Howaythelads

No answer to this then, HTL? Or is this the CM stuff you're accusing me of in that PM you just sent me? Putting you in your place more like, and you know it. What's the point, tough guy? The CM stuff relates to your inability to consider the team ahead of the individual. You can think you're putting me in my place if you like. I prefer to believe the majority on here know who is generally posting shite about football and who isn't, despite the fact that when it comes to football people will never agree on everything. So tell me when did we play well when Bowyer was in instead of Parker? As for my inability to consider the team ahead of the individual, I've already pointed out to you both examples where I think you're wrong, trying to make out we were a better team when Bowyer was in instead of Parker was bollocks as you were basing it on 2 games, also making out we were a better team with Smith up front is also bollocks as we played better the week before when we had Martins and Viduka up front, all the while refusing to comment on Smith's awful performances in midfield because it's not his position. You seem to have your whole argument built around 3 games over the space of 2 year and as per usual you're talking utter bollocks. As for who people think is generally posting shite, people fucking laugh at you behind your back about how you go on and on about the old board, at the same time offering people out on toontastic because they don't agree with you, you're an idiot HTL and a bully to go with it. Another load of shite from start to finish. 1. I haven't made out we're better with Smith up front based on 3 games. 2. I have commented on Smith in midfield, I've said he's ineffective there. I couldn't care less if you understand what "ineffective" means, although I'm getting the feeling you don't have a clue. 3. I haven't made out we were better with Bowyer in the team based on 2 games. The point wasn't even about Bowyer, something else you don't understand. 4. I haven't "offered people out" on toontastic. In fact, I don't think I've posted on there in nearly 2 years now. It seems like your mates on Toontastic are spoon feeding you a load of tripe and you're eagerly gobbling it up. You're probably a good gobbler, though. 5. People may laugh at me behind my back. Do I give a shite? It's a forum, sunshine. Get a life.

You dance to the tune I play. You're predictable as well.

No answer to this then, HTL? Or is this the CM stuff you're accusing me of in that PM you just sent me? Putting you in your place more like, and you know it. What's the point, tough guy? The CM stuff relates to your inability to consider the team ahead of the individual. You can think you're putting me in my place if you like. I prefer to believe the majority on here know who is generally posting shite about football and who isn't, despite the fact that when it comes to football people will never agree on everything.

Its not even about partnerships. The entire team played better with Smith dropping off and linkup up intelligently, as opposed to tussling with defenders (Viduka) or displaying clown like touches (Martins, Ameobi). Ball retention was higher, there were more team attacking moves, simply because we werent losing the ball as soon as it was played forward, and we looked a better unit all round as a result. Which is why I've been banging on for ages that our best pairing up front is Owen and Smith. I can see Smith and Owen working nicely. Although obviously Viduka is a far superior individual player with the ball at his feet I think we will end up knocking it up to him all the time and expecting him to spin his man and either get a shot in himself or play Martins/Owen/Zogs etc in on goal. I've said before that is a fair enough game plan at this stage, with so much rebuilding taking place and alot of players regaining confidence and remembering/learning how to play together after the mess of the last few seasons. However, hopefully over the course of this season we'd see a move towards more carefully and reliably constructed attacks, and for that we'd need a more mobile front man who'd have the team keeping its shape, bringing others into the game and generally playing to a system rather relying on a bit of inspiration. That is the best way for us to get results these days, as unfortunately we haven't got a Beardo who we can expect to pick up the ball on the half way line, beat 3 men and then slip Owen in for an easy one on one. It always helps if you can defend from the front and that is one thing Smith shares with Beardsley, and which could help to improve us as a team especially away from home as NE5 said. Smith is not a 'top four' striker on his own but then you'd say neither are Crouch or Cisse yet Liverpool have been consistently top four and have won the Champions League. I'm not saying we should play like Liverpool but they are an example of a team whose players may not all stand out individually but can play together effectively. Another very good post. The team is paramount but some people still don't seem able to understand this. However, from reading this thread I'd say the sensible people who do understand the importance of the team are in the majority on here right now. A good thing, imo. The hatred of certain players over the last few years is quite staggering. I'm talking of Bowyer and Smith here. Here's an example. It was obvious from very early on that the midfield pairing of Emre/Parker didn't work and wouldn't work, we looked far better when Parker was out and Bowyer was in. This wasn't because Bowyer is a superb individual player, it was because the team balance was better by bringing in that type of player. Many couldn't see it though and I believe this was due to their hatred of the person. I think the same is happening to Smith, although to a lesser extent because it seems most people who can see past the ends of the nose can see what he can bring to the team if used consistently as a striker. Bowyer was awful for us, if you got off your arse and went to games you would know this. As for people hating Smith, most have just pointed out how awful he's been for us this season which you struggle to get your head around. By concentrating on the ability of the individual you once again miss the point. I'm not surprised. Quite clearly it's you missing the point, Bowyer was a poor player for us for the majority of his time here yet just because we picked up when Roeder was caretaker manager you somehow put it down to Parker being out injured and Bowyer being in the team, conveniently ignoring that the run we went on was against piss easy teams yet we still had our asses handed to us when we faced better clubs. I take it this is where you waffle on about how we all have a bias opinion because of what he done in McDonalds when he was a teenager. Tit. Tough guy....

