tmonkey

Im personally of the belief that intense coaching can only improve your touch so much, ie, its all down to natural ability. For example, someone like Martins could be training every day for a year and his first touch wont ever be as good as someone like Kluivert who might not have kicked a ball for a year. Hence, why the youth setup in this country needs to be looked at. Selecting kids based on physique will just result in a whole batch of footballers who arent as technically proficient as the competition, since in most cases good technique just cant be taught to players who lack it naturally. I think Martins would fall into this category.

You really think he was "fantastic"? His crossing was as bad as it was when he was fully fit for us (scuffed with no accuracy), as was the dithering when he was in a good position. But theres no doubting that hes a player with natural ability and the consistency in that ability to complement it, far more so than NZogbia and Milner. Just have to hope that he gets his confidence back, and starts driving at defenders, attacking space, and starts shooting/crossing more like the Duff of old, since we really need someone like that at the moment.

I think hes a handy/decent forward, but nearly every game Big Sam has lookd to bring an attacker on, its always been done by pushing Smith back into midfield and taking a midfielder off. And in every case, Smith has been completely anonymous when this has happened, far more so than the midfielder hes replaced.

Why does Big Sam refuse to take Smith off, no matter how little hes doing? He was utterly invisible today except for barking at the referee/linesman, even more so (if thats possible) when pushed back into midfield. Its not an encouraging situation when a manager has untouchables in his team, less so when the player in question isnt exactly world class. Im sure other players arent going to be happy in private when they get taken off and Allardyce's favourite doesnt irrespective of performance.

6pm Barca vs Real Madrid. Cant wait, both teams are really good going forward, hopefully itll be played at a fast pace.

Because hes not a midfielder? Blaming everything on Martins is ridiculous. Hes far from perfect and it pisses me off how hes blessed with natural pace but doesnt know how to use it, but at least half the side were shit today. I want to know what is up with Nicky Butt. Hes meant to be an anchor midfielder protecting the defence, yet every time someone runs at the defence from midfield, hes nowhere to be seen. Where is the positional sense that hes meant to excel at? And not to mention his piss poor consistency when it comes to passing - sometimes his first time passing is quality, other times he does nothing but pass it straight to the opposition. And although Barton is a talented player, he was so fucking slow today it was unreal. Both mentally and physically. I hope this is just him taking time to get fully match fit, hes been back for a while now so one has to ask how long it takes for a player to get back into the groove. Rozehnal was the biggest culprit today. Poor in the air, panics under pressure, poor passing, weak and easily brushed aside - he never looked promising from the start, so theres nothing to suggest that hes a much better player who is merely going through a rough time. Cacapa made a few mistakes, but at least he looks a class act the rest of the time - the same just cant be said about Rozehnal.

We didn't play 433. Some people here are on drugs. I don't even know what system we played.. What was Smith's position for instance? Up front alongside Viduka until the 2nd half. And completely dominated by a bigger centreback.

Frustrating today. 3 good chances coming in at the back post completely missed, scuffed, etc, including one being an air kick at an absolute sitter. Really showed his lack of natural talent in his general play.

Derby will be saying the same though.

Me too. Although I should also point out that I had Inter v. Milan on the other television. That Italian pundit lady was hot.

We battered them all game We pegged them back, but that was their tactic. Ours was just to hoof it into the penalty box and get on the end of knock downs. Although possession and territory goes to us, they still fashioned the same number of chances as we did imo.

Why doesnt Big Sam take Alan Smith off? The guy struggled the entire game, and somehow managed to do even less when pushed back into midfield. Just take him off ffs instead of doing everything possible to accomodate him in the team.

Would be a great signing for Milner, hed thrive on those types of crosses.

