TRon

Would agree with that although Gutierrez has disappointed even in producing the final pass, never mind the crosses. Again though, his movement alone gives us something different and for all we have had decent results without him, we've played poor football in a lot of games.

Nonsense - Hamman hated Gullit ; it was because they didn't get on and that the Board was, to quote Hamman, 'Average, therefore the club was average', that Hamman left. Also, people should remember that Dalglish was NOT given the financial free reign that Keegan had in his first Premiership years ; the club became a PLC and had to stick to a budget for team strengthening - that was the reason Keegan quit, he knew he wouldn't be able to spend money in the same way as he had before. Don't forget that NUFC were lying 6th in the Prem when KK went, Dalglish managed to get the side to finish second against all the odds. His bust up with the Board was what did for him, nothing else. He was unlucky with injuries, esp to Shearer because Tomasson had looked great alongside Al in the pre-season games - the injury ruined what could have been a great career for JDT because he was obliged to play CF and he was NEVER that. That he was a good player was proven at Milan later.... Dalglish didn't need to spend big money because he had been left a very good squad by Keegan so major investment wasn't really needed. This was borne out by Dalglish acheiving 2nd place with Keegans players. His results started to go downhill the longer time he had to shape the squad in his way. I'm pretty sure the same happened at Liverpool after he took over from Paisely, i.e. short term success followed by diminishing returns. the squad he inherited was a good one but needed updating with albert and ferdinand increasingly out injured. ginola and gillespie looking shadows of there former selves for months. ginola showing signs of wanting to be away. when he left liverpool they were the current league champs and had won 3 titles in his 5 yeras according to wiki. Liverpool were still winning under Dalglish, but then Souness probably won stuff as well but to me there was a definite hint of decline setting in at the end of Dalgish's time there. If Dalglish needed to rebuild Keegan's squad (which had just finished runners up) then he didn't do a great job of replacing the players he sold. Gary Speed on the left wing was no replacement for Ginola, Des Hamilton on the right was no replacement for Gillhespie. Obviously JDT wasn't exactly a successful replacement for Sir Les either as things turned out. the whole thing spins round what you thought the plan was. in my mind JDT was to play at the front of a diamond. he was never meant to play up front. anyone feel a sense of deja vu ? If JDT was never meant to play up front, then Dalglish should have bought someone else to play up front. The first team that we put out for most of that season was toothless and poorly balanced, and for that Dalglish has to take a lot of the blame. JDT was bought at a time when both shearer and asprilla were fit. he could probably have played alongside one of them but for a large part of the season both were out. Does that mean we only had two front line strikers in the squad? I can remember Andreas Andersson being particularly shit, was he around during that period?

I've had that feeling all season but it hasn't happened yet, and we should be able to put out a better side tonight than we have in some games this season. Ooo..er. I'm tempting fate now aren't I?

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother. To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have fucked Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s? I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it. Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you. Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan. An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it. Ok, they're all fair points, but my original question still stands - who are those, in your time as a Newcastle fan, you have really loved? I can see how it gets annoying with the 'keegan can do no wrong' argument (although i think all but the most blinkered accept this isn't the case), but aren't you at risk of going too far the other way, into the realms of a bit of a misery guts? For anyone between the ages of 20 - 45 I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say the time Keegan was at Newcastle as manager (first time) was their best time as a toon fan. Regardless of title losses, mental breakdowns, walk outs, etc. they were our best times as Newcastle fans. He is the man most responsible for those great times. It's irrelevant whether someone else could have done better with the resources he had at the time, they didn't as they weren't here and we didn't want anyone else here. Yes, recent happenings have tarnished that, but that doesn't stop the fact that what he did was something pretty spectacular. So by all means, hate him for what he's done now (i certainly don't, but that's a different argument) but please don't try and take away from what he did to this club in the early / mid nineties. It was a special time in a lot of people's lives because of what he did. That's not sentimentality from a personal perspective, it's a fact. Very well said.

