80

Wow. Wow.

I haven't got much incentive to defend him, but I honestly believe he'd changed (in his own thick way) just before he left. He made statements to the effect that we needed to get on top of our finances and he saw appointing Allardyce as a part of the new approach - long term, developmental and low-budget. No comment as to what the future held, but I think Owen-type stuff was finished with him for the forseeable future.

Good-sounding interview, although Unbelievable has shown him up a bit there To be fair to him, quayside, it's important to note he hasn't claimed to be the driving force behind the Tiote deal. Maybe he was independently aware of him or maybe Keegan knew Carr was a good guy to contact even before he came to the club and that's how we learnt about Tiote, I don't know. I don't think anyone's ever said he had absolutely nothing to do with the Tiote deal though, just disbelieved what Llambias claimed after Hughton was sacked. Crumpy's last point is a legitimate one, though.

Fucking topless Toon charvers worshipping Souness at the Owen unveiling was a gob smacking low in this club's history. In hindsight. Definitely at the time. As unlikely as I thought it was at the time, even if it had turned out ok, definitely. You thought signing Owen was a low for the club at the time? Yep, and the 'unveiling' was worse. Only enjoyment I got out of it was upsetting Liverpool, the media, and Owen himself in a cut your nose off kind of way. I'll agree with the unveiling and drama attached to the signing, I also will go as far as saying that his signing came in pretty insulting circumstances but for me it was a very very good signing, even with his dubious injury record he was a great signing. We needed a striker to eventually replace Shearer, I cant see too many reasons beyond his injury record to suggest that he couldn't do the job. It was set up for a fall though, probably most importantly given the insulting circumstances you mention. I agree he'd become a fine striker out in Spain - he went up a lot in my estimation of him as a player out there as I'd never had much time for him beforehand you see - but I still had him down as heartless, and someone who would let us down if less than absolutely everything went perfectly for us. It was like watching your dopey, dewy-eyed mate trying to convince himself he could make the local slut love him and 'stay true'. Painful and embarrassing. Relating to everything going perfectly, it was clear there were problems at the club that were going to be exposed with Souness as a manager, a squad not geared up for Owen's game, and financial problems only worsened by the shit himself's extremely costly acquisition. The whole saga of the move was emblematic of our fall towards being seen as delusional, fur coat no knickers messiah-lovers. With regards Shearer, I suppose I could say a lot of things, but among them would be I don't think we needed a replacement for him insofar as there are other ways of running a team. Just for the sake of argument, the prospect of a Bellamy-Kluivert partnership had looked half-way promising but it got dashed by the idea there had to be a 'main man' up front, and (at that time) it had to be Shearer. Maybe that slut was never going to love us, I can accept that but if that slut had a good record of 'putting out' on a regular basis then I can definintely overcomethe lack of love. Aye, but she's the sort who'll lay back if matey makes all the running, but he won't get any of her specials because she's just not into him... I guess I can't see it outside of it's context, which is the important thing for me. Yes he was theoretically a good signing if we'd been a different club at the time but we weren't, basically. Running with the analogy, if we had confidence, a big wallet and a bigger cock, and were just looking for an easy lay between more valuable girlfriends, then Michael Owen would make a good hole. With luck, gay rapists will take note of my advice.

