madras

why are we going to need a winger ? Judging by our injury problems over the last what, 10 years, we cannot rely on one formation and one style of play. are you classing a ljungberg/pires type as a winger ? Not at all, but if you watch Deco play you will see he avoids the wings (mainly because Ronaldinho or Messi would have already got there). As good as he would be through the middle I think we need to find a more sustainable option to play through the middle and create goals. Unlike Pires and Ljungberg, Deco does stay in the middle of the park and like them he is also getting on, by the time we sign him he probably will be 31 and I can't see him being ready to fly down the flanks if needs be. Bentley is becoming the sort of player Pires and Ljungberg were at their peaks, be it creating goals or scoring them and funnily enough they all have the Arsenal background. i know deco plays through the middle and bentley isn't exactly a gillespie style winger thats why i was wondering what you meant You have to consider Deco's age and whether he would be able to adapt to an increasingly competitive Premiership after only making 12 league starts this season ... i've said earlier i'd like both/either here but not at the prices mentioned

why are we going to need a winger ? Judging by our injury problems over the last what, 10 years, we cannot rely on one formation and one style of play. are you classing a ljungberg/pires type as a winger ? Not at all, but if you watch Deco play you will see he avoids the wings (mainly because Ronaldinho or Messi would have already got there). As good as he would be through the middle I think we need to find a more sustainable option to play through the middle and create goals. Unlike Pires and Ljungberg, Deco does stay in the middle of the park and like them he is also getting on, by the time we sign him he probably will be 31 and I can't see him being ready to fly down the flanks if needs be. Bentley is becoming the sort of player Pires and Ljungberg were at their peaks, be it creating goals or scoring them and funnily enough they all have the Arsenal background. i know deco plays through the middle and bentley isn't exactly a gillespie style winger thats why i was wondering what you meant

why are we going to need a winger ? Judging by our injury problems over the last what, 10 years, we cannot rely on one formation and one style of play. are you classing a ljungberg/pires type as a winger ?

why are we going to need a winger ?

also he has to be one of the unluckiest players around. i've never seen anyone get fouled and have the decision go the other way as much as it happens to him He has the special ability to make being fouled look like he's fouling someone. him and rob lee are the only players i've seen stand still and wait for the ball,have a defender run into them,bounce off,fall down and then be penalised for it.

not sure about paying £15mill for either. deco may well have past his best and be going backwards whereas my opinion of bentley is that for all he had a spell of good games he's ahd a good few ordinary which have been overlooked due to him being the in-thing at the minute (think elano earlier on in the season)

yet again going in head first for tackles...when will he learn. or are you sure they werent counting the stitches is in silly hat.

also he has to be one of the unluckiest players around. i've never seen anyone get fouled and have the decision go the other way as much as it happens to him

or they provide what they think society wants hence why the tabloids outsell the broadsheets and why the broadsheets have been dumbing down for years. want to know why we have a s*** press/media ?.........take a look at the society it is catering for. I blame people like Wullie for giving them the attention they're looking for, proving that this kind of journalism works. agreed. i was all for saying nowt. but equally saying nowt about them when they are licking the clubs arse aswell. treet them as the irrelevence they are.

or they provide what they think society wants hence why the tabloids outsell the broadsheets and why the broadsheets have been dumbing down for years. want to know why we have a s*** press/media ?.........take a look at the society it is catering for. Totally agree, but this is because the Politically inspired dumbing-down of the Education system has created this society.... i'm not orwellian enough to think it was politically inspired. politically derived maybe but not politically inspired.

i'm said that few times. sellars summed up the pass and go football we played.

depends on the fee/terms

or they provide what they think society wants hence why the tabloids outsell the broadsheets and why the broadsheets have been dumbing down for years. want to know why we have a shit press/media ?.........take a look at the society it is catering for.

which interview was that ?

apt, maybe they should play this over the PA. Can you hear them talking about us Telling lies, is that a surprise Can you see them, see right through them They have no shield, nothing must be revealed It doesn't matter what they say, no one listens anyway Our lips are sealed There's a weapon that we can use in our defense silence Well just look at them, look right through them That's when they disappear, that's when we lose the fear It doesn't matter what they say, in the jealous games people play Our lips are sealed It doesn't matter what they say, no one's listening anyway Our lips are sealed Hush, my darling, don't you cry Guardian angel, forget their lies Can you hear them talking about us Telling lies, well that�s no surprise Can you see them, see right through them They have no shield, nothing must be revealed It doesn't matter what they say in the jealous games people play Our lips are sealed Pay no mind to what they say, it doesn't matter anyway Our lips are sealed Our lips are sealed Our lips are sealed

record buttons at the ready

when someones wrong and wont admit it........when you get the chance, drive it home

how much does it piss you off that we could see the possibilities in this squad (admittedly not in the 4-3-3 we have at the minute) that allardyce couldn't ? lets try and stop the opposition first eh ? even if it's derby

i'm an enrique fan but i think todays was his worst game for a while. good sign that i can say that when he's still played well

what are the many flaws ?

be worried only if like earlier in the season when he wasn't getting the chances

i'll go for a fulham style 2-0. one first half one second. controlled but not overwhelming. reading their forum they seem quite confident

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful. you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire. as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level The better teams or the more attacking teams? I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions" You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration. More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions. man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ? See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill as a manager or coach to implment an interchangeable system. Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post. With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions. See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions. I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for. chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam. Which is reflective of the stlye of football that Wenger and Ferguson want to play, as oppsosed to the type of football that Mourihno an Liverpool want to play. Its all down to the managers. and it's also true of keegan. it would be nice to think our squad next season can be flexable enough to take on many formations and be comfortable in them all.

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful. you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire. as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level The better teams or the more attacking teams? I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions" You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration. More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions. man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ? See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill as a manager or coach to implment an interchangeable system. Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post. With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions. See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions. I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for. chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam.

i wonder if keegan is keeping it up or guarding against over confidence ?