Rich

For all of them that are injured, I'd only be arsed about seeing Babayaro, Emre, Given, N'Zogbia and Owen back in the starting eleven (still half a bloody team, like.) I'd prefer to see Ameobi in the squad than Sibierski, but Carr, Moore and Ramage shouldn't get into a 16-strong matchday squad in my eyes and Krul isn't a major factor yet, although it's not ideal that such a hot-prospect is struggling with injuries so much. I'd take Babayaro at LB over Carr, Edgar, Huntington and Taylor any day of the week, or I'd move Duff back there.

Those games are what makes football a worthwhile pursuit, you're exactly right. Seeing Tottenham getting beaten ranks high up there for me as well, like.

This.

Bridge is injured.

They're not doing badly with Carrick, like.

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main". BRAMBLE is inept. Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones. Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role. It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise. Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well. Couldn't disagree more, tbh. I know I'm not allowed to use stats to defend my points (and I fully understand that stats do NOT tell the whole story), but Parker is miles ahead of Butt both in terms of number of passes made and percentage of passes completed, as well as tackles made and percentage of successful tackles. Let me expand on this a bit before you completely dismiss it... Now obviously that doesn't tell us that Parker is indefinitely better than Butt, because Parker could be passing it back to Bramble 99% of the time (small risk-small gain), while Butt could be looking to release Martins or Dyer with a long-ball an awful lot(high risk-high gain)... so there's no need to call me up on that. However, I do feel that when you watch both play there's certainly very little variation in the TYPE of passes that both make, which suggests that Parker does complete more passes. In your opinion from watching them this season/last season, does Nicky Butt play a lot more "risky" passes than Parker does (causing his completion percentage to drop)? Or is the ratio fairly similar for each? (Meaning that Parker is probably a better passer of the ball.) There's a few layers to that and we're heading into complicated grounds in regards to types of passing, speed of passes, quickness to release the ball, etc. But I know you'll be keeping up with it, which makes a nice change on here From what I remember from previous threads your main issues with Parker are that he dives in all-too-often and holds onto the ball for far too long, please correct me there if I'm wrong. I do agree that you have good arguments with these, but when the lad is winning "76.6%" of the tackles, then surely it's not THAT much of a problem? (Again, a crude way of defending him, but you get my gist - I'm trying to move away from just "I think he's better 'cos he's he captain" s****.) I'd argue that Nicky Butt is far too slow to react to situations and doesn't win the ball enough when he gets into tackling situations, plus he misplaces far more "easy" passes than Parker and he still has the "Cardiff performance" hanging over him, which was utterly disgusting at the time. I do openly admit that I could be biased here because of Nicky Butt's past, but as you likely know it's difficult to get past initial biases in order to make fair judgements on players, so maybe that's why our opinions differ? I know we're never likely to agree on this one, and we've probably both seen every home game this season as well as a massive majority of the away games (being there/ART Sport/internet streaming/etc.) - or at least extended highlights of every away game, so it's not much other than personal feelings on team styles/what we expect from a defensive midfielder/personal bias that seems to be separating us. We'll have to agree to disagree, as you have my points against Parker sorted out in your post. I'll post my thoughts on him one last time though as a reply to your comment. I believe Parker dives into challenges far too often, which can look impressive due to the commitment level and all that, but nevertheless, he dives in because he doesn't anticipate well enough, his reading of the game is very poor. He tends to chase the ball around the pitch like a young schoolboy tbh. Contrast that with Butt, who goes about his work quietly, which is often what you find with defensive midfielders, not noticing them that much generally means they're doing a good job. He plays a more controlled game, relying on anticipation and reading of the game more than Parker. The effect each of these players has on the players around them is important imo. People can argue about Parker's individual ability but most now seem to be of the view that the partnership with Emre is a poor one. Emre is a good player imo and he plays better alongside Butt than he does alongside Parker, the whole team generally plays better without Parker in the side imo, such is the negative effect of his poor quality of passing. I don't go in for the idea some have of telling Parker to play DM and hey presto, problem sorted. It's a specialist role, I don't think his passing is good enough for that role, he just can't do it. Where Butt often lays the ball off to a team-mate without even controlling it first, his first touch is often a pass, Parker dwells for too long. Butt is often aware of the pass before he's even received the ball, which is what gives him the ability to lay it off without taking a first touch to control it, Parker rarely manages to do that, he just doesn't seem to know what's is 'on' around him. Parker also offers very little attacking threat, so I see no role for him there either. His creativity is pretty much zero. I mentioned it above but the damage done to the way we play by the length of time Parker holds onto the ball can't be overstated, it's a massive weakness in his game because it's very important for a player in that role to move the ball on quickly when there are players up front with pace. The needless diving into challenges and the poor quality of passing are what irritate me the most about Parker. Players with pace need the ball released early otherwise they're going to be caught offside more often than not. I think this will become even more apparent with the return of Owen. Imagine if we ever end up with Zog on the left and Dyer on the right as well, for example. Regarding stats. Yes, Parker may have a higher success rate for passes but I'd imagine Butt isn't far behind, factor in that Butt's passing has a far more positive impact on the way we play and to me it means he's a far, far better player than Parker. I do see where you're coming from and you make some excellent points, I just hope either Butt proves me wrong, or Parker proves you wrong... or that we sign a "proper" defensive midfielder who has pace and an aerial threat about him, as well as all these other attributes we keep mentioning as being essential for someone who plays that position. What I'd give for us to discover the next Gilberto. I personally don't think either of them are good enough to play that "specialist" role for a club who should be challenging the top four, but I'm not the manager, or the chairman - let's just hope what we've got is a lot better than we're giving them credit for.

