Northern Monkey

YEah, the game of football is fundamentally different here, so he coudln't be expected to show even a couple of individual hints that he was such a great player, could he? i mean, the ball is a different shape, the grass is 2 ft shorter, and the pitches are totoally different. Its a different sportm pretty much, and we shouldn't expect a supposedly top player to be actually any good for at least 2 seasons. funny ****. he scored against sunderland, he scored a decent volley in the shearer game. scored an offside goal against man utd, quick free kick against cheltenham nearly went in. i wish people like you would **** off with regards to players needing to come in from foreign countries and perform straight away. Come on then. Exactly howmany game THIS season shoudl we give him to prove himself? 1? 5? 10? 15? The whole season?

YEah, the game of football is fundamentally different here, so he coudln't be expected to show even a couple of individual hints that he was such a great player, could he? i mean, the ball is a different shape, the grass is 2 ft shorter, and the pitches are totoally different. Its a different sportm pretty much, and we shouldn't expect a supposedly top player to be actually any good for at least 2 seasons.

1. You must also hate Dire then, he's nothing more than a former sprinter who's loat his pace. 2. He's better than what we have now.

But his fans said "wait till the world cup, he'll shine". Well, he'd better start, cos he looked crap in the first game. He has bene touted at £8-10m.....if you can't go on the world cup, you certainly can't pay that sort of money based on the dutch league! Hardly seen the lad play but my dutch mate reckons he'd suit newcastle, whatever that means. Who do you think we should sign NM out of interest?? I don't know who we shoud sign, tbh. The ones i woud REALLY LIKE are out of our reach. But what i won't do is assume that because he was good in Holland and FM2006, he'd be good here. If you want to believe he's good/great/worth buying, so be it. Personally, i'd like to see some proof first. And his one game (partly played up front) was fuck all proof to me of anything but a below-average player.

But his fans said "wait till the world cup, he'll shine". Well, he'd better start, cos he looked crap in the first game. He has bene touted at £8-10m.....if you can't go on the world cup, you certainly can't pay that sort of money based on the dutch league! he's only started one game and he's been played out of position in every one of his appearances He played some of the last game up front. Mind, he LOOKED out of position there.

But his fans said "wait till the world cup, he'll shine". Well, he'd better start, cos he looked crap in the first game. He has bene touted at £8-10m.....if you can't go on the world cup, you certainly can't pay that sort of money based on the dutch league!

Liverpool table £10m bid, we table a £6m bid! How can you believe shit like that? If Liverpool want him, and have money, they'll get him. We're small beer compared to them. As told to by people on here, i waited for his turn on the big stage, what with the dutch league being a bit, you know. Well, he was poor on his first showing. Hopefully he'll get better, and you can't judge a player in 1 performance, but by the same token you can't say he is good based on one terrible performance, either.

He IS, in fairness, a flop. A great big (on more than one level) failure.

Sorry I have lost interest discussing with you. Oh, thats a shame, because your absolutely groundless statement about why i didn't like Luque, in total disregard for the numerous reasons i had already given, made me REALLY interested in discussing stuff with you. I doubt you've even seen him play for us in the flesh, but you seem qualified to speak about the way he plays. Let me guess, you think you can get as good an idea from the TV? Wrong. You're acually saying that your point is more valid because you see the game in flesh? That has got to be dumbest remark i have read No, what i'm saying is that you get a much better view of what is going on in a game, positionally, off the ball, of the game in total, live that on TV. Thats fucking obvious. You obviously think you are "better" qualified to have an opinion in the matter because you attend the games. Remember, we see a fair bit on the tele that you in the stands don't see. As i said, i don't even know what side of the argument you are on, but you're argument just makes me sick You don't get to see as much of the game on TV, its a simple fact. Teh shape of the teams, the movement, the off the ball play. But i bet you still feel qualified to give players ratings as if you were there, don't you. Well done.

