ohmelads

Some players play to the fans, and historically those kinds of players have done well at Newcastle. I'm optimistic about this one. This lad wants to be the centre of attention and he's come to a team lacking in flair and a fanbase craving it. He's got a perfect stage to show off if he has the hunger. As Mick points out, Robert and Ginola were the same and both were a success.

For years we've been in need of a a creative player who can run at defences as well as unlock them. Since the Robson era with Bellamy, Dyer, Robert and Solano we've not really had anyone since. Duff was meant to bring it but he didn't, Luque was a failure, Gutierrez has qualities but well known limitations. We've been bereft of any flair for a while now and with that came mediocrity and eventually relegation. Viduka, Emre and Martins provided it once in a while when they were fit to play and in form, but how often was that? We're crying out for a crowd pleaser, a flair player and everything I read about this guy it seems like he is looking for a stage to perform, a place where he'll be loved by the fans and can be the main man. It may just turn out to be a perfect match. We have plenty of hard workers and a good team work ethic, we need a player who is hungry for the ball and will take people on. Looking forward to seeing him play and really hope he is what we've been looking for since the Robson era.

So the player wants to stay, the manager wants to keep him, and he's been transfer listed? You have to consider that renewing a contract is often cheaper than buying a new player. That's why many players will get a pay-rise, because the club would rather that than get a small fee as their contract runs out and fork out on a quality replacement who may turn out to be crap. Consider the cost of spending 5M (perhaps what it would cost for a proven Prem quality defender) and giving him 40K a week plus a signing on fee. Pocketing 1 or 2M for Taylor in the process. Money saved? Not to mention, our stock has fallen. Do you see a line of star defenders queueing up at our door? The Milner comparisons are good because I remember a lot of people criticising Milner and picking on his worst performances for the club, and his worst attributes at the time, such as his lack of pace, strength or ability to cross a ball. But many people could see he had his strengths and had the right attitude to develop as a player. Many also predicted Mike Ashley wouldn't replace him - and he didn't.

Fair point, though that seems to be where we disagree. I think Taylor is the necessary quality because I think he walks into our first team. As for the wage demands, I don't know who to believe. If the player is asking for too much then fair enough, but Ashley has enough form when it comes to penny pinching that I remain sceptical. What has he done over the last two years to deserve a pay rise? Read the post again. I don't know who to believe, whether the major pay rise is just media speculation or fact. They often throw around random numbers as speculation when it comes to players wages. I would also be curious to know how much Sol Campbell is on, given the club's stated policy of investing in youth.

Fair point, though that seems to be where we disagree. I think Taylor is the necessary quality because I think he walks into our first team. As for the wage demands, I don't know who to believe. If the player is asking for too much then fair enough, but Ashley has enough form when it comes to penny pinching that I remain sceptical.

Arsenal 2001-Present Real Madrid - Countless times Inter Milan - Its entire history That's not many examples, like I said. Besides, Real Madrid spent a fortune on imports and were beaten to the title by a team of homegrown Barca players. Inter spent years in AC Milan's shadow and are largely considered a team that has underachieved.

Seen him put in some quality performances there, a couple of times against Arsenal spring to mind. Sure he had poor games, but so did Coloccini who is suddenly flavour of the month, not to mention Enrique. He has the ability. We don't have Beye any more, so I stand by the fact he would walk into our team and those aren't the sort of players you sell unless you can line up a better replacement.

I'll be pretty disappointed if we lose him. I think he makes a pretty good right back in the defensive mould (a la Gary Neville) and would walk into our first team in that position. Not to mention he can play both CB and RB, is a homegrown talent and is not a bad player. Good teams are often built around homegrown players. You'll struggle to find many examples of top teams built entirely on imports. We have no idea who is to blame, the club or the player. The wage demands are probably pure speculation. The timing suggests the club fears losing him for nothing, but the penny-pinching nature of Ashley suggests he could be 'balancing the books' and the fact he has released this on the back of a 6-0 win - an easy time to release bad news. If we lose him, I think we'll be weaker. It's hard to just click your fingers and replace a decent homegrown player. Some might disagree he's decent, but proven players don't come cheap and unproven players are a gamble. We may (and knowing us, probably will) end up with worse. I'd much rather keep him because a back four of Enrique, Colo, Williamson, Taylor looks alright to me.