How many games have Woodgate/Huth played together? Same goes for Taylor/Bramble, actually. What a wank basis for an argument.

It's becoming harder and harder to disagree with the "Bramble out" brigade on here because the lad quite simply does not seem like getting over his affliction for making incredible mistakes at terrible times. On Saturday there were at least two major occasions were he made major bloopers, one of which should have resulted in a straight red card. If we have any serious ambition and are planning to make a realistic run for top-six every season, then we cannot afford to have players with such terminal defects in our starting line-up. A "big club" would not have persevered with Titus Bramble for as long as we have as his problem seems to be one that quite simply CANNOT be coached out of him. You cannot teach players to read the game well or to judge the flight of a ball, these are natural footballing instincts that Bramble seems to unfortunately lack to a suitable level. I do agree that no player is perfect and that a LOT of players make constant mistakes, but Titus is really the king of the "lapse" or the "error" and I'm not sure whether the stigma will ever leave him. Having his name on the team-sheet is bad enough for me, personally, because it usually is a gaurantee that we will see at least ONE error in the following game. A lot of times it's something that doesn't get punished - his constant air-kicks/high-slices/losing his man on a set-play), but also there is a dangerously high number of occasions where we DO get punished because of his shortcomings. It's not even as if he's fantastic when he isn't making mistakes, either. He rarely dominates in the air, his passing is erratic (to say the least) and he certainly doesn't seem to lead or to organise his team-mates. He can sometimes have very good games where he does the basics of defending very well but I can genuinely say that I can never see us winning something as long as Titus Bramble is getting a regular game here. It's amazing that 3 managers have now persevered with Titus Bramble, when the likes of Robert, Bellamy, Luque, Viana and others have fallen foul of them because of various issues. It's not even like he's a model pro, either, the stories about the lad's off-field antics are there for all to hear and have been since he joined. Not to mention that he's incredibly injury-prone, as well.