Sorry I have lost interest discussing with you. Oh, thats a shame, because your absolutely groundless statement about why i didn't like Luque, in total disregard for the numerous reasons i had already given, made me REALLY interested in discussing stuff with you. I doubt you've even seen him play for us in the flesh, but you seem qualified to speak about the way he plays. Let me guess, you think you can get as good an idea from the TV? Wrong. You're acually saying that your point is more valid because you see the game in flesh? That has got to be dumbest remark i have read No, what i'm saying is that you get a much better view of what is going on in a game, positionally, off the ball, of the game in total, live that on TV. Thats fucking obvious. Any need to swear in every other post? There's not really any need for it most of the time. What are you, the swearing police? None of your business if i swear or not, i think?

Sorry I have lost interest discussing with you. Oh, thats a shame, because your absolutely groundless statement about why i didn't like Luque, in total disregard for the numerous reasons i had already given, made me REALLY interested in discussing stuff with you. I doubt you've even seen him play for us in the flesh, but you seem qualified to speak about the way he plays. Let me guess, you think you can get as good an idea from the TV? Wrong. You're acually saying that your point is more valid because you see the game in flesh? That has got to be dumbest remark i have read No, what i'm saying is that you get a much better view of what is going on in a game, positionally, off the ball, of the game in total, live that on TV. Thats fucking obvious.

Sorry I have lost interest discussing with you. Oh, thats a shame, because your absolutely groundless statement about why i didn't like Luque, in total disregard for the numerous reasons i had already given, made me REALLY interested in discussing stuff with you. I doubt you've even seen him play for us in the flesh, but you seem qualified to speak about the way he plays. Let me guess, you think you can get as good an idea from the TV? Wrong. I'll speak up for Delima coz he has said it before. Yes you are wrong! He studies in Newcastle and have watched Luque in St James and so have others (wullie, a few others and me included). Stop this patronizing attitude that if others disagree with you they must have either watched the game on tv or based their opinion on the "famous showreel". Accept that others watching the same games you do (yes live in the flesh) can come to different conclusions. So much for willing to accept that your argument are no more or less valid than others' :roll: I stand by my point - others opinions are as valid as mine. And watching the game on the telly doe sNOT gove you as good a view of what happens as being there in the flesh.

Is there any fucking call for that? I'm giving my opinion, which i accept are no more or less valid than anyone elses. I like to debate stuff, and talk about my and other peoples opinions. What i don't particularly want, is people like you acting like pricks, which i think your unnecessary and off-topic "contrinution" is.

Sorry I have lost interest discussing with you. Oh, thats a shame, because your absolutely groundless statement about why i didn't like Luque, in total disregard for the numerous reasons i had already given, made me REALLY interested in discussing stuff with you. I doubt you've even seen him play for us in the flesh, but you seem qualified to speak about the way he plays. Let me guess, you think you can get as good an idea from the TV? Wrong.

I think you are "bitter" with the transfer fee we pay him. Supposed if we pay 3 Millions for Luque, would you be happy to get player of his class (that he has shown)? Overally, Luque definitely offers no less than Faye, Ameobi and Clark in the past few games, in my opinion. Unless we have gotten rid of other worse players, I wouldn't place my critisms on Luque who has scored goals in situations when no other seem capable to. Now, taking his price and reputation into consideration, I think that Roeder is being silly/stubborn for not offering him more chances when he seems interested. Maybe Roeder has other plans for him. But so far I don't know, and no one else knows. I think you know fuck all about why i am not pro-Luque. How has he scored goals when others were not capable?? Taking his price and reputation into account??? For fucks sake. Thats exactly why we'll never be a proper big cluib, and we'll keep making excuses for Luque, Boumsong, Dyer and the rest.

Bit football is still football. We shoudl expect more than we've had from him, surely?? Or am i exoecting too much from a supposedly great player??

Well, i don't, but it's not up to us, is it? If he remains, he will get my full and vocal support home and away, obviously. But i'm not convinced he will or should stay, me. I wish to fuck we'd bought Ashton instead.

Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved **** all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ My point is, even though he's hasn't been great, he's been no better or worse in his short time than Ameobi & Chopra. Luque has the ability which given a good run of games I'm sure he can reproduce the sort of form he showed in Spain...Shola & Chopra have never shown that. I agree inasmuch as Chopra and Ameobi also have no place in our team. But to fall back on the "he has ability" thing is not good enough. If he has THAT much, why can't he show more even in a short time? Other subs seem to manage it.

Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved **** all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ I've seen him play every time he has as well. Since Glenn Roeder took over, that's 90 minutes total, made up of substitute appearances - often at the back end of games which are either already lost or we've been hanging on and not attacking. I refuse to judge a player on that. We didn't lose that many under Roeder? I refuse to accept that he deserves to be starting based on his (admittedly limited) performances. If he can't show some individual talent in the time he's had, he's not worth it. I personally want rid. I realise that i am Officially Wrong about that, and that he should be given 400 consecutive games, and NEVER judged until he's good, but **** it, thats how i feel. I feel angery when a supposedly great player turns out to be a waster, but shit happens. Until people stop twisting words and making stuff up, this debate is not worth having anymore tbh. Making stuff up like him having shown something worth persevering with? Or like him being a world class player> Or like him needing time to "adapt" to a game played on the same sized pitch, with the same sized ball, number of players, and rules, as where he came from? Or like a player needing time to adjust to this league, despite being so amazing a talent??

Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved **** all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ I've seen him play every time he has as well. Since Glenn Roeder took over, that's 90 minutes total, made up of substitute appearances - often at the back end of games which are either already lost or we've been hanging on and not attacking. I refuse to judge a player on that. We didn't lose that many under Roeder? I refuse to accept that he deserves to be starting based on his (admittedly limited) performances. If he can't show some individual talent in the time he's had, he's not worth it. I personally want rid. I realise that i am Officially Wrong about that, and that he should be given 400 consecutive games, and NEVER judged until he's good, but fuck it, thats how i feel. I feel angery when a supposedly great player turns out to be a waster, but shit happens.

Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved fuck all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........

Question is unanswerable as it presumes the amount of time he's played for us and the circumstances under which he's played have been enough to warrant such a decision. To give an answer would be to accept that presumption. I refuse. You may as well demand "Based on the vowels in his name, why shouldn't Luque be given a game?? BASED ON THE VOWELS, not your perception of vowels or letters like `y` that are sometimes vowels and sometimes not. " Equally unanswerable because the qualifications posed are unreasonable. If, 10 games in to next season a fit Luque hasn't bagged any I'll gladly say that he doesn't deserve a game based on previous play. But until then I reserve judgement. And if he remains shit/uninterested, you will just say "oh, he's not fit". Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us, he has earned FUCK ALL.

Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - and he did so very well. In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. That was clearly his choice, and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, as well as aibility. Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear..... We can support Roeder without necessarily thinking that all his decisions were correct. I think his refusal to give Luque a chance is wrong and his decision not to put Luque on the bench aginst Brums when we absolutely needed to win was horrible and Souness like . The only part I agree with your post is the Bellamy bit. Based on his play for us previously, why should Luque be given a game?? BASED ON HIS PLAY FOR US, not your perceptions of his abiloity based on Depor or his famous showreel.

Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - and he did so very well. In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. That was clearly his choice, and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, as well as aibility. Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear.....

I'm basing it on how he has played for us. Everything else is irrelevant. I don't give a fuck how he played somewhere else. I care how he played for us. It seems that loads of people want to make excuses for the likes of him, Boumsong, and Dyer, without admitting that these people get paid a lot of money to play for us, and a number of them fail to do so adequately. As for Luque.....his first two (?) games - poor. But people say he was settling in, can't expect any more. Then the injury. Whe nhe came back (and people on here were crying like babies for him to be played) he was poor. Very poor. Suddenly, he is still unfit (yet people were desperate for him to be played, and used it as a stick to beat roeder with), you can't have it both ways. He not only looked disinterested ("not fit yet", poor diddums), he also looked not that good. "But he's playing in a different country". Fuck off. I'm not talking about the pace of the game getting to him, but him showing talent, like Viana. I'm talking about him looking not very good. ITS THE SAME FUCKING GAME HERE AS IT IS IN SPAIN. Same number of players, same rules, same sized ball, same sized goa;. If he can't show individually that he's a great player, maybe he's not. "But he's playing with poor quality players". So was Owen. He managed to do well. Excuse after excuse for Luque, based on a few games people saw him play for Depor, and soem nicely edited showreel. I'm basing my opinion on what i've seen. Some players change my opinion by doing well, some confirm it being shite. I've seen nothing from Luque so far to show he's in the former category.