Bit risky signing a player carrying such a big injury, months away from fitness. We have no idea how he will be when he returns. How many times have we signed players who have then got a serious injury and never got going afterwards? Look at Owen, Luque, Duff. Nevertheless, I think it's a risk worth taking in our current predicament. There just isn't the funds with the fat man behind the wheel, and major injury aside, he ticks some good boxes. Young, English, Prem experience and rated by his club, he's worth the punt I feel. I'd question his character after what he's done to Everton, the club who discovered him, but he may just be desperate for first team football, in which case he's coming for the right reasons. Everton have a wealth of options in midfield, it would be very tough for him to break in. He probably would develop better playing week in week out with us, post injury of course.

I think they should be scrapped. Football is about drama and extra time and penalties provide great drama. As it is now, you hold a big team for 90 minutes for financial rewards of a replay. It's bullsh*t. Change it to one game and suddenly these small teams are 30 minutes from a shootout, and can knock out the big guns instead of getting dicked in a replay a week later. It'll benefit the smaller clubs IMO, and create more nailbiting/cliffhanger endings.

With the exception of Jenas all 4 of them were talked about before they hit 18, and Jenas was bought by us and playing at 18 iirc even though he kind of came out of nowhere. Perch is 24 and forest have been down in the 3rd division for a few years. Very, very different caliber of player we're talking about here. Fair points. On a budget like ours you don't get anyone of known calbre, though. Premier League experience is valuable but on a budget like ours it'd as likely mean a dead wood player like Ryan Taylor. If there is any other money to spend, it needs to be going on a striker better than what we have, and a midfielder who can pick a pass, among other things.

Surely Hughton's at least seen a fair bit of him seeing as we've just done a season in the Championship and Forest were chasing us for a while. The question is whether he decided to snap up a player he fancies or whether he has just gone for an extra body on the cheap. We haven't made enough of these types of signings to be fair. If you look at players who have done well in recent years, a good few came from the Championship. Bobby Robson got us into the Champions League with signings like Dyer, Jenas, and Bramble, and Milner has gone on to play for England at the World Cup. N'Zogbia was another obscure signing who has gone on to do well. You would assume Raylor will probably be on the move now, unless he is to be used as backup for the right wing as well.

Ironic you say that, given that England had more possession and Germany's first goal came from a route one goal kick and brute strength from the striker. The type of goal Allardyce would be proud of. I think the Champions League is a particularly bad example for the point you're trying to make, as English teams have done very well in recent years.

Well nobody is questioning the quality of foreign players at Man Utd or Chelsea. My point was that English players like Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard are in the team on merit. That's a fact. And the likes of Scholes and Beckham before them. The suggestion seems to be that they are not as good as their teammates and are therefore carried, and get exposed at the world cup cos they're in fact crap players. This for me is a nonsense argument. Man utd drop points without Rooney, Liverpool drop points without Gerrard. They're in the team alongside foreign stars totally on merit because they're good enough. Most foreigners I speak to agree that they are top players. I do agree with your last two paragraphs. England will never beat Brazil playing their game. But we can beat teams like that, of course we can. We must find a way to maximise Rooney's strengths and minimise his weaknesses, and the same goes for our other top players. Equally we need balance, we need players who are willing to do the dirty work and let the stars take the plaudits, like Darren Fletcher or Park Ji Sung at Man Utd. You look at every Brazil squad and there are often one or two more average players in there. Remember Kleberson? Often a team can't accommodate too many stars, as I thought happened to Brazil four years ago. For that reason I'd have Milner and Adam Johnson on the flanks, young players who don't see themselves as bigger than the team, who will put balls in the box and work for the team. I'd also give Carrick a run in the team, he might lack Barry's engine but he's a more gifted footballer. Another thing I think we lack is a settled team. Going into the world cup we had no idea who was playing on which flank, or who would partner Rooney up front, or even what formation we were playing. This is a mess. Experimenting new formations days before a world cup is insane. You always had the feeling Capello had no idea what his best team was.

