TRon

But wasn't one of the reasons Keegan quit, supposedly because they tried to sell Owen at the end of the last transfer window? Ashley's still in charge, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he tried to cash in on whatever he can before the sale of the club.... At the time I doubt anyone thought Keegan would have walked and we'd be fighting relegation come Christmas. I doubt he'll be sold in January because it doesn't suit him and the position we are in, it doesn't suit us either.

That's because I'd rather have Zaki and pay what it takes to get him. be interesting to see if zaki is a name anyone will remember this time next year. Or if Newcastle would be on Zaki's radar when it comes to chosing a club in June. For that matter, I doubt Newcastle will be on Heskey's radar when he makes his next move. I think his recent rise has been very overrated, he's not gonna get the cream of the crop after him so his options arent limitless. O'Neill has said he's keen on taking him to Villa so unless he's lying, that's the end of that I reckon.

That's because I'd rather have Zaki and pay what it takes to get him. be interesting to see if zaki is a name anyone will remember this time next year. Or if Newcastle would be on Zaki's radar when it comes to chosing a club in June. For that matter, I doubt Newcastle will be on Heskey's radar when he makes his next move.

That's because I'd rather have Zaki and pay what it takes to get him.

Have to say I agree. While the poem is funny, if the NUSC is serious about wanting dialogue with Ashley, I hardly see how a lot of the stuff up there helps. On the other hand, if the NUSC is an anti-Ashley movement with no intent to work with the current set up then they can do what they want. It just depends on what they want to portray as their stance, at the moment it's very much looking like it's still "Ashley Out" at all costs.

Would help a lot imo as well. You would think that most clubs at this level do this already but with us it's all too easy to believe we don't. I always get the feeling that youngsters are considered a last resort for first team action at Newcastle. For me the sensible thing would be to promote them to the bench when we have injuries in a specific area in the team like - let's say from the top of my head - central midfield.

To be honest, I was just saying what I think when asked the question in the thread header. Sorry, like. Apologies if that is genuinely the case, but it's the impression I get from you the majority of the time in here, whereas in Gen Chat you make fantastic posts like the one about Morocco earlier on. Apology accepted. My posts on Bellamy here may sound a bit sarcastic, because they are, but I am trying to make a point too, and it's a point that I often try to make in a roundabout way -- that we spend far too much time living in the past and mooning around wishfully over long-departed players and managers. Bellamy is history. He should stay that way. The idea is to learn from history. Were you against Peter Beardsley coming back, by the way ? No, that worked out good, but there were different factors at play -- the existing relationship between him and Keegan and how that overlapping history translated into an extremely effective communication between bench and pitch regarding a particular style of play, which was to some extent influenced by both players' experience at Liverpool. Even if Bellamy a) wasn't so plagued by injury that he's been sleeping in a high-altitude tent, b) wasn't currently in very poor goal-scoring form and b) didn't already have a soured and divisive relationship to the club, I'd also doubt whether Joe "Crazy Gang" Kinnear was the right manager to get the best out of him. it might not have worked out. And Bellamy might work out. You can't tell. This isn't about hindsight, its about making a decision. What do you think ? A 29 year old footballer isn't old. The fact is, we need strengthening, and we have to get the best players possible. If a younger player isn't available who is better and we could get him, why would you say no ? I think it's clear I think he's not a player we need at the moment. There are four specific reasons why in the post you quote. A fifth would be that his position is not one of those that needs strengthening as a priority right now. Why would he come here at the moment anyway? I suppose with Owen leaving soon you could make an argument that we will need to bolster the striker pool. I think I'd rather use the £5m to pay Owen what he wants to stay though although he probably still wouldn't if a half decent club gives him an offer.

No.

I think Owen is going to wait to see what other clubs come in before signing any new deal, probably till the summer. So it's a bit pointless whingeing the club should have tied this all up by now, at least post-Keegan. Even with Keegan I'm not sure Owen would have committed unless we were really flying.

I would just leave him out wide which would give us the same starting line up as against Stoke which did ok until Guthrie went off. Added to that, Jonas offers good protection down the flanks when he's out wide. That was another sucker punch when JK's brain imploded with his barmy substitutions, we not only lost Beye at right back, we lost the guy in front of him as well.

The asking price is £10m at the moment. I don't think that's so great but I'm sure Wigan would negotiate...with Villa.

Beyond some base physical characteristics and occupation there is absolutely nothing similar about Keane, Smith and Xisco. edit: Not that Keane was worth £20m, but he was worth a damn sight more than 6m. There game is very similiar imo. Bellamy and Keane are both unselfish can spot a pass, similar kind of workrate. Alot of their work goes unnoticed. Fair comparison i think. Bellamy is quicker, Keane is a better finisher. It would be a Viduka signing all over again, with everyone soon getting pissed off that we were paying him to miss games through injury. His fitness record is terrible and he's sleeping in high altitude tents in a last gasp bid to save his career in his own words. Move on guys.

Before that we just need a midfielder on the bench. If all our other midfielders are injured then...here's a novel idea...why not put a promising 18 yeare old midfielder on the bench just in case we lose one of our midfileders? It's a radical suggestion I know and so risky. ooooh...Lua Lua might die of fright if he had to play 20 mins as a sub....oh lordy lordy anything but that...

Its the sad state of football where I wouldn't say £60k a week for a dangerous striker as being high It's not for one who's playing week in week out. How many games has Bellamy played this season?