Its not even about partnerships. The entire team played better with Smith dropping off and linkup up intelligently, as opposed to tussling with defenders (Viduka) or displaying clown like touches (Martins, Ameobi). Ball retention was higher, there were more team attacking moves, simply because we werent losing the ball as soon as it was played forward, and we looked a better unit all round as a result. Which is why I've been banging on for ages that our best pairing up front is Owen and Smith. I can see Smith and Owen working nicely. Although obviously Viduka is a far superior individual player with the ball at his feet I think we will end up knocking it up to him all the time and expecting him to spin his man and either get a shot in himself or play Martins/Owen/Zogs etc in on goal. I've said before that is a fair enough game plan at this stage, with so much rebuilding taking place and alot of players regaining confidence and remembering/learning how to play together after the mess of the last few seasons. However, hopefully over the course of this season we'd see a move towards more carefully and reliably constructed attacks, and for that we'd need a more mobile front man who'd have the team keeping its shape, bringing others into the game and generally playing to a system rather relying on a bit of inspiration. That is the best way for us to get results these days, as unfortunately we haven't got a Beardo who we can expect to pick up the ball on the half way line, beat 3 men and then slip Owen in for an easy one on one. It always helps if you can defend from the front and that is one thing Smith shares with Beardsley, and which could help to improve us as a team especially away from home as NE5 said. Smith is not a 'top four' striker on his own but then you'd say neither are Crouch or Cisse yet Liverpool have been consistently top four and have won the Champions League. I'm not saying we should play like Liverpool but they are an example of a team whose players may not all stand out individually but can play together effectively. Another very good post. The team is paramount but some people still don't seem able to understand this. However, from reading this thread I'd say the sensible people who do understand the importance of the team are in the majority on here right now. A good thing, imo. The hatred of certain players over the last few years is quite staggering. I'm talking of Bowyer and Smith here. Here's an example. It was obvious from very early on that the midfield pairing of Emre/Parker didn't work and wouldn't work, we looked far better when Parker was out and Bowyer was in. This wasn't because Bowyer is a superb individual player, it was because the team balance was better by bringing in that type of player. Many couldn't see it though and I believe this was due to their hatred of the person. I think the same is happening to Smith, although to a lesser extent because it seems most people who can see past the ends of the nose can see what he can bring to the team if used consistently as a striker. Bowyer was awful for us, if you got off your arse and went to games you would know this. As for people hating Smith, most have just pointed out how awful he's been for us this season which you struggle to get your head around. By concentrating on the ability of the individual you once again miss the point. I'm not surprised.

Rather the nappy rippers were relegated tbh. Along with spurs.

What is a "scotch" player? Someone of scotch nationality who is found to be out of his depth at the sport of football when competing in the English League (might not even be the Premier League).

Vast majority of scotch players are shit when it comes to the real league which is the English league. A few half decent results doesn't change that. Even in the past, for every scotch player who made it in England another dozen failed.

that makes me laugh Why? do you block out sigs or something Yep, and avatars too. And that ain't going to change just because I'm flattered that I've got so deeply under your skin that you've devoted yours to an obviously failed attempt to needle little old moi. Now, if you really are as old as I am -- old enough to have gone to his first match in the mid-1960s -- why don't you try acting your age instead of always snapping at my heels like some retarded, yappy mongrel? Ironic.

I've read what you've posted and it's a load of tripe, that's obvious for all to see. It doesn't seem possible but this latest effort from you reduces your credibility even further.

