Howaythelads

Eh?

I don't. What you need is a threat from all over the park and you judge footballers on their overall contribution, not on statistics. Malcolm Macdonald regularly scored between 20 and 30 goals a season for Newcastle and for 3 seasons in a row we finished 15th. When he left we shot up to 5th and had a much better team. It's always about the team and judging footballers on statistics is a load of bollocks. In any case, it's generally accepted that we have a lack of creativity in the team right now, something that despite being accepted is conveniently ignored when rolling out stats about our strikers.

Aye that Ajax team have been garbage over the years like. Oh f*** wait, Johan Cruijff says f*** you. The examples you give are always the exception to the domination of 442. How many international tournaments, champions league tournaments, premierships have been won by 433? About 6? How many have been won by 442? about 1,069,991 and counting. Funny thing is, if someone tried telling Johan Cruijff his team were successful because of the formation and that in a different formation the personnel wouldn't have been as successful, he'd probably tell you to f*** yourself, an rightly so! Is this a wind-up? The last three Premierships have been won with 4-3-3. The current leaders play 4-5-1. No wind-up. I said history. Football has been played for some 120 years. 433 has been prominent at most in the last 25 years. 3 premiership titles is nothing against a backdrop of 90+ years of non-existence and non-success What a ridiculous comment. Wasn't 4-2-4 the formation of choice before 4-4-2? And what about 2-3-5, is that the classic football formation? The point it, which one's going to work now, not which one worked best in the past. What is so ridiculous? I was responding to comments earlier on in this thread along the lines of '433 is the greatest formation ever, it's so brilliant blah blah blah'. I am merely pointing out that before i would label a formation the best 'ever', i would wait till it has some substantial success behind it. I am not saying 442 is the best formation ever, but it's had more success in the history of the game than 433, and so has a much better shout of being labelled the best formation ever. 433 is kak. that was my intial point, and i stand by it. for all those people that because they can remember 1 successful football team that got success with a formation that is not 442, please don't feel you have to throw that at me as some riposte to my overall point.

Side-splitting stuff once again. I can't decide if you're a wum or just thick.

Id love to see us get Diouf and Anelka, They would transform our side. I hate Diouf but you cant doubt his ability. Agreed. I don't like the hockler either but he's a good player.

If Owen isn't gone in Jan then he'll deffo be away in the summer. As long as we bring in a decent replacement I'll be quite happy to see him gone.

I think Duff will come back strongly. It makes me laugh that so many people are writing him off.

Examples? You read the forum, don't you?

Always looking for the negative. Perhaps it said something about how Fergie saw his tenacity and leadership qualities, these being very good attributes for that area of the pitch. That's not looking for the negative, it's just saying it as it is. You yourself have said that he isn't a midfielder despite having those qualities. He's at his best up front but forwards of his type do need to contribute some goals. Around 10 would do, but if he was scoring double figures in a season I doubt Fergie would have wanted to part with him. Fair enough. All I'm bothered about is the team anyway. Smith doesn't have to score 20 goals to justify his place, he just needs to be the most effective player at the club in the role he's been given in the last couple of games. If he's given a run in this role and the team improves then he's doing his bit until a better player comes along to take his place. I like Smith upfront, but not on his own. For him to play up top on his own he needs to have at least 3 or so players behind him who are regularly going to score. At Man Utd it worked as the likes of Scholes, Ronaldo and Giggs can always be relied on. If he plays that position for us who is going to score the goals? Well that's the point of that role, isn't it? If the manager wants someone to play that particular role he needs to put the right players in other parts of the team, or not use that type of role at all.

He's a striker mate, a strikers job is to score goals. Craig Bellamy was a flop here in that case. There's no point in mentioning things like that to people who can only judge a footballer on statistics.

That's a good comparison, tbh.

Always looking for the negative. Perhaps it said something about how Fergie saw his tenacity and leadership qualities, these being very good attributes for that area of the pitch. That's not looking for the negative, it's just saying it as it is. You yourself have said that he isn't a midfielder despite having those qualities. He's at his best up front but forwards of his type do need to contribute some goals. Around 10 would do, but if he was scoring double figures in a season I doubt Fergie would have wanted to part with him. Fair enough. All I'm bothered about is the team anyway. Smith doesn't have to score 20 goals to justify his place, he just needs to be the most effective player at the club in the role he's been given in the last couple of games. If he's given a run in this role and the team improves then he's doing his bit until a better player comes along to take his place.

I think Bobby mainly signed first team players who were young, I think Sam is going to be signing young players who need developing & dont have a great deal of first team experience. I know what you mean, but there isn't really a difference in the overall policy imo. The emphasis was on youth. Many players signed by Robson were not young players already involved in first team action at PL level. It's not a new idea. By the way, is FS the right man for this kind of policy? His track record doesn't have much evidence to support he is.

