Cronky

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains.

Glorious, was it? I'd say agonising and humiliating, and we still bear the scars. Our nerve failed us when the prize was well within our grasp. If Man U's late charge for the title had ended in failure, that could maybe have been called glorious. Why? Their nerve would have failed them when the prize was well within their grasp. Truly ridiculous. You've not answered the main point, Dave, but I'll still bite. Man U had spent the first half of that season, blooding their youngsters. It was the 'you don't win anything with kids' season. Despite that, and a twelve point deficit, they came through. Now if they'd just failed - and that's what should have happened - that would have been a totally different sort of failure to ours.

On a general point, when I say that Keegan isn't a winner, that's not a reference to the fact that he hasn't won a major trophy. I'm talking about his mentality, which is more that of a glory hunter, and therefore rather flaky. Sometimes a mediocre manager can fluke a win, and sometimes a good manager can get unlucky and just come up short. Keegan's failure is down to more than bad luck IMO. We only came close to winning something (major) once under Keegan. I don't recall us doing anything in the cups - not even getting to a quarter-final. It was certainly the only season when we came close to winning the league. And the flaws in the Keegan make-up were exposed. It was what Fergie called squeaky-bottom time, when a team has to grind out a result under pressure. All Keegan had in his armoury was the cavalry charge, and when things get tough, that's not enough.

Glorious, was it? I'd say agonising and humiliating, and we still bear the scars. Our nerve failed us when the prize was well within our grasp. If Man U's late charge for the title had ended in failure, that could maybe have been called glorious.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

League 1 Champions 1992-1993. Don't be fooled by the title. In reality that's the Second Division.

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course. Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance. Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

The big assumption is that a story in a newspaper must have a 'source'. It's nonsense. Journalists will often make things up from nothing.

It is disappointing how winning a few games in the Second Division, seems to have pacified a few people. It is the S E C O N D D I V I S I O N (whatever it's called this week) for goodness sake, it means nothing at all that we are beating a load of 'nothingness' teams, that are even worse than the middle and lower Premier League 'nothingness' teams that we should have been thrashing last season. As someone wrote a few posts back - the best you can describe this useless time-wasting season as, is as a "Gap Year". Disagree. In principle, yes of course, we're not winning in the top division. In principle, a club of this size belongs in the top division. However, I disagree that this year is a waste of time. We have needed that winning feeling for a few seasons now. We have desperately needed for the focus to be on the football pitch rather than the director's box/manager seat/underperforming superstar/tabloids etc.... The togetherness of the squad this season will prove invaluable, and it might, just might, be one of the first steps towards rectifying the disastrous decline of the last 3 or 4 years. I agree. Upward momentum is very important, even if you're starting from a low point. We spent the previous years fighting a strong sense of decline, which of course isn't good for morale.

Curbishley is an outstanding candidate, with a long record of over-achieving on modest resources, and developing a good youth policy. He's also available. In any other world, the club would be begging him to take the job. Trouble is, he wouldn't be a popular or charismatic choice, and our club does put managers under a lot of pressure when things aren't going well. Curbishley has shown an ability to hold his nerve in those difficult times, when he saved West Ham from relegation despite all the criticism that came his way. Whether he'd survive in the same way at our club, we can't be certain, particularly as a 'Cockney'. First Keegan, and then Shearer were cut a lot of slack by the fans and sadly, that does count for something. It may also be difficult to persuade Curbishley to give it a go, given what he's seen of us over the last 5 years.

Your description of the article is not at all accurate, is it? The message is that people should think carefully about who they call a hero, and it's a fair enough statement, in life as in football.

