80

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...

P.S. Thought his comments about their atmosphere being 'one of' the best he's played in when he's played in so few games, largely against 2nd Division opposition as opposed to 'the biggest rivalry in football', were quite insulting to Liverpool and therefore honest of him, it wasn't just 'new signing, kiss the badge' bollocks.

In general agreement with Ronaldo. Also don't think the Liverpool move is as bad for him as has been made out. In ways the people/supporters aren't that different from here and given the momentum of the moves, with Nolan and Barton offering their mates to help him settle in, it can be a home away from home.

He's hardly likely to have made them up. More likely some journo has asked him about the rumours and he wants to nail them early. Going on his quotes it would presumably be a local journalist though, and there's not much they think without publishing snide allusions over and/or without having ordinary people put it in their heads in the first place, so it goes back to "how could we have no cognisance of what he's on about?". Actually, I see Wallace has basically made this point.

The question is why he's chosen to publicise these rumours. Or make them up, if there really weren't any seeing I can't see what he could have been aware of that none of us have known about.

Suspicion of whom, though...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/8360360/Newcastle-manager-Alan-Pardew-dismisses-reports-of-Joey-Barton-strike.html What whispers? I hadn't heard any whispers until the club started whispering to me just now. Have I missed something?

We weren't plagued or blighted by injuries under Hughton. We've picked up a lot more strains recently. Not obsessed with bigging him up, but seeing as I don't think the medical team has changed since the switch I don't see why it should now be slagged.

Not wanting to get into the whole thing here, but re: this - I can't prove intangibles, no one can. What I can say though is what little we can be confident of knowing about the deals done in that period includes that Keegan found Bassong and was the driving force behind bringing in Guthrie - both for relatively nominal fees. So it at least suggests he wasn't as out of touch with modern football and financial reality as was alleged and incapable of going with a 'restrained' approach. Guthrie certainly wasn't obviously stellar but he was a decent young lad who 'could be improved' and play a role in a passing game. As a total case can't be proven beyond doubt, you'll just have to go with your judgement based on everyone's past histories and characters to fill in the gaps on the rest. I would think that goes heavily in Keegan's favour.

By your logic, is the club getting relegated your fault too? Seeing as you didn't help as much as you could have to stop us going down and all that kind of thing.

Something brilliant about that if you're into social history.

Sorry, but the two first seasons, Enrique was not our star performer, like he's now. In fact, he was shit sometimes. Often being directly the cause of goals: misplaced, forgetting to mark his man, making far to many risky passes in defense that sometimes were intercepted and led to dangerous attacks against us. If we've had the same lack of patience with him as we've had with many others, he may have been sitting on the bench instead, missing the continuity that he needed to develop into the player he's today. So you're actually missing cause and effect here. Enrique didn't become good player DESPITE NUFC (that attributes every accomplishment of his with him as an individual) Enrique became the player he's today BECAUSE of NUFC. This club enabled him to play on the highest level DESPITE his early wrongdoings. That he experienced some turmoils, so what? He's a professional, and earns more in a week than most do in a year. He should be grateful, and not complaining about club's lack of ambitions when the club in reality was the cause of him raising his ambitions in the first place. For starters, in turn he's paid to play to the best of his abilities so if he did that and he wasn't good enough, it's still not his problem. James Perch doesn't owe it to us to sign up for another 6 years, for example. Futhermore, he could have played games regularly at a large number of other teams - teams with better reputations for improving players too. Likewise, you seem to be suggesting that just standing on grass wearing a football kit makes you a better player and he should be grateful it was our grass he was standing on, which I just can't see the sense in. I don't think I need to convince most people that some people have more potential to be good footballers than some other people, and he was one of the first group. As such him now being one of the best Left Backs in the world isn't to any important extent because he played for this club. Secondly, he wasn't always played by the club - Allardyce, the man who signed him, didn't have him as an automatic starter. Nor did Keegan. While Kinnear was pretty desperate to oust him, which I don't suppose took much account of Enrique's feelings about his contract being broken. Thirdly, you may disagree about how good Enrique has been for this club in his earlier days, and I'm not arguing he hasn't improved as a player, but if you go back to BooBoo's original post it shows the vast majority disagreed with his criticism and that view only got stronger as time went on - and this is in his first season at the club. He was a star player in the team, albeit relative to his team mates in what was a poor team. He's never not been one of our best performers for any significant period.

I might disagree a little about Barton, but fundamentally I respect your point of view regarding him. Everything you've said about Enrique is totally wrong, though. He's always been one of our best players and the club has only offered him the prospect of regression in his time. Incompetence, instability, a relegation on his CV, 'experience' of the 2nd Division, coaching by Joe Kinnear, management by someone the club thought was inexperienced and not up to it (Hughton) - he doesn't owe it anything.