He's had injury problems throughout his career, before he came to us, while he was here, and since he's left. For that reason only, I have to reluctantly say no.

his threat is often outweighed by his giving the ball away too easily and poor positioning meaning when we get the ball out it comes straight back. True, but Martins isn't exactly the only player guilty of giving the ball away too easily. We have players in far more volatile positions who give it away just as often if not more often. Players like Viduka only offer a threat when the ball is in the box, which first requires us to be dominating the midfield and actually getting the ball into the box first. As our midfielders aren't good enough to do that, more often than not, we have to rely on the threat of a ball in-behind (or over the top of) the defence instead - there's only Martins in our squad who can really capitalize on that. Opposing managers can blatantly see how limited we are when the game is squeezed, so as soon as that threat in-behind is removed, they literally push their defenders right up into the center of the pitch and laugh as our midfielders shit themselves at the first sign of pressure. This. I think it's worth pointing this out. The amount of stick both Martins and N'Zogbia get for losing the ball is funny when you consider we can't generally get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other without passing to the opposition. Generally those two lose the ball because they are at least trying to go forward with it, if we had enough movement across the pitch I'm sure passing woulkd be a lot easier for attacking players.

Not 100%, but Fat Joe said this today: "But looking ahead to Sunday we'll probably have Butt and Guthrie back and maybe, just maybe, Duff as well." They're back in training and off PhysioRoom.com as well. If he had any sense he'd play the same team that started last week then bring Butt on to replace Geremi once he started to run out of gas. This might be a bit complicated for Kinnear though, so I'm pinning my hopes on Tony Adams making even worse decisions on the day. Clutching at straws but we have to live in hope.

Based on what? Common sense. It's infinitely more likely that he's not than he is. Common sense but you've not seen him play? Wayne Rooney was 16 when he scored for Everton against Arsenal - at the end of the day, if Lua Lua is going to be good enough, the only way he'll get there is by playing football, and I'm not talking reserve or U18 stuff. It's Catch 22 but at the end of the day kids don't develop sat on their arse or playing against Whitley Bay in the NSC. Somewhat unlikely he'll be the next Rooney but he should be getting game time against teams like Stoke at 2-0 up with no other midfield options - if in five years he's not improved, fair enough, but when the alternative is shuffling everyone else out of position and hoying two points down the drain, I'll take my chances tbh. I think you'll agree that Rooney is literally a one in a million case. And believe me, if we actually had a Rooney, we'd know. I agree, he should be getting game time against teams like Stoke at 2-0 up. What I don't agree with is the extremists who think he should get a starting place just because Butt and Duff are shit. There's no way he's ready for that and it would just torpedo his confidence. The thread wasn't about throwing kids into the first team picture because it feels exciting. We had a bench against Stoke which didn't contain one single midfielder, despite the fact we have three first team central midfielders out injured before Guthrie limped off. Instead of giving one of our more promising young midfielders a place on the bench...I repeat - just a place on the fucking bench - we ended up playing Beye on the right wing and throwing away a crucial 2 points. I find that sort of bone-headed management unforgiveable tbh. Straight out of the Graeme Souness school of decision making.

Kaz on the right, Jonas on the left. Or in the middle with Butt or Guthrie, depending on who's fit. Toss up between a place for him or Zog, id probably go for Zog. Cant have him in the middle, will get dominated very very easily if you ask me. If he's not a better midfielder than Habib Beye then he shouldn't be at the club.

On the bench against Stoke would have been an idea.

BTW Joe Lua Lua's a midfielder. You might want to consider him for the bench on Sunday in case (shock horror!) one of our midfielders gets injured

Virtually identical until you really look at them. Martins has had 27 shots and score 5 goals, however owen has had only 15 shots yet scored 6 goals effectively making him twice the finisher Oba is and in a side struggling to create chances that's critical. Maybe that's why we accomodate him when we can? I'm also curious why you think it's "patently unfair" to criticise Martins for a lack of footballing intelligence when, IMO, that's the one aspect of his game that's indefensable. As Goalfather has said, comparing shooting stats like that is not really fair as Martins plays deeper and a lot of his shots are from further away or are manufactured by himself so can be from difficult angles. Owen's shots are usually close range and require someone feeding him a decent cross or pass, which does highlight the fact that Owen is the more natural goal poacher.

Everton can be horrendous to watch at times. I think I should like them because they have players I like (Arteta, Pienaar, Osman) and three Nigeria internationals (would have had another if not for work permit nonsense too), but your style of play is incredibly bad sometimes. I have never really liked Everton's style of football but it's effective and makes the best use of the players they've got. I'd much rather be like that than try to play football with substandard players or do what Allardyce did and try and impose the long ball game on players who were bought to play passing football. The point regarding Butt is, yes he is a decent squad player but IMO it's better to get rid altogether. Firstly, because he is a 'name' he will never be treated as a squad player and he will always be preferred to younger options by every incoming manager like JFK. Secondly, he won't accept being on the bench in any case so it's a non-starter. If we are going to offer him a new contract it should be a crap offer which will reflect the fact he is seen as a squad player only, or better still let him leave, and buy a quality young centre midfielder.

[bUMPED] Just bumping this in light of the talk of Butt getting a new contract: I know we were rubbish in the 2nd half against Stoke, but the first half gave us a glimpse of what a midfield engine with newer parts could look like. Zog, Guthrie, Geremi and Jonas were sublime for 45 minutes and we actually looked like a team that could pass, move and create. Put Barton in there in Geremi's place and you might have had a team with the legs to go 90 mins. It's just frustrating that just when we get to see what a future without Butt and Duff in the midfield could look like, Guthrie's injury has put a block on it.

I think Ramos might do ok. Different culture different response from the players. The players were great when Ramos arrived but they were sick by the time he left. Exactly the same squad are getting much better results now, and I think it's because the players understand the English game with Redknapp and probably got a bit confused under Ramos.