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main". BRAMBLE is inept. Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones. Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role. It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise. Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well. Couldn't disagree more, tbh. I know I'm not allowed to use stats to defend my points (and I fully understand that stats do NOT tell the whole story), but Parker is miles ahead of Butt both in terms of number of passes made and percentage of passes completed, as well as tackles made and percentage of successful tackles. Let me expand on this a bit before you completely dismiss it... Now obviously that doesn't tell us that Parker is indefinitely better than Butt, because Parker could be passing it back to Bramble 99% of the time (small risk-small gain), while Butt could be looking to release Martins or Dyer with a long-ball an awful lot(high risk-high gain)... so there's no need to call me up on that. However, I do feel that when you watch both play there's certainly very little variation in the TYPE of passes that both make, which suggests that Parker does complete more passes. In your opinion from watching them this season/last season, does Nicky Butt play a lot more "risky" passes than Parker does (causing his completion percentage to drop)? Or is the ratio fairly similar for each? (Meaning that Parker is probably a better passer of the ball.) There's a few layers to that and we're heading into complicated grounds in regards to types of passing, speed of passes, quickness to release the ball, etc. But I know you'll be keeping up with it, which makes a nice change on here From what I remember from previous threads your main issues with Parker are that he dives in all-too-often and holds onto the ball for far too long, please correct me there if I'm wrong. I do agree that you have good arguments with these, but when the lad is winning "76.6%" of the tackles, then surely it's not THAT much of a problem? (Again, a crude way of defending him, but you get my gist - I'm trying to move away from just "I think he's better 'cos he's he captain" shite.) I'd argue that Nicky Butt is far too slow to react to situations and doesn't win the ball enough when he gets into tackling situations, plus he misplaces far more "easy" passes than Parker and he still has the "Cardiff performance" hanging over him, which was utterly disgusting at the time. I do openly admit that I could be biased here because of Nicky Butt's past, but as you likely know it's difficult to get past initial biases in order to make fair judgements on players, so maybe that's why our opinions differ? I know we're never likely to agree on this one, and we've probably both seen every home game this season as well as a massive majority of the away games (being there/ART Sport/internet streaming/etc.) - or at least extended highlights of every away game, so it's not much other than personal feelings on team styles/what we expect from a defensive midfielder/personal bias that seems to be separating us.

Two year extension? I'd prefer it if we just let him go in the summer. Reckon this means no more strikers are incoming?

Gamst Pedersen in particular, what a fucking player that boy is. Surely a move to a bigger club is on the agenda in the summer? Not saying that equates to us, but imagine the kid at Liverpool or replacing Ronaldo at Man Utd... seriously. Outside of Ronaldo, I'm not sure if there's a better/more consistent winger in the league. Quite amazingly, he features in the "top 5" in every statistic on SkySports Opta Stats for Blackburn, other than bookings... but including fouls given away. <a href="http://home.skysports.com/optastats.aspx?clid=5&hlid=OPTA_Blackburn_Rovers&cpid=8">Stats</a> Most tellingly for me he has made more tackles than any other Blackburn player (72) with the highest success percentage as well, (81.9%), simply unheard of for a wideman. I think only Xabi Alonso has a higher number/percentage score than him in the entire league. Scott Parker is 3rd overall, behind these two (percentage/numbers wise). Pedersen is the epitomy of a modern "winger". 6 league goals and 3 assists this season. 9 league goals last season, 4 the previous. Not bad.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic is a gigantic cunt.

Re: Carr, aside from the second goal he was partly to blame for their first goal (throwing to a man with 3 opponents around him and conceding the throw cheaply in the first place) and there were two clear occasions elsewhere in the game where he completely lost Bocanegra from a set-play, resulting in a narrow miss and a Milner clearance off the line. Not to mention the awful back-header to Steve Harper. There was probably more, but that's what I can remember. He has offered very little to this club lately and is constantly injured, not to mention that if sources are to be believed he was trying to engineer a move back to London in the summer, but no bugger would have him. I do agree that it is easy to form "hate-bandwagons", especially on this forum, but people have been questioning Carr for a lot longer than this season.

Underrated Eleven might have been a better bet than simply "top ten": Jussi Jaaskelainan Phil Neville Joseph Yobo Abdoulaye Meite Gael Clichy Morten Gamst Pedersen Mikel Arteta Kevin Nolan Matt Taylor Brian McBride Kevin Davies I'd have any of them at SJP.

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main". BRAMBLE is inept. Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones. Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role. It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise. Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

Profile > Look and Layout Preferences > Check "Leave words uncensored." > Save Problem solved!

Injured again today, apparently, will miss Ireland's match this week. I fucking hate the cunt.

I only want Butt fit because I don't want Dyer in CM, or Sibierski up front.

