madras

i have two groups of friends (none NUFC) who are going out to pubs in their area specifically for the match. the atmosphere in particular. this appointment is exciting all those who are non partisan to their own team.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change. If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating. Its alot more than physical in my book. err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ? And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ? I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well. Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays. Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on. best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate. What exactly has changed since then ? pace,stamina,strength...little skill or tactics wise. you may be surprised at me saying pace and strength but what i mean is to play as fast and strong after 80mins as players do now ...i dont think they'd do it.(naturally if they were playing now they'd have the fitness training etc) but that is the difference between now and then. I don't think the fitness would be such an issue, they used to play on pitches akin to ploughed fields, the pitches like bowling greens today would be like heaven for them even on the early season good pitches most games got stretched due to lack of stamina after about 75mins

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change. If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating. Its alot more than physical in my book. err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ? And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ? I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well. Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays. Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on. best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate. What exactly has changed since then ? pace,stamina,strength...little skill or tactics wise. you may be surprised at me saying pace and strength but what i mean is to play as fast and strong after 80mins as players do now ...i dont think they'd do it.(naturally if they were playing now they'd have the fitness training etc) but that is the difference between now and then.

thought i was the only one who saw it that way

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change. If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating. Its alot more than physical in my book. err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ? And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ? I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well. Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays. Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on. i don't see agreat deal of difference between ferguson and shankly/paisley or their styles of football. as i've already mentioned the containment football just about started with 70's liverpool and think itaslian football from 70's to the late 80's. as i've already said and others have mentioned doy you think mourinho would have been a huge hit had he not started off with the 4th placed team and how much exactly did he spend to make them champions ??. then ask yourself...give liverpool to hughes or redkanpp with the same kitty.....think they'd win it or go close ?

What a dense comparison. Compare Ferguson, Mourinho, Wenger, Benitez taking over at Sheff Wed, Preston, Scunthorpe or Colchester and having the best team in the country within three years and you're a little closer to making sense. no..what macca888 is saying is he would be quite happy for NUFC to get relegated if they won the FA cup in the process.

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

i'd take maldini in his prime or baresi over vidic ,terry or carhvallo. So you'd take some of the worlds greatest ever? Yeh so would i i think. you chose some of the best in the world of todays football. i chose 2 of the best from the past 20 years....seems fair to me

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style. chelsea often use a 4-3-3 whereas man utd go more 4-4-1-1 as do arsenal.(no dramatic change) liverpool still 4-4-2.(hey 4-4-1-1 think beardsly playing off ferdinand or andy cole) but anyway they are fluid and moving,only chelsea play quite rigid. keegan like his players to move,to have the nouse to use space and to cover for others. it's not subbuteo...players can move. one of the most disappointing things about nufc's play since robson left is that you could tell which nufc player had the ball by where on the pitch it was see the connection with those 4 i quoted..they are the ones with the best players Id have o agree to an extent with you there, but what about the world game, what about the hugely successfull clubs in Europe (arguably better managers). You're over simplyfying this too much, your making it sound far far too easy. I really disagree with you if you think football hasnt changed. Do you think uber successful managers in the past would make a success of any team inthe present day? If not then surely you are contradicting your "football hasnt changed at all stance". we are talking about 3 years.....if you think football has changed that massivly in 3 years you'll have to do a damn sight more than that to impress me. the players have got quicker and stronger...the basics are the same. the team with the best basics has been the most succesful team in this country for the past dozen years. as for morinhos "immaculate organisaation" take the team in 4th add twice as much as anyone else can spend. i'd argue redknapp or hughes in charge would take them to the title Fair point, i think in the EPL changed when Mourhino and Abramovich came. I just think it took it had a completely different outlook from that point, eveni thnk the basics are the same, i could agree with your more, but i think the finer points have changed dramatically. Also, do you think a manager of the past would be just as sucessful as they were then now? we aren't talking about the past but the 3 years since keeagn left the game

i'd take maldini in his prime or baresi over vidic ,terry or carhvallo.

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style. chelsea often use a 4-3-3 whereas man utd go more 4-4-1-1 as do arsenal.(no dramatic change) liverpool still 4-4-2.(hey 4-4-1-1 think beardsly playing off ferdinand or andy cole) but anyway they are fluid and moving,only chelsea play quite rigid. keegan like his players to move,to have the nouse to use space and to cover for others. it's not subbuteo...players can move. one of the most disappointing things about nufc's play since robson left is that you could tell which nufc player had the ball by where on the pitch it was see the connection with those 4 i quoted..they are the ones with the best players Id have o agree to an extent with you there, but what about the world game, what about the hugely successfull clubs in Europe (arguably better managers). You're over simplyfying this too much, your making it sound far far too easy. I really disagree with you if you think football hasnt changed. Do you think uber successful managers in the past would make a success of any team inthe present day? If not then surely you are contradicting your "football hasnt changed at all stance". we are talking about 3 years.....if you think football has changed that massivly in 3 years you'll have to do a damn sight more than that to impress me. the players have got quicker and stronger...the basics are the same. the team with the best basics has been the most succesful team in this country for the past dozen years. as for morinhos "immaculate organisaation" take the team in 4th add twice as much as anyone else can spend. i'd argue redknapp or hughes in charge would take them to the title

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style. chelsea often use a 4-3-3 whereas man utd go more 4-4-1-1 as do arsenal.(no dramatic change) liverpool still 4-4-2.(hey 4-4-1-1 think beardsly playing off ferdinand or andy cole) but anyway they are fluid and moving,only chelsea play quite rigid. keegan like his players to move,to have the nouse to use space and to cover for others. it's not subbuteo...players can move. one of the most disappointing things about nufc's play since robson left is that you could tell which nufc player had the ball by where on the pitch it was see the connection with those 4 i quoted..they are the ones with the best players

he has a point thogh..what has dramatically changed in football over the past 3 years ? the teams who are doing well are playing the same style,pass and move with the best players. it's not like a shift fron 3-2-5 has occurred. you reckon 3 years ago the likes of derby would have tried to outplasy man utd ? containment is new....think liverpool in the 70's ?

hey... nothing wrong with clowns except the stuff a thousand nightmares

the manager will guide the overall strategy,which in keegans case is basics (as is best). if there is a defender on the coaching staff when this is all sorted my guess is he willwork on the basic skills of the players defensivly and that shouldn't just mean the defence. well done, i'm sure that is the first time "opacity" has been used on this forum. I like it !

I'd rather come second and win the FA cup. would be nice but one or t'other was the point.

in fact i'd rather finish in the top 4 than win the FA cup

and i'd still rather come 2nd in the league than win the FA cup

ahhh. gotcha now. mark robinson then (brokenlegathartlepooltastic)

saw him more as a carl serrant

a 17yr old comes to this country from Hungary and gets a job. this would cause a 20 page immigrantfest on general chat

doesn't really work that way. just because manager was a forward doesn't mean he can't organise a team to defend (think alex ferguson). beckenbauer's germany were canny going forward for a team coached by a defender.

try the joke shop on percy st. think it's called "party party"

good tactics,using getting keegan as manager to keep this quiet.

aye,but they'll be back to normal if we don't win the league next season