Nonsense - Hamman hated Gullit ; it was because they didn't get on and that the Board was, to quote Hamman, 'Average, therefore the club was average', that Hamman left. Also, people should remember that Dalglish was NOT given the financial free reign that Keegan had in his first Premiership years ; the club became a PLC and had to stick to a budget for team strengthening - that was the reason Keegan quit, he knew he wouldn't be able to spend money in the same way as he had before. Don't forget that NUFC were lying 6th in the Prem when KK went, Dalglish managed to get the side to finish second against all the odds. His bust up with the Board was what did for him, nothing else. He was unlucky with injuries, esp to Shearer because Tomasson had looked great alongside Al in the pre-season games - the injury ruined what could have been a great career for JDT because he was obliged to play CF and he was NEVER that. That he was a good player was proven at Milan later.... Dalglish didn't need to spend big money because he had been left a very good squad by Keegan so major investment wasn't really needed. This was borne out by Dalglish acheiving 2nd place with Keegans players. His results started to go downhill the longer time he had to shape the squad in his way. I'm pretty sure the same happened at Liverpool after he took over from Paisely, i.e. short term success followed by diminishing returns. the squad he inherited was a good one but needed updating with albert and ferdinand increasingly out injured. ginola and gillespie looking shadows of there former selves for months. ginola showing signs of wanting to be away. when he left liverpool they were the current league champs and had won 3 titles in his 5 yeras according to wiki. Liverpool were still winning under Dalglish, but then Souness probably won stuff as well but to me there was a definite hint of decline setting in at the end of Dalgish's time there. If Dalglish needed to rebuild Keegan's squad (which had just finished runners up) then he didn't do a great job of replacing the players he sold. Gary Speed on the left wing was no replacement for Ginola, Des Hamilton on the right was no replacement for Gillhespie. Obviously JDT wasn't exactly a successful replacement for Sir Les either as things turned out. the whole thing spins round what you thought the plan was. in my mind JDT was to play at the front of a diamond. he was never meant to play up front. anyone feel a sense of deja vu ? If JDT was never meant to play up front, then Dalglish should have bought someone else to play up front. The first team that we put out for most of that season was toothless and poorly balanced, and for that Dalglish has to take a lot of the blame.

...and we have a winner. He is infuriating but right now we don't have anyone better. The only other option is to play with wing backs and just use central midfielders across the middle, and we don't want to be limited to just that.

Nonsense - Hamman hated Gullit ; it was because they didn't get on and that the Board was, to quote Hamman, 'Average, therefore the club was average', that Hamman left. Also, people should remember that Dalglish was NOT given the financial free reign that Keegan had in his first Premiership years ; the club became a PLC and had to stick to a budget for team strengthening - that was the reason Keegan quit, he knew he wouldn't be able to spend money in the same way as he had before. Don't forget that NUFC were lying 6th in the Prem when KK went, Dalglish managed to get the side to finish second against all the odds. His bust up with the Board was what did for him, nothing else. He was unlucky with injuries, esp to Shearer because Tomasson had looked great alongside Al in the pre-season games - the injury ruined what could have been a great career for JDT because he was obliged to play CF and he was NEVER that. That he was a good player was proven at Milan later.... Dalglish didn't need to spend big money because he had been left a very good squad by Keegan so major investment wasn't really needed. This was borne out by Dalglish acheiving 2nd place with Keegans players. His results started to go downhill the longer time he had to shape the squad in his way. I'm pretty sure the same happened at Liverpool after he took over from Paisely, i.e. short term success followed by diminishing returns. the squad he inherited was a good one but needed updating with albert and ferdinand increasingly out injured. ginola and gillespie looking shadows of there former selves for months. ginola showing signs of wanting to be away. when he left liverpool they were the current league champs and had won 3 titles in his 5 yeras according to wiki. Liverpool were still winning under Dalglish, but then Souness probably won stuff as well but to me there was a definite hint of decline setting in at the end of Dalgish's time there. If Dalglish needed to rebuild Keegan's squad (which had just finished runners up) then he didn't do a great job of replacing the players he sold. Gary Speed on the left wing was no replacement for Ginola, Des Hamilton on the right was no replacement for Gillhespie. Obviously JDT wasn't exactly a successful replacement for Sir Les either as things turned out.

Do you think we will go one better than Keegans side and remarkably win this league then? Give me a decade or so then I'm sure I can come up with a quote worthy to go in LLO's sig.

