Theregulars

I agree. This is a really difficult moment for Howe I think, because he’s having to change system on the fly. I reckon we might see Wilson up top, Isak behind as 10, Miggy right and Gordon left. However, it means sacrificing some defensive solidity which has been the bedrock of our season. It really makes you appreciate Bruno, because without him our midfield looks very league average.

That’s the kind of result we need to grind out against spirited but limited opposition.

Yes; don’t let that put you off. I’m probably just stressed from a long and very difficult week at work, but sometimes I find that people won’t acknowledge facts or reality and it gets to me, because I think it’s a huge problem in our society.

Last post on it because clearly it’s just annoying people, but as a general comment I do think people won’t accept any criticism, even where criticism is due.

I’m not concerned but it’s undeniable that he had a shitter yesterday. Hopefully a one-off as you suggest, but if Wilson is fit next week he starts for me.

I mean this level of drivel suggests that you know that you’re wrong. So, second chance - what does Anderson bring now that Shelvey wouldn’t have?

You’re.

What do you think Anderson has done / has to offer that Shelvey hasn’t / doesn’t? Anderson has done literally nothing of note in a Newcastle shirt.

I suppose we won’t know until season’s end, really. Hopefully we never get exposed and the gamble “pays off” if we finish in Europe any which way (which I still think would be an almighty achievement, albeit understandably anti-climactic if 6th/7th).

I’m really not - again, you’re putting that onto me. I’m sat here, very calm, wasting time until the football starts. It’s a good question. I don’t know about the prospective replacement and what was discussed, because nothing was reported in detail. On the Shelvey issue, Howe is on record saying he greenlit it and thinks it’s a gamble. The fact that it gave us a few days to find a replacement also makes the sale a mistake in my view. I think not replacing him is a mistake, but I don’t know who is to blame for that. I’d have said to Shelvey “yes, you can leave if we find a replacement in time. Otherwise, unfortunately we do need you to stay as the squad is shallow and we lack any creativity from central midfield without Bruno”, or words to that effect. He’d have been very well compensated for it financially, so I don’t think the moral argument of giving him his wish supersedes our needs as a club.

Good post, I agree with it. Shelvey would have been expendable in the summer once replaced. I understand why it makes some sense to dispense now when the offer is there and he indicates he’s interested, but to me it makes more sense to protect the club’s interests in the first instance.

Christ on a bicycle. Read the story: Howe said no at first and then the next day agreed. He has publicly said it’s a gamble but he agreed to allow it considering all the circumstances. Howe has clearly been a deciding factor in that move happening.

Sure, but their squad is deep. They’ve 2 class players for every position, whatever system they want to roll with. With Shelvey I think we had 14/15. Look at the bench yesterday - the only viable option to change a game for the better was Gordon. Murphy gets minutes every game and is largely derided on this forum as not good enough. I share that view.

These are good counters. It comes down to what you want to prioritise, in my view. I think the priority for me is results, but that’s my opinion. I think they’ve been caught between a “nice to do” and a “harsh but sensible”, and they went with “nice to do”.

Cool - so, tit for tat, I’ll call you a thick arsehole. I’ve said repeatedly over the last few pages that he has been brilliant and this is the first mistake I’ve detected. I don’t think it’s picking faults: our squad is too thin to sustain what we’re doing, so selling an established member of it without replacement makes the squad yet thinner. I’m not sure how that’s picking faults - if anything it’s staying the fucking obvious.

You’d think there’d be a buyer for him somewhere at the lower end of PL / top end of championship. The point is that we’ve prioritised his wants over our needs, which I think isn’t a sensible move.

Not at all, but be prepared to discuss it when challenged. Some of the opinions you’re posting don’t add up, and some of what you’re posting is incorrect (for example saying that Shelvey is injured, which is objectively untrue).

Wrong again. Howe said he reluctantly agreed because he didn’t want “get in the way of his happiness”, or something similar. Stop trying to excuse Howe. He can make mistakes, like literally anybody. I’m really hoping I’m proved wrong but I think this was a mistake he’s been involved in.

Crass over-generalisation, as usual. There was a spectrum of opinion on here. I’ve not seen Wilson play that poorly for us, ever. It’s undeniable that Isak played badly yesterday. Yes, the entire team did; but he contributed. First touch was nowhere, constantly gave the ball away. My slight concern with him at this point - and emphasis on slight, as I know nuance escapes most posters - is that he takes too long to get the ball out of his feet and shoot.

There are 3 types of perspective here, in my view. 1. Long-term perspective looking backwards: we’ve come a very long way quickly, and it’s not much over a year since we were circling the drain. Against this perspective, everything is fantastic. 2. Long-term perspective looking forwards: our aim is to challenge for trophies and qualify for the CL. We are ahead of the game in that regard. Against this perspective, it’s exciting as hell but it has changed the context against which people view the squad and our results. That’s where the concern about this patchy run of form and the poor transfer window comes from, I think. 3. immediate perspective on the match itself: objectively, we played really poorly against a very poor side. That very poor side made us look distinctly second best / we made them look good. It’s probably a bit of each. It was a wretched performance and we were lucky to escape with a point. This is why the “perspective” argument being used only as set out 1 above is limited. There are different perspectives and contexts, and some of them justify concern at yesterday’s performance.

I’d also add, he’s no longer injured! He played yesterday. Let’s try a different approach. With Bruno suspended and Willock injured, would you rather play Shelvey or Anderson?

@LVI have google searched it and some publications, including the Mail, did use the word “beg”. So I apologise - you have reason to think this.

Again, nobody is saying that. They’re just saying that we need a squad, and him leaving leaves us with a shallower squad. Stop making things up to suit your lazy argument.

You really love putting emotions and states of mind on people. It’s patronising and a very cheap way of debating. I haven’t “taken it badly”, I’m putting across my case that I think it’s a needless gamble in the prevailing circumstances. Im really happy for you to disagree, but stop swanning about telling people what they think or feel.

Ok - where is it reported that Shelvey “begged”?