It is shocking that so many people (on this forum) have shown by their previous posts that they will not understand this.

Most of us like the idea of the club being built with youth coming through or bought into the ranks, but with ANC & some failings in our current team/squad I am not sure this is the best thing to do in January. As fans a lot of us go to watch the first team & it is only there result that really matters & it is only the players signed to play in the first team now that count. I am not saying this is my view point, more of the real world. Long term planning is not sustainable for Newcastle United with a shit/average first team as the manager will get the sack before he see's the fruits of his & other peoples work. We tried to do that with the signings made by Robson when he was backed by the previous Board with this plan. It would have worked as well, had some of those young players not had a bad attitude and been twáts. Checking the personality of a person though is all a part of what you should do before signing a footballer and Robson got it wrong despite being backed. I hope it works out for the new owners, but they'll have to back the manager the same as the previous lot backed Robson. Then we'll have to hope FS does a better job of selecting young players than Robson did.

He wasn't what? He wasn't offered the job, according to NE5. No, you're wrong. Not according to me at all. I know he wasn't, according to someone else, who knows he wasn't. That's still according to you. That statement doesn't preclude the condition you've detailed. So you're wrong in saying I'm wrong. If you're absolutely definite then can only conclude the person you know is either Shepherd, or Bruce. And it depends upon your definition of 'offered' - some people will include him being sounded out, tapped up on the phone or whatever, as him being offered the job. By your definition it entails a piece of paper ratified by all board members, which is also fair enough. I have absolutely no idea if Shepherd or anyone had a cup of tea with him on a motorway somewhere and asked if he was interested in the job [which happens], but I'm telling you he wasn't offered it because it was never a majority boardroom decision to offer it. In any case, what do you think of those rich owners of Birmingham, and Dave Whelan offering him the job, after you and others insisted nobody else would be stupid enough ? Or is it just another daft knee jerk comment? What do I think of David Sullivan, purveyor of the Sunday Sport? Bit of a tosser. David Gold, he seems like a good guy to me. No opinion of Dave Whelan. Can you quote the argument where I said no-one would be stupid enough to offer him a job? Just that I don't remember commenting on that at all! Isn't it just? I was just trying to clarify what you were saying with a bit of logic but you've just taken it the wrong way. You can't even accept that there are different opinions of what entails a job offer in this day and age, esp. for a quango-style set-up like Shepherd had in tow. Oh, I'm sorry, there's no piece of paper that someone's signed to say that was the way it was, therefore it wasn't true, can't have been true, it's all made up by the bloody ELVES. Merry Christmas. Might be confusing you with somebody else, but aren't you that Celtic fan? Just thought I'd ask.

The people who ruin the forum are those who automatically post negatively against the opinion of certain individuals (not just NE5) based on who is making the post rather than the content of the post. If people would get their head out of their arse and read what he's posting they will find it makes sense. EG If you seriously believe that under the previous board, major decisions were made by one individual acting alone, then you (and others) are frankly a bit dim. I appreciate there is a dilemma here for some. Admitting that big decisions were made by a group of people is obviously going to mean some people can't continue with their childish pastime of slating one individual for everything. Think about it, before you blurt something out....

Always looking for the negative. Perhaps it said something about how Fergie saw his tenacity and leadership qualities, these being very good attributes for that area of the pitch.

I like 3-3-3-1, myself. How aboot this.... Given Roz Taylor Cacapa Beye Faye Duff Martins Barton Zog Smith

OMG, this is side-splitting stuff.

Wow, Championship Manager is fascinating stuff.......

How can that possibly be a fact? Because Keegan says so. He said that Shepherd, Fletcher and Hall Jnr wanted him, and Hall Snr didn't. Unless you know better ... whatever misinterpretation others wish to say .... I'm sure i remember seeing a Keegan quote...something along the lines of...(on the phone to SJH) "there are only 2 people who can save this club now, and they're on the phone to each other now" Does that mean anything? Aye, just not what you think. Obviously.

George Riley and Tony Cunningham were class, man. Shame such shite players as Beardsley and Waddle couldn't fit in to the system.....

Eh? Think he's refering to the arsenal goal.. ...what about the reward? Think he' refering to the irony in putting him on the bench after playing well (in his opinion) and scoring a goal, is a funny way to reward someone. I must have missed it when he was put on the bench. He hasn't been, yet... People (including Steve69) are just saying might he be and steve is presenting an argument for why he shouldn't! What's the point of what the geezer has posted? It makes no sense at all. The fact is, Taylor isn't in danger of being dropped "after playing well and scoring a goal." He's lost his place due to injury, which is very different.

Eh? Think he's refering to the arsenal goal.. ...what about the reward? Think he' refering to the irony in putting him on the bench after playing well (in his opinion) and scoring a goal, is a funny way to reward someone. I must have missed it when he was put on the bench.