What difference does it make who's fault it is? What are the repercussions for the club is what bothers me. Indeed. Who gives a crap who is right is some legal pissing contest between Ashley and Keegan (or more factually Keegan vs NUFC). What I care about is the 10million and where that comes from. We are in being run against what looks like a very tight budget (missing out on loan signings etc). If we're lose ten million quid due to this we could be f***ed in terms of betting promoted. And again despite who is right or wrong in the argument. Keegan has chosen to sue the club. We were relegated and obviously financially stuffed and Keegan still continued with his legal case. Keegan was offered 4 million (allegedly) and he still carries on with his legal case to make an extra couple million. All for personal gain. IMO this makes Keegan a c*** on equal footing with Ashely if not worse. So the players must be c***s for picking up their wages each week. In fact any member of staff picking up their legal entitlements from the club is a bigger c*** than Ashley according to this logic. I mean, nobody should be taking money from the club under the current circumstances. Even if they are legally entitled to it. That's a completely false analogy. Keegan isn't claiming for work that he's done for the club. He's claiming that he should be paid up for the rest of his contract, despite the fact that he left the job early. There's also a suggestion that he's claiming for loss of supposed future earnings at other clubs. All of which would have to come out of the club. In order to support Keegan you have to believe a) that his job had become impossible and b) that it is fair that he gets paid compensation in quite large quantities (note - this is compensation, not earned wages). I find both difficult to accept. There are also posters on here who actually believe that a) and b) are compatible with him 'loving' the club. None of us are on our best behaviour when there's large amounts of money at stake, and we shouldn't get too much on our high horse when someone tries to use grey areas of the law to make money. But we shouldn't look at it in any other way than as blatant self-seeking.

Assuming it's Moat who takes over, it's not ideal that in appointing Shearer, he'd be appointing a 'mate', as is said to be the case. There needs to be a little professional distance between Chairman and Manager, however good a relationship they might have. After all, at some future date, Moat may have to sack Shearer. It'll be difficult enough to do that, because even if Shearer doesn't do well, a number of fans will always blame the owner for not 'backing' him enough with transfer money.

It depends on how broadly you define technique, but I'd say Carroll's first touch is the best of all our strikers, and that's probably the most important component of technique. The glass ceiling that he's going to hit at some stage of his career is his lack of pace. That's why Ranger will sooner or later (I think sooner) move ahead of him.

He said 'eternal shame'. He was correct. I agree. I often feel that the chaos of the last five years has only been what we deserved.

This is the best summary of Butt that I've heard.

Very comfortable win against what seemed an inexperienced side. Zurab played well so I'm not that bothered about Colo's injury. He might bring some composure to a defence that still looks a bit jittery. Ranger's starting to use his strength and looks better with every game. And it makes such a difference having a player in the anchor position that can pass the ball. But I've got to have a blast at Enrique, who nearly gave two goals away out of nothing. He really does make some stupid decisions on the ball.

Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds. (Willie S.)

There is an underlying assumption with a lot of posts that if Keegan wins his case, then he must have been in the right. I don't think anyone with experience of court and tribunal processes would necessarily have that sort of faith. Decisions are often reached on rather strange criteria which don't have much to do with common sense. It's quite possible to successfully portray yourself as a victim when in practice the truth is more complicated. FWIW, I suspect that Keegan never liked the system that he signed up to, wanted to manage through a direct relationship with the owner, and his co-operation with Wise and co was very fraught and reluctant. At the end, someone may well have lost their rag with him and said look, it's this player or no-one. That may well be seen as foisting a player on him, and he might win his case on the back of that, but does that put him in the right?

I often come across this idea that because Ashley owns the club, he's to blame for everything that happens, as though he has control of every event. But you've broken new ground there. Ashley is now responsible even for the thoughts inside other people's heads.

The club was happy to continue to pay Robson, honouring his contract, until he got a new job elsewhere. That wasn't enough for him though, he wanted to be able to get another job (possibly for a rival) and carry on leeching supporter's money off us as well as getting paid for managing another club. So he dragged the club through an expensive court case. It was futile in end for him anyway, as noone wanted him after the out of control dressing room he left at SJP which even the best manager in the world would have found difficult to turn around, and ultimately led to our relegation last season. IMO if someone is sacked when under a contract, they're entitled to have that contract paid up in full. In Robson's case, that was only a year's money. For the club to demand that he didn't take any job during the duration of that year or forfeit part of the money was the most fantastic cheek, even if it was within the letter of the law. They showed no appreciation whatsoever for what Robson had done for us. That's why I was so sickened when Shepherd came out with all that public hand-wringing after Sir Bob's death.

He looks like a show-off who doesn't know when to release the ball.

Interesting to see Man U's youngsters. De Laet looks good to me, but I can't see Wellbeck or Gibson making the grade there.

I didn't see the game, but the team selection looked like a suicide note. You can only blood so many youngsters at once, and there didn't look to be enough experience in the midfield and defence to balance things out. It's unlikely that anyone is going to be able to make a mark as an individual if the whole team is a mess. The exception being Arsenal, of course.

That is one ropey looking defence. I just hope Peterborough are fielding their reserves as well.