Capello made some big mistakes before we even kicked a ball. Leaving exciting young in-form players like Adam Johnson at home and bringing Emile Heskey was a blunder as was the decision to bring crocks or players out of retirement like King and Carragher. It seems he buckled and changed his principles at the last minute. At the actual world cup, the players deserve a massive amount of flak but the coach deserves some too. The team looked disjointed and clueless, lacking any sort of obvious strategy to win the games. And there was no plan B. Players with different qualities such as Joe Cole and Carrick were either rarely used or ignored altogether. For Capello, it was a disaster. He got just about everything wrong. But strangely, I'd like him to stay. It's a gut feeling based on his managerial record. We need someone experienced and with pedigree to oversee a transition. Some of the older players are getting on and we need to introduce new young blood to the England set-up. With his record in qualifiers I'd be confident of us making the Euros and believe he's intelligent enough to learn from his mistakes with this England team. Another reason is the well documented lack of alternatives.

Are you suggesting Rooney is carried by his foreign teammates at Man Utd? Take Rooney out of Man Utd and the "foreign lads" have not done the business at Man Utd. Take Gerrard out of Liverpool and it's the same story. Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard have been star players for their clubs. There's no point pretending they're sh*t and saying we need new players. That is hiding from the issue. We need to figure out why good footballers are not putting in the same performances they do for their clubs, why as a unit the defenders looked like they'd never seen each other before. It's not a question of lack of skill. We couldn't beat Algeria because of poor organization, poor tactics, and players not performing to their potential. These are the issues we must address if we are to do well in major tournaments. For the record, I do believe England should be doing more at grass-roots level to produce a wider pool of players to choose from, and youth coaching could be improved. But I don't believe for a second that Rooney is carried by his Man Utd team or that he lacks the ability to make an impression against the USA or Algeria. I believe we were bad as a unit but more worryingly our individual players not show even the slightest glimpse of their talent. I don't have the answers, but I strongly believe this is what needs looking at the most. To concentrate on youth coaching and ignore the question of why world class players can't dominate Algeria is IMO hiding from the issue.

I agree with this line of thinking. People are looking only at the Germany game, ignoring the fact we choked against Algeria too. The players obviously weren't performing at their best. This is what we should be addressing because if we can't get the best out of our players we will always struggle. It has been Spain's problem in the past and they play a totally different style. These players have won Premier League titles, Champions League trophies, they have beaten teams like Barcelona. They know how to play football. They couldn't perform against Algeria and people are talking about technique and schoolboys coaching?

Exactly what I was getting at earlier. The world cup is a one month competition. You need to be on form, ride your luck, and be good tactically as a unit to beat teams who are better than or as good as you. It is winnable, but you need these things. We've beaten big teams before, and we've got to quarter finals and semi-finals before. We won it once. Spain and Holland play really technical football but where are the trophies? Spain won Euro 2008 not just because of possessing loads of great players. They've always had great players. This Spain team has been playing together for years, they know each other inside out. They can play to their own strengths and perform, they pass teams off the park. They're organized and well-drilled as well as gifted. Look at Germany and France. Are the Germans more technically gifted than the French? More 'comfy on the ball'? Or have they just got their act together? The French are a mess. We will never match Brazil technically, but can we beat them? Yes, if we perform on the day and our tactics are right. International football is different to club football, you have a fraction of the time to work on moves in training, to gel a team together that plays to the strengths of its best players. England clearly failed in this regard. Would coaching Rooney when he was 10 to play a different way have made him perform better? Fact is we have a world class player who struggled to do anything. Look at the tactics, team organization and how we perform as a unit at the actual tournament. We have the players to do damage at a major tournament. Before the world cup if you spoke to foreign fans they feared us, so did the coaches. Nobody said anything about "you guys won't do anything because of the way your kids are coached". It's easy to sell these arguments in the aftermath of a hammering but it's a massive overraction IMO.