Both the Neville's are underrated, I'd argue. From what I've seen of Phil lately I think he's been immense, would have been a quality signing for us, although many would have poo-poo'ed it at the time. Wonder if we could snatch him in the summer? ...Seriously. Doubt he would join now like, and probably doesn't want to leave the North West.

iirc, he's made more apperances this season than anybody but milner - not saying much, but there's plenty of people on the team who deserve that title before he does. No, thats not right. I don't think Emre is injury prone, i just don't think he's particularly committed. I think the opposite, funnily enough: Only played 22 games last season in all comps, according to NUFC.com. Babayaro played 33. He's made 28 appearances so far this season, level with Parker, Ramage and Taylor in second. Milner has 33 already. So Tampa is right. He played in a total 27 club games in 03/04 and 25 games in 04/05 (both sub & starter), although at Inter he wasn't an automatic choice. I do think he gets injured fairly frequently, but his commitment (especially this season) is hard to fault.

from .com Praise be to Jesus.

Good policy, Stozo. I have to say those Journal articles this morning is the most sense I've heard from Shepherd and Roeder perhaps ever - it made for very pleasant reading. If we can keep in with this apparent "plan", while maintaining good league placings and (hopefully) European qualification, then it should stand us in very good stead for the next few years. It is frustrating to be lower down than we were under Keegan/Robson, but that's life, no football club has a divine right to be at the top forever. Granted, we might have done a lot of things wrong along the way - probably more than most of the other "big" clubs - but if Roeder can get us into the UEFA Cup again next season then, along with the new TV money, we should be able to bring in some very good players. It's interesting to note how Shepherd says that there was money available, which is something I've maintained all along - it was proven by the fact we made a definitive offer for Ryan Babel towards the end of the transfer window. There does seem to be money there for the right players, and if it takes until summer to get some of them, then so be it. However, if we start next season without bringing in a new (and decent) right-back and left-back, then my patience will begin to wane further. It's all well-and-good to say we're waiting for the "right" players, but as NUFC06 sort of said, who's to say they will instantly become available in June/July/August? However, I can't imagine Chelsea, Arsenal or Man Utd wanting to sign Peter Crouch, for some reason. Even though I rate him, to a degree. I also don't imagine Liverpool will sell him if he keeps playing as he has been lately.

He's just about getting away with it while we're still in the UEFA and still within touching distance of the top-six in the Premiership. That Birmingham game is obviously the major blot on his copybook of late - as we looked jaded and out of it for the whole 90 minutes, mainly because the same core of players had played in every single match for weeks/months on end, but other than that he's done relatively well with what he's had available to him. If we get knocked out of Europe by Waregem then I suppose things could easily turn nasty again and anything less than a top-ten finish is obviously going to raise a lot of eyebrows (top-seven in my view), but you see there are people who will simply be appeased by the "we've had loads of injuries" line, when really we all knew Shola and Owen were paggered before the season kicked-off, not to mention that a lot of people could safely predict some sort of injury "crisis" within the club, again... and the fact that we started this season with only 6 senior defenders, two of whom are the widely-detested/incredibly injury-prone Babayaro and Carr, one of whom is Titus Bramble (who also gets his share of knocks) and the other two barely could be classed as "senior" either, Taylor and Ramage - I'd completely forgotton about Craig Moore as well, who is surely as injury prone as Jonathan Woodgate, not to mention him being half the player. Wasn't Taylor injured as well for the start of the campaign? We did get Bernard in to make it 7... I suppose... If we don't qualify for Europe again then Roeder/Shepherd do deserve some form of a slap, as the blame will rest squarely with the pair of them. Because, at the end of the day we finished 7th last season after enduring Souness for much of it, why should we finish lower this term? If we think the financial situation is bad now, I dread to think what it would be like after another year without any continental football (thanks Graeme ).

It was mentioned at the time. Shepherd had allowed the game to be moved forward for Sky despite the midweek game and a lot of people were angry about that. I was specifically meaning IRL after the match. Duff and Rossi up front, though... those were the days.

I think I'd rather have Shepherd in full-control than this Dubai lot, when I put my sensible cap on at least. There is a reason why Liverpool didn't accept the offer... granted, it may just be that Gillet "the best a man can get" will offer them more cash, but it might also have been that they realised they'd be villanised as well if DIC got their way and used the mighty reds as a cash cow (it would be a sin rivalled only by mass genocide, in fairness). It is a worry that we're falling behind a host of clubs financially, though. Suppose we've lived a charmed life since the Hall days in that respect and I can't help but feel that we missed the boat on numerous occasions. Proof that money without sensible management isn't as great as it sounds. I disagree. I think it would be excellent if someone went in and messed up the scousers' chances. Sarcasm.