Nonsense - Hamman hated Gullit ; it was because they didn't get on and that the Board was, to quote Hamman, 'Average, therefore the club was average', that Hamman left. Also, people should remember that Dalglish was NOT given the financial free reign that Keegan had in his first Premiership years ; the club became a PLC and had to stick to a budget for team strengthening - that was the reason Keegan quit, he knew he wouldn't be able to spend money in the same way as he had before. Don't forget that NUFC were lying 6th in the Prem when KK went, Dalglish managed to get the side to finish second against all the odds. His bust up with the Board was what did for him, nothing else. He was unlucky with injuries, esp to Shearer because Tomasson had looked great alongside Al in the pre-season games - the injury ruined what could have been a great career for JDT because he was obliged to play CF and he was NEVER that. That he was a good player was proven at Milan later.... Dalglish didn't need to spend big money because he had been left a very good squad by Keegan so major investment wasn't really needed. This was borne out by Dalglish acheiving 2nd place with Keegans players. His results started to go downhill the longer time he had to shape the squad in his way. I'm pretty sure the same happened at Liverpool after he took over from Paisely, i.e. short term success followed by diminishing returns.

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. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ? It doesn't fit into his world view so it has to be ignored. Others have bad luck with Keegan it is lack of ability. Instead of judging the actual achievements under the circumstances and in this kind of style looking for the flaws is a bit simplistic and unfair if you ask me, espercially when persisting on those stupid myths of the 12 point lead and the poor defensive record. I am not sure or rather seriously doubt that any other manager would have been able to achieve the same with Newcastle in these years. A more pertinent question is why Ferguson and Hitzfeld have won so many major trophies and Keegan hasn't won any. I'd say that was more than luck. Hitzfeld needed a couple of years and an amount of funds that nearly bancrupted a club that is still suffering from this more than 10 years later... I am not saying that Keegan is a better manager than the likes of Ferguson, Hitzfeld or Wenger. But he did a damn good piece of work during his stint in the 90s that even without winning a trophy was a success in itself that wouldn't have been achieved by many others - if at all. Devaluing this is ignorance at best. There was a general feeling around the country that Newcastle had gone as far as they could under Keegan when he left. Whether that was true or not we can only speculate, but it's too easy to take for granted just what was achieved at the time. Keegan might not have been able to improve on what he built but the fact that we haven't been able to get close to those standards since shouldn't be ignored either.

It did look as though the three relegated teams were going to run away with this division but our rivals have had a bad week and we could open up a canny gap tonight. It seems that while the Championship teams are all fairly mediocre, there's not that much difference between those 6th from top to those 6th from bottom. All of them can make life difficult for better teams but we seem to have the extra quality to finish teams off. We are going to have the odd Blackpool result but I think we'll win more than the rest and that will make the difference.

I'm pretty sure if Ashley is still in charge next season that the priority will be just to stay in the premier and stabilise the finances, there won't be any massive overhaul of the squad or investment in new players unless it is self-financing. FWIW, I don't think we will get relegated, there are enough poor teams in the premier for us to survive. Really we should never have got relegated last season but the turmoil after Keegan left and Ashley's disastrous handling of the situation put paid to our chances. We desperately need new owners.

this If by soon you mean in three months time you might have a point since that's how long he's rumoured to be out for.

...and that's the Sunderland players.

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.

Gary Speed was definitely wasted on the left, he looked like he absolutely hated playing there.

what a great advert for the north east, invite the world to a public event in two of the regions cesspits. Marvellous idea.

I actually dared to contemplate a Buttless mdfield until I saw that line up and realised that is what Hughton will go for. Jonas returning from injury means Captain Butt will keep the armband while the argie warms the bench.

We could put out potentially our most balanced side of the season if we go with two forwards.

Plus Guthrie is back so he can play right wing with Jonas on the left, Nolan and Smith in the middle. Sorted.

That bit's encouraging. If it was clear that the sale isn't affected by the tribunal finding it will give everyone some hope.

Has Caulkin been banned from St James yet? He's laid into fat mike on a regular basis.

When does his contract end? 60k a week for a few games a season is taking the piss.

If Barton wasn't constantly injured/suspended/in jail etc then we wouldn't have Butt getting picked every week in the first place. Barton has been an expesive liability for two years and now it's set to continue. Big surprise.

The fact the opposition are a lot more shit, and therefore easier to tackle and less likely to be fouled, has played a major factor mind. Still don't think Smith is the answer when we go back up. For this season though, ideal. He's not the answer at a higher level but this season has just underlined that he should have been playing in Butt's position much earlier if we arent' going to sign a better player. He gets the ball and passes it short and on the deck which is all you want from a holding midfielder. None of the 40 yard hollywood nonsense that Butt keeps attempting when he isn't up to it.