of waiting is over? Putting out those under strength teams is a decision made by the manager, so it is on his head, it's not down to the Board. Robson and others have been given the chance by the current Board to bring success to the club. The difference with Board's of the past is that they didn't provide managers with that level of support, meaning they had very little chance of success no matter how good a manager they may be.

36 people voted so tongue.gif ya miserable fanny haven't you got a 50 page mega quote-tastic thread about how the tea lady both does and doesn't make good tea to get back to? Rather miserable than a stinking one like yours, no doubt. blueyes.gif