I predicted what you were going to say in my first post in this thread That either makes me intelligent or you boring and predictable with a bog standard set of lines you trot out. Which one is it? And 270 posts later I'm still waiting of an appropriate reply are you or are you not saying that you would prefer Bates to Shepherd on the basis that he has either : 1. Won 2 cups that nobody except you gives a toss about 2. Won a meaningful cup or two in comparison to ourselves who didn't perform in 2 Finals, also against superior opposition ie the new league champions on both occasions ? If number 1, you're an idiot. If number 2, you're still an idiot for thinking for thinking so, because as has been patiently pointed out by myself and HTL, the chairmen don't usually have any input into team selections, tactics and motivation of players. Just for clarification. This is one last chance for you to recover some sort of standing, and I'm doing it because I feel sorry for you. Your question is invalid - I have never stated which chairman I would prefer. And I would never say which one I would prefer if I had to do so on satisfying one of two criteria. So the answer is number 3 - you're the idiot All I have ever stated in this thread (on several occasions) is that Bates saw more trophies come to Stamford Bridge than Freddie saw coming to SJP. You can't seem to accept this rather basic fact. shame you're too idiotic to accept you took the thread into the direction you say you didn't. And also too idiotic to acknowledge the fact that if you weren't saying you prefer Bates to Shepherd, there was absolutely no point in you saying anything ie you didn't add anything worthwhile but you never do. As you fail to acknowledge the fact that chairman don't kick a ball, nor decide tactics and team selection, I will take it as a yes that you think they actually do these things OK quote me where I have specifically said I would prefer Bates to Shepherd (or vice versa) To be fair, what the fuck have you been banging on about if you werent trying to make some relative judgement about their worth to their respective clubs? The whole Bates v Shepherd thing is ridiculous anyway as its an established fact that Bates is a cunt of the highest order. We'll never agree on our last chairman but am not arsed whether we do or not. Exactly. Absolutely spot on, Chez. The only possible reason behind the shed bloke making this assertion was to imply Bates is better than Shepherd. He can claim differently all he likes (which is hilarious, tbh) but there can be no other reason.

Can't remember with certainty. Sometime in 1968 back in the days when the ground was only half full.

No brainer. A very good player who would improve the team. Note "team" not "squad."

Good post. Just a couple of points to make in response, mate. See the "not quite" in bold. I'm probably misunderstanding you here, but my example of Bowyer coming in and the "team" being better is the point I'm making. What you've done is reinforce that idea with another example but it kind of reads as though you disagree with me. Probably down to me rushing the post and not explaining myself clearly enough, but that was my point in any case. A couple of other things. You mention Smith's "awful strike rate." Considering the logic in your overall post I'm surprised you've mentioned that given the fact he's spent most games playing as a midfielder. Unless you think a striker playing in midfield should also be judged as a striker, which I doubt you do. This renders the reference to "auxillary" redundant because it's a wait and see how Smith does if FS uses him as a striker like he should do. He may score some goals with a consistent run in his best position. Not sure you're the first one on here to want to see Smith up front with Owen, but it doesn't matter really.

Its not even about partnerships. The entire team played better with Smith dropping off and linkup up intelligently, as opposed to tussling with defenders (Viduka) or displaying clown like touches (Martins, Ameobi). Ball retention was higher, there were more team attacking moves, simply because we werent losing the ball as soon as it was played forward, and we looked a better unit all round as a result. Which is why I've been banging on for ages that our best pairing up front is Owen and Smith. I can see Smith and Owen working nicely. Although obviously Viduka is a far superior individual player with the ball at his feet I think we will end up knocking it up to him all the time and expecting him to spin his man and either get a shot in himself or play Martins/Owen/Zogs etc in on goal. I've said before that is a fair enough game plan at this stage, with so much rebuilding taking place and alot of players regaining confidence and remembering/learning how to play together after the mess of the last few seasons. However, hopefully over the course of this season we'd see a move towards more carefully and reliably constructed attacks, and for that we'd need a more mobile front man who'd have the team keeping its shape, bringing others into the game and generally playing to a system rather relying on a bit of inspiration. That is the best way for us to get results these days, as unfortunately we haven't got a Beardo who we can expect to pick up the ball on the half way line, beat 3 men and then slip Owen in for an easy one on one. It always helps if you can defend from the front and that is one thing Smith shares with Beardsley, and which could help to improve us as a team especially away from home as NE5 said. Smith is not a 'top four' striker on his own but then you'd say neither are Crouch or Cisse yet Liverpool have been consistently top four and have won the Champions League. I'm not saying we should play like Liverpool but they are an example of a team whose players may not all stand out individually but can play together effectively. Another very good post. The team is paramount but some people still don't seem able to understand this. However, from reading this thread I'd say the sensible people who do understand the importance of the team are in the majority on here right now. A good thing, imo. The hatred of certain players over the last few years is quite staggering. I'm talking of Bowyer and Smith here. Here's an example. It was obvious from very early on that the midfield pairing of Emre/Parker didn't work and wouldn't work, we looked far better when Parker was out and Bowyer was in. This wasn't because Bowyer is a superb individual player, it was because the team balance was better by bringing in that type of player. Many couldn't see it though and I believe this was due to their hatred of the person. I think the same is happening to Smith, although to a lesser extent because it seems most people who can see past the ends of the nose can see what he can bring to the team if used consistently as a striker.

