alpal78

who said that? Shit strawman argument there. For what it's worth, I think Enrique is a better LB than Carroll is as a striker so it would be more difficult to find a replacement for Enrique.

How so Jonny

Ian I did include Wullie's wider definition in my OP. I defined 'local' players as those who were either a) born in the locality or b) came through the youth academy. I still don't think they are necessary for success though like I said many times they do bring a sense of belonging to the fans.

Chelsea have suffered because they have not replaced Terry and Lampard with players of similar quality. Now that they have bought David Luiz, I expect them to improve and if they can find a goalscoring midfielder like Lampard (which admittedly is not easy), they will be firing on all cylinders again

Yeah, I agree with this. It's more about building a consistent foundation by having players that (a) come through regularly enough to provide enough players and (b) have enough attachment to the club to stick around and care about how the club performs. Man Utd a brilliant example as you say, and Inter (and possibly Chelsea) an example of how success that is only built through mercenaries can be fleeting. Man Utd is an interesting example as they seem to keep a core of 'local' players, but again players like Beckham, Scholes, Giggs were important because they were awesome not because they were products of the academy. Of their current crop of 'local' players, I would say only Fletcher can be considered important. Players like Brown and O'Shea don't contribute anything significant, they are not even in the first team. In fact if anything over the last few years, Man Utd has become less 'local' with more reliance on players like Ronaldo, Nani, Rooney and this season Berbatov, and yet have more or less retain their success.

To be fair to Inter, Jose is really one of the best and I don't really rate Rafa. Besides, they're not doing too poorly...3rd in the league, just 5 points behind Milan and still in the CL. To say that they are "struggling" to back up your point is disingenuous imo

Can those who voted yes give their reasons? I fully accept the emotional value and romanticism that local players bring, but I can't see how they improve team performance by being local. The closest I can think of is that they push themselves harder because they 'love' the club more? But as said players like Parker, Barton, Roy Keane gave their all to the club despite not being a local and then you have players like Shola who half the time looks like he couldn't care less so again I don't see a causation between being local and giving your all to the club.

I agree let's go back to Enrique, discussion on Carroll can be posted in his thread. Let's not sully the name of Enrique with the cunt Carroll!

Sorry I have no idea what you mean?

Had a good debate with Wullie in the Enrique thread, would be interesting to know what others think? Although the discussion was centered on Carroll, the idea can be extrapolated to a more general question. Do teams need local players (defined as born in the locality or players who come from the youth setup) to be successful? My position is that although local players give the club a sense of identity and give the fans a sense of belonging, they are not prerequisites for success (I voted no). What are needed for success are quality players regardless of their origins. Wullie gave some interesting examples of successful clubs who all have local players Barcelona (Xavi, Iniesta, Messi...etc), Chelsea (Terry & Lampard), Liverpool (Gerrard & Carragher)...etc as proof that you need local players to be successful. My counter argument is that those clubs are/were successful because all those players mentioned are good quality players, not because of where they were born or which youth academy they came from. Replace those players with other players from other parts of the country or even foreign players of the same quality and the clubs would be just as successful. I also gave the example of Inter Milan who to my knowledge did not have a key local player. Don't just vote, provide your arguments too.

Cant wait to have him back. Not Wolves... They will just injure him again. Yah I can't say I'm too keen on the idea of him playing against Wolves, some of them are outright thugs!

