OzzieMandias

Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Without checking I'm pretty sure you could use a narrow argument like that (i.e. results against so-called top 10 sides) to 'prove' SBR was an average or poor England manager. Not that I think Sven was great or anything. so why say it? The above details are FACTS I can check it if you want. I was using my knowledge/memory from football in the past. I appreciate you won't be able to relate to that Anyway, how are they facts? What definition of a 'top 10 side' are you using? how many do you have? ftr: 1 Argentina 2 Italy 3 Brazil 4 France 5 Germany 6 England 7 The Netherlands 8 Portugal 9 Czech Republic 10 Spain You see Vic, I can remember Robson not qualifying for Euro '84 in France and losing all 3 games in Euro '88 and going out against the first 'top 10 team' we played in the knockout stage of both the 1986 and 1990 World Cups. Not having a go at SBR or his managerial talent in any way. Just showing how applying selective criteria proves very little. yet you have no problem with the statement SGE only lost 4 matches in 5 years? interesting Why would anyone but you have a problem with a true, provable, factual statement?

Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves). you honestly do just see it in numeric terms don't you? All four of those losses came against equivalent opposition. How many equivalent opposition wins did he achieve? TWO! when you can find me a Premiership team of a relative standard of San Marino, Azerbaijan or Lichtenstein, then you can come back to me Strange though it may seem to you, winning games and qualifying for the major tournaments is what a national team manager's job is about.

Not even losing just four matches in over five years? Qualifying for three tournaments in a row? Getting to the quarter-finals each time? Since the WC I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much SGE that was overrated, but the players (and not least by themselves).

And 1 Cup-Winners Cup And another double with Lazio

As England manager he only lost four competitive games ? the Northern Ireland qualifer and the three quarter-final defeats (two on penalties). It's not a bad record, really. if you completely ignore the performances. How many dour draws was it? I'd be happy enough if we'd only lost four matches out of the last 38. so, out of those 34 wins or draws, assuming as you do that England is NUFC Premiership standard, who exactly would we have been playing in th ePremiership to get wins or draws against this lot: Finland Albania (twice) Slovakia (twice) Macedonia (twice) Liechtenstein (twice) Wales (twice) Azerbaijan Northern Ireland Trinidad and Tobago You can only beat what's put in front of you, and England didn't lose 1-5 to any of those at home. In fact, under Eriksson, England never lost a competitive game at home, full stop.

As England manager he only lost four competitive games ? the Northern Ireland qualifer and the three quarter-final defeats (two on penalties). It's not a bad record, really. if you completely ignore the performances. How many dour draws was it? I'd be happy enough if we'd only lost four matches out of the last 38.

As England manager he only lost four competitive games – the Northern Ireland qualifer and the three quarter-final defeats (two on penalties). It's not a bad record, really.

He didn't have loads of cash when he won the UEFA Cup with Göteborg. Or when he got Benfica to the finals of both the UEFA and the (then) European Cup.

Interesting. More worrying is that the story suggests Alan Pardew is another contender.

In Germany, I used to really like St Pauli. Brilliant fans, excellent atmosphere. But they've dropped right out of the picture.

It's not just about owning more than one club in the Premiership. You can't own more than one club in England.

So, you're foreign to Newcastle or Newcastle is foreign to you? I guess, since I was born in the Toon but moved to Canada at a young age and was raised here, that Newcastle are my "Top Foreign Club". If you want to get into logistics. eh ? it's got nothing to do with foreign or otherwise.i acn only support one club. as for those abovethey are doing what they despise others doing over here,ie supporting the big clubs because they are more likely to win. Yeah, sure. MTK, Sporting and Hertha win everything.

I can't say I "support" any other clubs anywhere. I've got a vague affection for a few of those I've gone to see when I've been working in other countries, however, though it doesn't bother me at all when they lose. They are Sporting Lisbon, Hertha Berlin, MTK in Budapest, Raja Casablanca. Favourite Scottish team is Celtic.

Some of this has been reminding me of one of my teachers when I was a kid. A real old codger, he used to deride our interest in Newcastle United. His argument went something like this... Back in "his day" (I suppose he was talking pre-WWII), if you went to see Newcastle vs Arsenal, you did so because you wanted to see how 11 lads from Newcastle would fare against 11 lads from London. But the game had been completely ruined, in his view, by a transfer system that allowed teams to field players from all over England – worse, players from ALL OVER BRITAIN! We all just giggled, because who gave a fuck if Wyn Davies came from Wales, Iam McFaul from Ireland and Bobby Moncur from Scotland? We just wanted to see good players and win games.

Come on you Valencians!

Come on you Valencians!

Here's the link to Parky's story. It's two years old: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2005/02/04/sfnbos04.xml&sSheet=/sport/2005/02/04/ixfooty.html And here's what David Dein had to say, further down the same story: Arsenal deputy chairman David Dein has criticised the proposals, and believes it will lead to clubs recruiting players at a younger age to satisfy regulations. "It's a scaling-down process. We've got the best league in the world and you tamper with it at your peril," he said. "There will be a great danger that clubs will bring younger-aged players, and their families, to the country so they have three years to make them `homegrown' players."

Not quite. I think you'll find "home-grown" means players they have developed themselves, but these do not have to be English if the club's English, French if it's French etc. Arsenal are way ahead of the pack here, and they'll still have a multinational squad.

Anyone noticed Arsenal's attendances falling because of the cosmopolitan composition of their squad?

It's about the grass roots game.....No wonder attendances in Italy have continued falling for the last 15 years...I mean who are they watching Boca Juniors? Sure, all the games being on TV obviously has nothing to do with it.

This isn't the issue...It is plain wrong that Arsenal fields and continues to field sides with no English players..It's bad for the game on just about every level. We dominated Euro for a decade with predominantly English players...Liverpool, Forest, Villa... And remind us how many clubs we've currently got in the final stages of the two European competitions...

Do you see the irony in those names 3 came through a small club (WHam) youth system. Young English players can't develop cause they can't break into first teams populated from around Europe. It's wrong simple as that. EU beuracracy gone mad. If "EU bureaucracy" is to blame then how come other EU nations such as Germany, Italy and France, have no problem with their national sides? They're subject to precisely the same conditions in terms of free movement of labour (which includes footballers) within the EU. If France can develop loads of good young players, why can't England?

Woodgate only made 28 appearances for us, and will probably be better remembered for other things than his short time with us. Great CB but greatest ever Toon CB? Nah.

Peanuts Tanner a bag The more you eat The more you Sha-la-la-la McNamee

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, whenever asked for your opinion on the current decline of the club in the evolving situation of the 21st century, you drone on and on about how things were 20 or 30 years ago.