Fucking topless Toon charvers worshipping Souness at the Owen unveiling was a gob smacking low in this club's history. In hindsight. Definitely at the time. As unlikely as I thought it was at the time, even if it had turned out ok, definitely. You thought signing Owen was a low for the club at the time? Yep, and the 'unveiling' was worse. Only enjoyment I got out of it was upsetting Liverpool, the media, and Owen himself in a cut your nose off kind of way. I'll agree with the unveiling and drama attached to the signing, I also will go as far as saying that his signing came in pretty insulting circumstances but for me it was a very very good signing, even with his dubious injury record he was a great signing. We needed a striker to eventually replace Shearer, I cant see too many reasons beyond his injury record to suggest that he couldn't do the job. It was set up for a fall though, probably most importantly given the insulting circumstances you mention. I agree he'd become a fine striker out in Spain - he went up a lot in my estimation of him as a player out there as I'd never had much time for him beforehand you see - but I still had him down as heartless, and someone who would let us down if less than absolutely everything went perfectly for us. It was like watching your dopey, dewy-eyed mate trying to convince himself he could make the local slut love him and 'stay true'. Painful and embarrassing. Relating to everything going perfectly, it was clear there were problems at the club that were going to be exposed with Souness as a manager, a squad not geared up for Owen's game, and financial problems only worsened by the shit himself's extremely costly acquisition. The whole saga of the move was emblematic of our fall towards being seen as delusional, fur coat no knickers messiah-lovers. With regards Shearer, I suppose I could say a lot of things, but among them would be I don't think we needed a replacement for him insofar as there are other ways of running a team. Just for the sake of argument, the prospect of a Bellamy-Kluivert partnership had looked half-way promising but it got dashed by the idea there had to be a 'main man' up front, and (at that time) it had to be Shearer.

Fucking topless Toon charvers worshipping Souness at the Owen unveiling was a gob smacking low in this club's history. In hindsight. Definitely at the time. As unlikely as I thought it was at the time, even if it had turned out ok, definitely. You thought signing Owen was a low for the club at the time? Yep, and the presentation was worse. Only enjoyment I got out of it was upsetting Liverpool, the media, and Owen himself in a cut your nose off kind of way.

Fucking topless Toon charvers worshipping Souness at the Owen unveiling was a gob smacking low in this club's history. In hindsight. Definitely at the time. As unlikely as I thought it was at the time, even if it had turned out ok, definitely.

At least, if any defence is gonna have a clue how to begin dealing with him it'll be ours. Probably Willo on him with Coloccini around to sweep up. Alternatively, try and manage the rest of them so well that they never get to pass it to him. That's optimistic regarding him not taking the ball for himself, though...

No, he's a good back-up for where we are as a club right now. Expensive back up. Reckon we could get a kid to do that job for less money and be a better squad member. Kadar would have been the man if he wasn't so injury prone.

True, although that kind of makes the original claim even more ridiculous, since then it would mean that Pardew was lying to Taylor just so Ashley could subsequently sell him for more money. Which IMO is even more out there. Aye, I'll give you that one. I think Pardew just came in and thought 'Steven Taylor, the Geordies love him and he'll definitely be better than that Will Michaelson', which is even more disturbing...

Aye but once he's signed you can do what the hell you like with him so long as you don't mind the subsequent disquiet...

Yes, but unless I missed something in the thread, Minhosa never said contractually guaranteed - big difference. More like calling someone a 'Key Player' or 'Back up for the first team' in FM...

The little bit you quoted did to be fair but; hahahahaha, i'm not talking about a contract clause you muppet Think he'd misread the bit he'd quoted in your quote, therefore...

He is, apparently. He's just not turning up before he's been told to. I laugh, to be fair I think I understand Pardew's underlying point which is that he's not investing as much effort in improving himself as he perhaps should, but the way he put it sounds... funny. Yeah, Pardew was making an unusual sort of point about the impact of Ranger's behaviour on his team-mates. I think the problem with Ranger is that he thinks that he's good enough for the first team, even when he only puts in 80% effort. Now that might actually be true - 80% of Ranger might well be better than Lovenkrands or Best, strictly on an individual way of thinking. But it's a team game, and everyone has to put in 100%, regardless of their ability. If a star player isn't giving their all, that has a depressing effect on the rest. It's just as important for the weaker players to overcome their inhibitions and give 100%, and they're more inclined to do that if they see the better players also trying their best. I don't know if I've put that particularly well. But I think what Pardew is getting at is everybody, of whatever talent, has to buy into a collective ethic of effort and self-improvement. If you don't, then you're acting as a distraction. No, you're just about spot on. He's saying Ranger's just been ticking the boxes that have been put in front of him, which is better than he used to be because he didn't even bother ticking them in the past, but he's still not thinking for himself and giving his all (creating new boxes to tick, so to speak), and isn't being taken seriously by the squad (who do tend to) as a result.

taylor isnt first choice, taylor wont sign new contract -> pardew comes in -> taylor is first choice, taylor signs new contract am i missing something? Pardew thinks Taylor is a better player than Williamson? Most here would disagree, but it's entirely possible for someone else to have a differing opinion, Shirley? Why does it have to mean there's a clause in his contract? He might just prefer Taylor. Eh?? Precisely, that's his point - Pardew thinks/told him he's a better defender and he'll be picked favourably, and so he signed a contract. Nothing to do with clauses. I assume Minhosa also meant the same thing.