This. if we use that 35M wisely including investing in a top striker (there are quite a few around who is actually better than Carroll), then I don't give a tosh if the one banging in the goals for us is Geordie or not. Those are just emotional niceties which has no bearing on the club's performance. if we use that 35M wisely including investing in a top striker (there are quite a few around who is actually better than Carroll), then I don't give a tosh if the one banging in the goals for us is Geordie or not. Those are just emotional niceties which has no bearing on the club's performance. I agree the fact he is a Geordie is neither here nor there, but Carroll's potential value to us went way, way beyond what Liverpool paid for him. I'm assuming you are suggesting we could attract one of these "better" strikers you mention. I'd be interested to know who you're talking about. On your second question, too many if you are willing to look outside the Premier league. On your first question, I don't know whether or not we can attract these better players, if we don't get in someone at least as good as Carroll in the summer, then we would have done poorly but like I said that's because we didn't replace him not because we sold a striker whose had half a good season of premiership for 35M Sorry, but how can you call Carroll's sale good business if it hinges on what you acknowledge is a likely inability to attract a better striker? I'd still like to know the identity of these better strikers. Better in terms of stats and experience, perhaps. But a better bet in this league than Carroll? I guess you'd have nominated Dzeko before he went to City... I said I don't know, I have not acknowledged that we won't be able to get a better striker. Too many variables involved, one year ago who would have expected that we would have players like Tiote & HBA and on the cheap too. For their respective positions, both belong in a better bracket than Carroll was as a striker at least based on what we have seen so far (which admittedly in the case of HBA is not much) Yes regardless of Dzeko's poor/average start for City, I still think that he has the makings of a better player than Carroll. He has not set the Premiership alight but that is always the case with foreign players...remember our own Coloccini & Enrique? You think Carroll is better than Dzeko??? It's hard to judge Carroll's real ability based on 6 months in the Premiership, at times he has been unplayable and at other times distinctly average. I will need to see him for at least another season to decide where he stands and his potential. IMO Liverpool will be a good test for him, because he will get decent service, and then we can see how good he really is or whether the last 6 months was a flash in the pan. I of course hope it will be the latter.

I think you have to combine those factors you're mentioning. He brought the club to glory through a core of talents: Giggs, Scholes etc. The last seasons, he has however used a shitload of money. BUT (and this is a big but) the main difference between him and for example Chelsea and us, is that he's only interested in players got serious attitude and that FIT the type of football ManU is playing -few touches, fast balls in the longitudinal direction, and constantly distributing the ball to the side in which the opponent is unbalanced In other words he's only buying players that complements each other. That's why for example a limited player like Fletcher thrives in ManU: He's a box player that runs like he got the devil behind him and he's a skilled finisher. Due to the way ManU plays, he will be in frequent finishing positions around the box. And because players are not using many touches, his inapt technique is not revealed. That's also why he played like s*** against Norway, since in the Scottish team he's "the big star" who should do the "great moves," which he in fact is not able to perform. Chelsea and Castle on the other hand has been more important with bringing in big names, rather than contemplating if the player is good for the club, or fits the type of football the team is playing. Chelsea for example bought Ballack only because he at that time was regarded as one of the largest name in football. Never mind that he's a replica of Lampard in his style of football. In the same way, Chelsea went and bought Torres, when they in fact have good enough attackers. What's generally causing their problems is the fact that they have an IDENTICAL midfield. What they actually needed was one or two better wingers, that could provide Anelka and Drogba with crossers and a faster cm that transformed a rather slow and less mobile midfield. In the same way, Castle bought Owen, in a hope that this would signify to the world that the club had ambitions. Never mind all the baggage and economical frenzy he brought with him. Alex doesn't make such blunders, that's why he's on top. Top post! :clap:

I get the emotional ties that local players have on fans, but I still don't logically see why you need local players to succeed. And so far all the clubs you mentioned who have managed to hold on to their best local players/youth players are clubs who have tasted success first and are able to compete against other big clubs (until a bigger one comes knocking...see Arsenal & Barca). The difference between Guti and Casillas is illustrative. Guti was good for the fans but in reality contributed only sparingly in their successful years. When Madrid last won La Liga, he wasn't even a first team player. Casillas on the other hand, yes was instrumental but that is not because he is a local boy/Madrid youth player but because he is one of the best keepers in the world...back to my point that what matters is quality not where you were born or the youth team you played for. Substitute him for Buffon and I still think that Madrid would have won the title. When I see Carrick play, I only wish he was still with us but that is because he is probably better than most of our midfielders (bar Tiote & Barton?), not because he is a local boy. I don't know how you feel, but I'm guessing it has more to do with a "he was ours and we let him go" mindset which is an emotion based sentiment (not that there is anything wrong with that, just that it is not a prerequisite for success).

True enough. But we were not in a position to say no when that sizable offer came along. Had been quite another story if they sold Carroll, despite a sound economy. Carroll was sacrificed for the long term of the club. We now have the possibility to acquire some squad depth and keep our best players. That will enhance our chances of Europe, and in the end we will able to say no when the next big money bid. Then it's up to the player if he wants to leave or not. And Gerrard, Terry, Scholes and Giggs would have left their club in a heartbeat if it had been in half the amount of trouble as we've been in. It's easy to stay when you win minimum one trophy each year That's the point I was making though I think you explained it better. Those home grown players Wullie named, stayed on because those clubs were already successful. In modern times, it is almost impossible for a club that is just climbing its way up (what more just got promoted) to hold on when a big club comes knocking for their best players (let alone offer fucking 35M!). Look at Arsenal, a big club by most estimates and even they are having difficulty holding on to Fabregas (who I suspect will leave for Barca at the end of this season).

