madras

i have a feeling that with n'zogbia being raped inside today he'll not be left back on weds. he can drop duff back to the bench claiming so many games so quick after so long out...i see n'zogbia wide left...more of a shock, martins and owen up front,push on and lots of low balls to run/come on to

both not very good. why not just give £50,000 a week to good causes as opposed to a bad one. (truth be told, i've heard that barton is very good volunteering time and energy,forcing more reluctant teammates to charity stuff,hospital visits etc,but he has a flashpoint slight;y higher than the melting point of water)

What is this thread about anyway? does it matter what it's about ? you know how it will end up. it's all shepherds concoction to stop us arguing about souness Vs bellamy

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources. everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything. Again, im not tryin to advocate any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as. The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach. i agree with the sentiment,just not sure allardyce is the man. (now thats how to disagree in a non-spiteful manner.........mick,NE5 take note!)

any reason to belive that will happen...from what you've seen the last 7 month ?

like chelsea under mourinho

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources. everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything.

Did they show Almunia getting hit with the bottles? not that i remember (check my sig you'll see how hard that was to type)...why what happened..plastic,glass,huge inflatble brown ale as hit tommy wright at bournemouth in the cup (the drunkest i have ever been)

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in. However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now. Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach. all clubs who improved almost straight away. stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

a funny motd spot by me...after atreta gets sent off there is a section of film where a youngish girl can be seen going mental at the arsenal fans...sat apparently next to her is a lad wearing an arsenal top...impassive. made me giggle.

i'm sure some pm's have been abound tonight about some comp to slip in as many embarissing toon cliches as possible.

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons... If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability. Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!' John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !' No messing about with positional changes for BC..!! To be fair, he was pissed at the time. He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game. it's not complicated the way man utd play. Fergie would disagree. pretty sure fergie would get the basics right and you're almost there How anyone can think football is a simple game is beyond me, it's a complex sport involving many variables. watch man utd and arsenal play...pass and move.give the man on the ball options and have your team drilled to be able to second guess what his team mates will do. get in the players that do this best. basic man utd blueprint. for what it's worth i don't think ferguson is that tactically astute but better than everyone else at the basics

Very true. Robert's crossing was frustrating because it often didn't beat the first defender, but when it's put in lower and with such pace it will much more frequently result in a goal once past the first man. quite often with robert the annoying was he'd looked up,saw there was no one there then put in a peach of a cross leaving half the crowd slagging off the forwards for not being there and the other half slagging him off for deliberatly giving the ball away

just going from that list a few posts ago...what constitutes a cross ? has it got to be in the air or is it just a pass from out wide ?

In the first dozen or so games of this season he was very poor, easily the poorest he's been for us. He had an entire season last where he was quality on the right. and also our best on the left (if your talking last season)

is it possible our wide men are being unfairly castigated due to no forwards to help them.....martins positional sense woeful...viduka's mobility and pace of grey's monument and owen always injured. bit like the days of yore when batty got slagged off for always going square when we had ian rush up front on his tod with 3 defenders.

allardyce himself trying to play clever fuckers

Unfortunately he's probably right. We in here are only a small % of toon fans, and the uneducated majority would love to see Shearer back, and would even be their first choice. Loads of people you speak to hold that opinion, its crazy. i don't know any that think that....quite a lot who think he'll be the next manager though.

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons... If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability. Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!' John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !' No messing about with positional changes for BC..!! To be fair, he was pissed at the time. He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game. it's not complicated the way man utd play. Fergie would disagree. pretty sure fergie would get the basics right and you're almost there

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons... If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability. Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!' John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !' No messing about with positional changes for BC..!! To be fair, he was pissed at the time. He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game. it's not complicated the way man utd play.

the needs and qualities needed to manage outside the prem have little to do with those of managing in the prem,especially if given money to spend. wht i'm trying to say is that the talents and qualities to manage hartlepool are different to those needed to manage newcastle

chris-r..............3 shots on target all game would be a massive improvment

d'you reckon allardyce will still name barton in the 11 as a show of solidarity ?

even if we did it would take allardyce till november to feel he was ready then his game relies on teammates moving into space to get his passes.

Look at Man City though. 7, 8 new players and they're unbeaten at home and yet haven't won in 8 away (until next week obviously). Course, all of those are clearly factors but I think it's one of life's great mysteries. there has been a study done on it. don't know if it's online or even where to satrt looking. My dissertation tutor, Sandy Wolfson, did one actually: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article192792.ece Testosterone levels apparently. Might be something in it. Is testosterone classed as a banned substance if taken as a supplement? there are far too many jokes in that last bit