Agreed, shy of any weird clauses we don't know about. Don't fully believe the 50k figure as yet either given it came from SSN, but we'll see. Nearly posted earlier to say I was pleased. And nearly posted earlier to say that it didn't mean virtually anything. And nearly posted earlier to agree with Dave's original point about not being able to see anything good in this meaning you should stop following the club for your own sake. But they're all fairly mundane things to say so I didn't think it was worth the bandwidth. Have now thought of this, though - I wonder if Pardew has decided to use whatever leeway he has got over funds to try and secure the genuine retention of players we have got instead of being allowed slightly more options for buying others in exchange for being more willing to sell the current squad. For what it's worth, for that I'd applaud him.

Interesting in the context of that interview he did where he was saying how significant it would look if he was holding out on signing, so he intended to sign up and show faith following the Carroll sale.

Hate to be insensitive here, but are we sure Nicky Butt isn't the "Falling Man?" :lol:

How so Jonny Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area) Ya I see your point on the confusion, but to me it makes no difference, both are not prerequisites to be successful. I think the latter certainly is. Man City have shown that you can't just throw money at 11 of the best players and expect them to win. There is a 'spine' to every team, like Wullie says. You need money to make a team great and successful, but Chelsea have Lampard and Terry at their centre, Man United had Giggs and Scholes, Arsenal have Fabregas, Liverpool with Gerrard and Carragher (a few years ago). You can't have success without a team. Yes but this 'spine' can be anyone regardless of whether the player is local born or came through the local academy or foreign players who had no association with the club before they signed. The key is that these players must be willing to give their all to the club. I would say our spine now are players like Colo, Enrique, Tiote, Barton and perhaps Nolan, all of them bought (some quite expensive) and none of them which would qualify as 'locals' (even using the broad definition) Nobody would argue against having a spine for a club to be successful, that would be silly and was not the original argument. It was whether we need 'local' players (through birth or academy) which has now somewhat morphed into having a 'spine'. It's only morphed because you started off misrepresenting your opposition. I voted yes, because you need players who are as local as Rob Lee and Nobby Solano. Perhaps the best way of phrasing this is that you need players who've 'developed' at your club, and by this I don't even necessarily mean in terms of technical skill but, as I said in the other thread, players who've earned experience that can't be obtained elsewhere because they got it here. Players who have been socialised - not just participants in a team but members of a tribe. Maybe they've learnt from prior adversity and know what this particular club needs to avoid that in the future, maybe they've developed a relationship with the people of this locality and want to reward the affection they've been offered, or don't want to let other incoming players exist as wasters and make that affection dissolve. Or perhaps played a first-hand role in the development of a 'resurgency' narrative which is of huge psychological importance in generating the determination to overcome teams they otherwise could succumb to. It's also true that some players are more tribal than others. See Craig Bellamy, who's virtually a one man army in himself, or Kevin Nolan, who seems to be a professional founder and mentor of packs. It's also important to define what 'local' or 'good' players are supposed to be useful for. Personally, I accept a bunch of good players can win a game, maybe even a season very occasionally, but they won't win an era and define an institution beyond their physical peak, that's the point. That was the origins of the debate and the reason for this new thread/poll Regarding this by the way, you've misconstrued him because you don't rate Carroll. Whether he's Geordie or not is irrelevant to whether he comes around once or twice in a generation, the latter is true just in terms of raw ability, present and potential. The fact he was possibly the spiritual fulcrum of the team, given he was so well liked and rated by his teammates and players like Enrique may now think this club is a dead duck like it used to be back in the 1980s just compounds the issue.

C**t Replacing Hughton will never been a good idea. Just becuase things are going in the right direction doesn't justified that stupid decision. Mind you guys we are in that right direction because of what Hughton starts 18 month ego. It's ok to call someone "cunt" now??? I guess so since most of the admins/mods belong to the Hughton fan club Try and name three out of the twenty without getting embarrassed.

Excellent post, highlights the folly of this idea we could and should just turn over players and expect to keep finding new ones who'll play just as well as the previous squads. When you pursue a development strategy with a club like ours, you find a good player and you hold on for grim death. Players like Enrique are players you do break any supposed wage cap for because they're absolutely blue chip - players you know will earn their wages and help make sure others will earn theirs, too. They have experience which is literally unobtainable elsewhere because they earned it here. It's one thing to limit offers made to new signings - they're unproven and could end up like Smith, so you want to limit the potential damage, but when they've proven themselves to be special, you make the necessary accommodations and harness the momentum instead of squandering it.