Wullie you may have a point but I think you're confusing causation and correlation. It's also bit chicken and egg. It's equally possible that those home based players you mentioned stayed on because those clubs were successful instead of them being prerequisites for the success. I know it is impossible to prove, but logically I don't see why those clubs would not have been equally successful if they had replaced those home grown players with non local players who are of the same quality or better. What about Inter in the Champions League last year? I think Madrid has also been successful without a key local player except for maybe Casillas (is he from Madrid?). At the end of the day, it's quality that wins you matches not where those players are from.

This. if we use that 35M wisely including investing in a top striker (there are quite a few around who is actually better than Carroll), then I don't give a tosh if the one banging in the goals for us is Geordie or not. Those are just emotional niceties which has no bearing on the club's performance. if we use that 35M wisely including investing in a top striker (there are quite a few around who is actually better than Carroll), then I don't give a tosh if the one banging in the goals for us is Geordie or not. Those are just emotional niceties which has no bearing on the club's performance. I agree the fact he is a Geordie is neither here nor there, but Carroll's potential value to us went way, way beyond what Liverpool paid for him. I'm assuming you are suggesting we could attract one of these "better" strikers you mention. I'd be interested to know who you're talking about. On your second question, too many if you are willing to look outside the Premier league. On your first question, I don't know whether or not we can attract these better players, if we don't get in someone at least as good as Carroll in the summer, then we would have done poorly but like I said that's because we didn't replace him not because we sold a striker whose had half a good season of premiership for 35M

if we use that 35M wisely including investing in a top striker (there are quite a few around who is actually better than Carroll), then I don't give a toss if the one banging in the goals for us is Geordie or not. Those are just emotional niceties which has no bearing on the club's performance.

only because we didn't get any good replacements in

Which is why I said it depends on the timescale you use, gosh you really must be blind. Those 5 games should not be used to sessed Hughton's overall 'achievement' as a manager but is a sufficient yardstick to see where our form was going (it's called a trend Dave) and whether our form improved under Pardew. Can you f*** off following me around? Cheers. Following you around??? :lol: ... you think too highly of yourself What's your problem? I just happen to disagree with lots of your views You make a silly point on a public forum, of course you'll be shown up for it. Peace

Which is why I said it depends on the timescale you use, gosh you really must be blind. Those 5 games should not be used to asess Hughton's overall 'achievement' as a manager but is a sufficient yardstick to see where our form was going (it's called a trend Dave) and whether our form improved under Pardew.

Yes but Carroll despite his reputation was never the hub of the team, unlike Tiote is invaluable to us. Seriously until Tiote gets injured/leaves then we can't judge at all. I mean look at Hughtons luck, he had tons of injuries such as HBA, I mean how was he supposed to tell De Jong would go all dutch on him Fair point about HBA but it's the same HBA that has not played under Pardew either, so that point is moot. In terms of injuries/suspensions to key players, Pardew has had a more difficult time which made the upturn in form even more impressive!

Depends on what sort of timescale you use. After the Arsenal victory (which I will be the first to agree was a fantastic result), our form nosedived drastically. Losing at home to Blackburn 1-2 and West Brom 1-3, drawing at home to Fulham 0-0 and thrashed at Bolton 5-1, teams that would all end up around us or relegated (in the case of W. Brom) were all very poor results. The only respite seemed to be the 1-1 home draw with Chelsea. So if you compare Hughton's last few matches with the results since Pardew took over, the form upturn is clear as day unless you are just deliberately closing your eyes and refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Of course not, coz HBA's decision making does not fit into your view/agenda of giving all credit to Hughton, selective as usual, why am I not surprised and I should be the one growing up

The manager who signed those players is gone though. We may have got him in on loan while Hughton was here, but did HBA not sign with us permanently under Pardew? I doubt he'd do that if Hughton was the sole reason for his arrival. Shh don't say that, by Wullie's 'logic' when a signing turns out good, it must be all to Hughton's credit. Don't you know Hughton is the next Mourinho...that's why he is now managing err... Christ how dull. Dull coz you have no response? :lol: Anyway not as dull as your Hughton wank fest even after he is no longer relevant to Newcastle