Yep, behind Gutierrez.

He is, apparently. He's just not turning up before he's been told to. I laugh, to be fair I think I understand Pardew's underlying point which is that he's not investing as much effort in improving himself as he perhaps should, but the way he put it sounds... funny.

We've made some progress. We had solid wins against the obviously weaker opponents, which we didn't have under CH. Also, Pards has faced tougher opponents during his stints, and had top cope with more injuries than Ch. Some of the points dropped were very undeserving too. We have not the depth to replace the likes of Barton, so our results will suffer accordingly when he and the likes of Tiote are missing. Very little do with it. I think Pards has fared quite well. The points dropped against Tham and Sland, hinders him from landing in the "brilliantly" category I disagree with this, consider the win against West Ham - two wins against Wigan and Birmingham aren't that spectacular. Also consider that until recently (curiously), Hughton's wins against Aston Villa and Everton were considered 'strong teams'. Furthermore, consider the nature of this season, in which 19th placed Wolverhampton have beaten Manchester United and City, Arsenal and Chelsea - which teams are 'weaker' than us, or almost anyone for that matter? Finally, I also think we haven't picked up as many wins/points against 'better' teams that we would have done under Hughton, but take that for what you will... The claim Hughton didn't face many opponents that were deemed tough can't be justified. I also suspect the injuries are partly as a result of his training practices. Can't prove it, but we'll just have to see if this new 'bad luck' stays with us. 1.First, we've been plagued with injuries for years now. 2.Second, we do not have a big enough squad. The more games they play the bigger the chance of injures. Third, the victories against WH and Bham were very convincing. And we really deserved all three points against Burn away. That stands in contrast to CH had at home against obviously weaker opponents like Blackpool,. Uner him we also lost against Burn. 1. Incorrect, the problem had been remedied 'somehow', possibly related to us being coached well. Particularly notable given we'd been playing more games, not less. 2. Correct, which is why if these problems are going to return we've got big problems and will cease to overachieve as we have been for the past 18 months. Any Carroll money that does get spent will have to go on signing back up players... Re: Blackburn away, you could say we deserved all three points against Blackpool too. With regards both results, big whoop. We're also the only point Blackburn have got for nearly 7 weeks, by the way. We weren't raped against Arsenal and didn't capitulate against Man City either.

We cannot blame Pards for not picking up all points in the last two matches. The injury on Barton radically changed our winning chances. As previously mentioned. we have no sufficient depth to replace key players. And as that injury wasn't enough, both Ranger and Ireland missed out, players that we actually though would play a role against Everton. Contrast this to eg Lpool when they met Man U. The injury on Ferdinand and the Vidic suspension, increased their winning chances significantly. And even Man U doesn't have good enough players to replace them. I said special praise. I can blame him for the Everton game by the way, but I meant I would've been more effusive if he'd got 3 or more points out of the Bolton and Everton games.

he's responsible for bringing tiote on in the cup I know. He's not the only manager who decides he really fancies winning a cup game after already picking his reserves though. Ancelotti lost about 3 players doing that against us. If he wanted to win the cup and had good sense, he would have played the reserves. And yes, I did think that before the game. Given our preparations - games just before and afterwards, the idiotic tactics required to shoehorn our main uninjured first teamers into an eleven for the match etc. there was absolutely no logic in what he did compared to giving our well-motivated and pre-gelled reserves a go given how respectable their previous performances in cups had been. The Tiote substitution just compounded the issue by then as it was clear in the circumstances that the game was lost and a half-injured yet vital-in-the-long-term defensive midfielder would not reverse the result in a matter of minutes.