I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is. By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5. On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected. Re read the bits in bold again. I am more than happy to address the points in your post under the conditions I have indicated. However linking why the teams did not play well at the final to the board is a concept your mate introduced into this thread. Read from post 133 and you'll see what I mean. You popped up shortly afterward and backed him in this line of debate. I haven't addressed the issue at all but you two have been going hammer and tongs against my supposed position on the matter. Perhaps now you can see why I would prefer to separate you two. Better still why not communicate directly to NE5? After all its the words he puts into my mouth you take issue with :giggle: I don't "back" NE5, although I can see why you'd want to churn out that daft line. I make my own responses according to what I read. As for "hammer and tongs." This is as clear an exaggeration as I've ever seen, but whatever excuse suits you.... Cheers

Correct.

Its not even about partnerships. The entire team played better with Smith dropping off and linkup up intelligently, as opposed to tussling with defenders (Viduka) or displaying clown like touches (Martins, Ameobi). Ball retention was higher, there were more team attacking moves, simply because we werent losing the ball as soon as it was played forward, and we looked a better unit all round as a result. Which is why I've been banging on for ages that our best pairing up front is Owen and Smith.

I have been posting in this thread and I see no reason why I need post this in some other thread I've never looked at. Assuming you're once again banging on about some thread I've never looked at, that is. By the way, the reference to NE5 and leg humping is amusing. The fact is, I've been responding to your posts directly, not NE5's post. Only on the odd occasion (in any thread) do I respond directly to a post from NE5. On the basis NE5 and I believe the anti-Fred stuff is a gross over-reaction, comments of "tag team" have appeared in the past, but as usual those who make such comments aren't following the posts carefully enough. We share an opinion about the previous Board that on this forum is a minority one. The rather juvenile reaction to that from some people is therefore predictable and to be expected.

To me? To you Bye You make me laugh. You have an opportunity to engage in a proper debate with me yet you refuse to do so. I think I made some decent points to counter your argument and you have no answer. I know people are bored by the subject under discussion, but I think you've just made yourself look very much a fool with that post above. I'll leave it to other members to decide whether or not you've realised you'll fall flat on your face by trying the debating idea. Cheers Leg Humper

shed bloke In response to your posts it is up for discussion that you believe winning the FA Cup twice while Bates was Chairman of Chelsea means Bates is a better Chairman than Fred. I don't believe this is a valid measure against which to judge a Board and/or Chairman. If this isn't the reason you've highlighted Chelsea winning this trophy twice while Bates was Chairman perhaps you will enlighten everybody as to why you mentioned it? Everybody knows it's a fact that Chelsea won these trophies, so are you after some kind of shallow reply that ignores the big picture? Whether you like it or not, in a debate it is perfectly valid to counter your argument by pointing out the role of a Chairman/Board is not to play in the team, neither is it to pick the team nor is it to set out the tactics of the team. By putting in place resources that have enabled the team manager to construct a team capable of finishing in the top 5 for 3 seasons in a row means the Chairman/Board had done their bit. We had a team capable of winning the FA Cup, the fact we did not win the FA Cup can be down to a number of reasons, but it is definitely not down to the Chairman/Board. Some of these reasons could be... 1. Luck of the draw (playing the League Champions in the Cup final twice was bad luck) 2. Poor team selection 3. Poor tactics 4. Players performing badly on the day 5. Just bad luck on the day None of those 5 factors are within the control of the Chairman/Board no matter how much you may want them to be. In addition, Robson selecting a weakened team in the League Cup causing us to be knocked out by inferior teams is another factor outside the control of the Chairman/Board. Do you think the Chairman/Board should interfere with team selection? You simply can't dispute facts and it is a fact that under the previous Board the club finishing top 5 for 3 seasons in a row is something that hadn't been done by this club for over 50 years despite some seasons in a lower division. This doesn't mean the Board was great, I know they they made mistakes, but they are far from the shit people like you make them out to be. Is your mind open enough for you to look at some league tables if you don't know this already, despite being 42 years old. Leg Humper

Sums you up, know-nowt. You have zero credibility. Bye

shed blerk http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=45104.msg1035550#msg1035550 Cheers Leg Humper

So it's impossible to register under another name then? Just asking like, 'cos I don't know, but I can't see what there is to stop someone doing that. Their IP address would clash, and I'd reject the registration. All new members are approved first. What about dynamic IP's? What about people who have multiple computers in the hoose as I do? Are you saying that my son (who used to be a member way back before this software was in use) can't be a member while I'm a member?