madras

keep up man. debunked on previous pages man. we'll put it down to pre-match tension eh ?

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother. To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have f***ed Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s? I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it. Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you. Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan. An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it. i'm not so sure the winning mentality exists. if it did what happened to man utd's 2 seasons after it won them the league instead of us ? what happened to arsenal winning mentality after their lossless season ? is it not really a belief that you are better than the opposition often based on the fact that you are better than the opposition ?

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ? It doesn't fit into his world view so it has to be ignored. Others have bad luck with Keegan it is lack of ability. Instead of judging the actual achievements under the circumstances and in this kind of style looking for the flaws is a bit simplistic and unfair if you ask me, espercially when persisting on those stupid myths of the 12 point lead and the poor defensive record. I am not sure or rather seriously doubt that any other manager would have been able to achieve the same with Newcastle in these years. A more pertinent question is why Ferguson and Hitzfeld have won so many major trophies and Keegan hasn't won any. I'd say that was more than luck. because fegruson spent a long time at a club who for years could outspend just about everyone. keegan spent 2 years in that position and came very close....how long did it take ferguson to win the league whilst laying claim to being the biggest club in the world ? maybe the question should be given what ferguson inherited at man utd both on and off the pitch..what took him so long ?

Quote, Post, Repeat Quote, Post, Repeat Quote, Post, Repeat Quite Pathetic Really.

couldn't decide where to put this so in here it goes...mick wadsworth sacked as chester manager.

go on then. i think 1pm may be pushing it a bit. more 1-30ish.

Tony Blair's claim to be a Newcastle fan is about as genuine as everything else he utters. i.e.Total c--p.. He said he used to 'watch Jackie Milburn while sitting in the Popular side'...everyone knows there were NO SEATS there before the East Stand was built...he said this at a time when we were supposed to be every fans' 'Second Team' because he thought it might be worth a few votes in 97..Oh wait - so THAT'S why he got in..!! that story has since been explained i'm sure as something he didn't actually say. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/the-shocking-truth-blair-did-not-lie-about-jackie-milburn-495001.html

sue perkins

it stands for Queen Park Rovers. At risk of a whoosh, Rangers* ! Rangers park rovers ? Queens Range Rovers I thought it stood for Quite Pervy Relatives Quite Punky Rearenders.

The thing is, I'm one of those 'realist' (pessimistic) people, yet I still think we'll piss all over this league (injuries permitting). Yes we'll lose a few games here and there, but ultimately, we're playing against some teams that just aren't very good. I still think our squad needs more depth incase of injuries, but obviously thats not a massive concern for the game tonight! Aye we are bound tyo lose some matches but we should walk this league, in my opinion we've played s**** all season, no creativity, no pace, misplaced passes. The only reason we are winning is because we currently havea squad which should probably bein the bottom5/6 of the prem whereas the other teams if in the prem would be lucky to get 10 points West Brom excluded. so the only reason we are at the top is because we are better than the rest ?

The question is, how many other managers could have taken us from where we were to challenging for the PL and would have taken the job? I can't think of too many. Some people are saying that Keegan was a failure, well, in comparison to who? Apart from our time under Keegan and SBR we've been pretty s**** for the past 30 years. Yes, Keegan didn't deliver the league but he came closer than anyone else did for a long, long time. no win for keegan. had we lost the title (which was more down to man utds amazing end of season run) after he'd went a bit more conservative he'd have been castigated then. it does seem a bit strange that people would want a change from the tactics that got us into that position to start with.

now i'm a keegan lover ? seems like my work here is done. i've found a position on which i can disagree with everyone seemingly on all sides.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ?

reply no19. he's a long time toon fan. Didn't see that. Good lad. Has he got any known connection to the area? not that i know of. i did see an interview, probably in the 80's where he was talking about it starting in the 50's. he's also linked heavily with brighton.

reply no19. he's a long time toon fan.

norman wisdom jake burns

the wife pointed out after the ipswich game that if/when we get promotion it wont be anything like last time.

you have to remember they want a nice geographic grouping like in world cups and such so london will have at least one group, the north west will. yorkshire has minuses on the stadia but gains on being able to put the supporters up. there will be a midlands group. we will get picked but will it be as a north east or north east/yorkshire/humberside group. london could have 2 groups if they decide on 2 stadia per group......and they probably will.

true about the art projects though the baltic was always going to be a strange call with the art it shows not being the mostpopular/understood. the great north museum project meanwhile has apparently exceeded it's own expectations. i know people in sunderland are paying a council tax similar to myself and when i walk round both places there are real differences i see. as i've said even the locals don't like sunderland. whats happening on the vaux site in a prime area ? could you imagine that anywhere else ?

ac milan,chelsea,bordeaux @2.04

is that the national glass centre which is being bailed out all the time as no-one is going ? sunderland got a swimming pool and the glass centre, newcastle got hotels and commerce because people actually want to go there. gateshead has space for the baltic and sage because of what was there before. newcastle got the law courts and the restearunts and trappings that go with it.

But stil had to use facilities of Newcastle as part of the bid, and a picture of the Tyne. Ever wounderd where the "surrounding area"? is when they say Wearside and the surrounding area.... in their world cup bid page. Did they not use pictures of Northumberland in their bid. Did they mention that you have to travel through Newcastle and North Tyneside to get there? I don't want my home county associated with any mackem bid. and the millenium bridge.

if the council is sharper why is it the shithole that it is ?

it stands for Queen Park Rovers. At risk of a whoosh, Rangers* ! Rangers park rovers ?

You don't know how inept we were, yet how many chances we created and missed. Coventry were there for the taking and we were s***. If we had Vidic, Ronaldo and Messi playing, we would've COMFORTBALY scraped a point. fyp