Apart from a tepid draw against Portugal and a decent win against Ivory Coast, Brazil have not been tested. If they beat Holland they'll reach the final but there they will probably meet Spain or Argentina. I'd fancy both against this Brazil team. I actually think Holland have a chance. If they knock out Brazil they will face Uruguay or Ghana for a place in the final. They weren't convincing against Slovakia but you don't always need to be. Battering small teams doesn't win you the world cup. They're a team with the resources to beat anyone on the day and may relish the role of underdogs against Brazil.

Is this really the issue though? Look at Spain and Holland. For decades they have underperformed at least as badly as we have. Both countries emphasise technique at grass roots level. Both countries have a league chock full of homegrown players. Yet they always crash out when the chips are down, just like us. Prior to Euro 08 Spain were always the example of underachievement and they're one of the most technical countries in the game. Italy and France crashed out badly and their leagues are full of homegrown players. The world cup is a one month competition, it's about playing well for a month, getting your tactics right and maybe even riding your luck at times. Argentina scraped into the tournament, now a lot of people fancy them to win it. France and Italy struggled out of the groups in 06 but made it to the final. I think I read that 4 of the last 5 winners have needed penalties at one stage in their run. The best team doesn't always win it, it's about turning up for a month and performing there and then. England have shown in qualifiers and by reaching quarter finals down the years that we are capable of mounting a challenge. I would look at our tactics far more than grassroots football. You can teach 10 year olds how you want but when they get to the world cup it's all about how you play as a unit. Rooney knows how to trap a football and take on a man, but he couldn't get into the games. This is what we should be addressing.

Would like to see S Korea do well. They always get absolutely massive crowds in Seoul, their fans are amazing. And of course the women. Brazil is one team I'd like to crash out early, not just because they're the cliched success story but because their football style is just not attractive like it used to be. I'd like to see ourselves or the Spaniards dump out Argentina.

It's not just English people though. He's widely considered to be a c*ck, even in Argentina. It's not about what happened 24 years ago. The guy's in the media spotlight now.

I seem to remember in the last world cup the finalists - Italy and France - had an underwhelming start but grew as the tournament went on. Other teams like Spain flew out of the traps playing amazing football but bowed out at the first sign of a big team. Had England dominated the group, the weight of expectation would be massive now. It will be a very physical game but I think we'll see a different England - the stakes are much higher and the opposition far stronger. Perhaps the timing is good for us. There was an air of complacency in the first two group games, and while Slovenia was hardly a vintage performance, Capello seems to have some idea of his best XI now. A performance and the right result against Germany would announce our arrival at this world cup at a crucial stage. This may have been a better draw than Ghana, I think we have needed a fixture to get the pulses racing.

Please explain how money spent is a barometer of success - specifically taking into account the fortunes of Leeds (2003 - onwards) and Liverpool (2009/10). Nobody has said money spent is a measure of success. I think you have highlighted his sentence and then misquoted him. Spending nothing and padding the squad with academy players is a monumental financial risk which would probably see this club get relegated again. He's right, we NEED to bring in reinforcements. We have workrate but we need a couple of players of a higher standard - there's no hiding from it we are not playing teams like Scunthorpe any more.

Ashley is his friend though isn't he? It would take a lot to see him fired, he'd have to get us relegated in only one season or something! Oh, hang on...