We've made some progress. We had solid wins against the obviously weaker opponents, which we didn't have under CH. Also, Pards has faced tougher opponents during his stints, and had top cope with more injuries than Ch. Some of the points dropped were very undeserving too. We have not the depth to replace the likes of Barton, so our results will suffer accordingly when he and the likes of Tiote are missing. Very little do with it. I think Pards has fared quite well. The points dropped against Tham and Sland, hinders him from landing in the "brilliantly" category I disagree with this, consider the win against West Ham - two wins against Wigan and Birmingham aren't that spectacular. Also consider that until recently (curiously), Hughton's wins against Aston Villa and Everton were considered 'strong teams'. Furthermore, consider the nature of this season, in which 19th placed Wolverhampton have beaten Manchester United and City, Arsenal and Chelsea - which teams are 'weaker' than us, or almost anyone for that matter? Finally, I also think we haven't picked up as many wins/points against 'better' teams that we would have done under Hughton, but take that for what you will... The claim Hughton didn't face many opponents that were deemed tough can't be justified. I also suspect the injuries are partly as a result of his training practices. Can't prove it, but we'll just have to see if this new 'bad luck' stays with us. Edit: Just re-read the bit I bolded in my own post and want to clarify it - my point is that those results were actually held against Hughton by some people on the grounds they were against 'strong' teams and we needed to beat 'weak' ones. Just recently I've seen one or two reclassify them as beating 'weaker' teams, and managing to use that against Hughton too. Either way, they were good results and if people are saying they're officially weak teams, then we weren't so bad at dispatching them under him after all. And Pardew just dropped a bollock against Everton, too...

Was going to come on here and give Pardew special praise if he'd got more than two points over the past two games. As it is, he still deserves praise for his performance lately in my view. 1 win in 9 is very bad in my view, but I feel we could have performed worse lately and be more disheartened than we are now, and I think he's demonstrated talent in seeing that not be the case. All the same, my long term view remains unchanged. It's precisely the opposite of whoever said little things have been bad but the bigger picture is bright. He's played a significant role in making the results we've achieved lately impressive instead of expected. The Everton match highlighted some of his problems and kicked the myth he's been propagating that he and he alone has improved our defence and organisation squarely in the balls. I recall Mick made a good point earlier, about the excuses he makes. He's one of the biggest self-justifiers I know of in the game, he's constantly on the lookout for ways to claim credit and avoid blame for/association with bad things. Among other things that will eventually dismantle the spirit among 'this group of lads'.

Don't exactly know why myself but Hughton was converting him that way himself. So I guess there's some reasoning behind it. As you say, he's got qualities suited to the role at least, while he can perhaps still bring most of his attacking aspects into play as a supporting Wing Back. Personally, I think it's one of the most important positions in a team, particularly our team for years at least, so there's a fair bit to be said for making sure you've got a good and well-rounded one. In contrast, you're arguably afforded more space and time at the back to use your brain to position yourself and be effective in defence than you are as a winger/forward who's potentially going be marked/closed down and hustled out of the game at his own business end if he's too weak to fight.

For me, Andy Carroll is better at improving the players around him than Reina, that's one of the differences - force multiplication. Take people's point about the lack of games to demonstrate that, but as Ronaldo says, you take the evidence you're given and make a call - would be dithering forever over things like Messi versus Perch otherwise. We've never seen Messi play for us after all, he might be even worse for us... Just like how some people will be wanting to 'see what Ashley does' in the January 2012 window even if we make a profit in this coming Summer.

or referring to my point about people saying he's better than reina etc bullshit over honesty. Nah, it's just common sense realy Reina has been one of the best players in his possission for years, Carroll has been for months. Judging by your theory no-one could possibly even suggest that Messi is a better footballer than James Perch. no. its that it's fucking stupid to say i'd rather have gordon banks than pele. But I would rather have Messi in my side than Perch. And so would you... I think there's generally enough common grammar between football people to get the idea that one player in one position can contribute more than another in another. Obviously if you're dealing with specifics then more differences emerge...