Firstly, if what you say is true, then it still makes no difference with regards to the Keegan era. John Hall was the chairman and on paper is the man credited for bringing him to the club, so assuming youre right and that Keegan was suggested to Hall by his board members, it still doesnt negate the fact that Hall was in charge and made the final decision, or gave the green light. Keegan's success here was under the open and principled stewardship of Hall, to completely ignore that just to try to give credit to Shepherd is a tad strange. For all you know, had Fletcher and Hall Snr not been there, Keegan might not have lasted beyond his second season in the Premiership - you simply dont know how things might have been with Shepherd + Douglas Hall in the positions of John Hall and Fletcher/Shepherd. For example, compar the Andy Cole sale with that of Liverpool's inquiry into Alan Shearer - under Hall, Cole left because the chairman had faith in Keegan replacing him, whereas under Shepherd, the Shearer sale was instantly and unequivocally ruled out, despite the manager suggesting a replacement. Again, ill repeat - its impossible to know what things might have been like with Shepherd in John Hall's position. As for Gullitt and Dalglish, I was against both appointments at the time, however, ill agree with you that on paper they were decent appointments, managers with strong domestic CVs (although my beef with both was the lack of experience in Europe, which was our aim at the time as everyone knew the growing importance of being successful domestically as well as in Europe was becoming). But what you fail to do is to acknowledge the idiocy Shepherd displayed post Robson. Every set of fans in the country knew Souness was an utter joke, 99% of our supporters were sick to the stomach at the appointment, yet Shepherd thought it was wise to appoint the man, then give him £40mill to spend - even more alarming considering the club's debt levels. Now, you can talk however much you want about ambition, or not being a small club, but if the ENTIRE COUNTRY could see the disaster long before it happened, and yet the man in charge couldnt, what does it say about his intelligence, or footballing knowledge or common sense for him to then entrust this man with the club's immediate future by giving him all the funds to rebuild to the extent that we ended up in massive debt? Maybe the same lack of footballing knowledge and sense that saw this same chairman happy to splash out £17mill on an £8mill rated footballer who was a proven crock in this country, despite the club's high level of debt and the paper thin squad at the time. You keep mentioning 3 consecutive top 5's, however, and noone is denying Shepherd deserves praise for leading the club to what is a good achievement. However, lets not ignore the fact that that was after we went from 2nd twice in a row, which is a much greater achievement than 3x top 5, all the way down to mid table at an alarming rate. But for the sake of arguement, lets ignore that. So Shepherd has taken us to a top 5 position 3 times in a row, and its great of him to have done so. But what does he do from there? He starts undermining his manager, starts selling and buying behind his manager's back, stops releasing funds to his manager after the manager had taken us forward, then fires this same manager who he had earlier undermined early in a new season, then appoints an utter retard who was lower in the league at the time and with a history of being a prick and little success as a manager, to pick up the pieces. In short, all the good work Shepherd had done, that Sir Bobby had done, in order to achieve that "miraculous" 3 consecutive top 5's, all that good work was undone within a season or two, and Shepherd had masterminded yet another horrible slide from near the top all due to his own incompetence. As for your final comment, need I remind you that our competition at the time that Shepherd took over, ie Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea, have won numerous trophies without ever slipping into a mid table position during the past decade. We, on the other hand, slipped down to mid table, briefly went back up to a continental position, then slipped again, badly and permanently this time, which is why the Halls were desperate to sell - the damage had been done, the gambles had not worked, and the debt was no too big. Because other biggish clubs like Villa, Everton and Man City failed to get anywhere during that period, doesnt mean that Shepherd did a good job - it just shows that once a club is in the mid table rut without the resources to spend, then its hard to get out. The difference between those clubs and Newcastle with respect to Shepherd however, is that we were 2nd in the country when he took over, we had star players and good resources, we had good pulling power, and had things been managed well during Sir Bobby's tenure, that should have continued. Instead, everything was mismanaged and we end up getting bailed out by a billionairre. Finally, a note on your "football isnt your high street shop" arguement. I dont know what youre trying to argue. Newcastle United was a listed company on the stock exchange, a PLC, that means it must conform with stock exchange rules, relevant legislation (ie Companies Act 85/89), and of course, accounting starndards and generally accepted accounting principles. What type of business it is makes no difference - football clubs arent unique in the world of business, there are far more complex organisations out there, but essentially the business rules that govern it are the same, whether you like to think so or not - the only aspect where football and any sport may be slighlty different is in the valuation of its employers, ie athletes/players, and whether they should be valued as assets or not on the balance sheet (Chelsea the only club atm that do this). The similarities applies as much to dividends as to any other aspect of a football/sports club, and hence your arguement is a non-existent one - dividends to ordinary shareholders are not guaranteed, they are at the director's discretion, and there is no legal right nor obligation for dividends to be declared for ordinary shareholders (as opposed to prefference shareholders and interest on debentures/etc). Whatever difference you think exists between a normal retail business and a football club that justifies its directors to delcare dividends during periods of losses and increasing debt exists solely in your head - there is none.

I like to say mute point. Im hoping itll catch on one day, since thats how the English language evolves - usage, not definition. As for Shepherd not backing his managers at some points, I'll point to several examples: - Having no money available to spend when we qualified for the CL and our only transfer in was Bowyer on a free. Sir Bobby wanted us to sign Emerton and Kleberson, but we were apparantly broke. Yet we had several million spare for dividends. Thats not backing your manager - thats lining your pockets. Dividends are optional, ordinary shareholders are not guaranteed them and normally they are only declared when there have been profits made and after further investment costs have been allocated. As for Woodgate's signing, that was made in the previous season, and to my recollection, was made with the "bonus" income that came from qualifying for the 2nd group phase of the CL, which was reportedly worth £10m extra. I specifically remember that extra income being the reason for Woodgate's signing. The same applies for the Ambrose transfer - that was also the season before. - Refusing to sign the manager's targets because the chairman was setting money aside for his own big money signing. No money for Beattie or Miguel, but £22 million available for Rooney. - Pissing about when "attempting" to sign the manager's preferred targets, showing no faith in the manager. Sir Bobby wanted Carrick for £2mill, Shepherd thought its better to wait till D-day when he could be available for 500k. - Souness was not backed when trying to sign Anelka because Shepherd refused to meet Fenerbahce's asking price. Instead, we went for Owen after the Anelka deal had died, for double the asking price. Which is why Souness recently stated that transfers were completely out of his control, a strong hint at how Shepherd was signing his preferred targets by ruling out the managers' via derisory/low bids. Technically, Shepherd wasnt refusing to sign the manager's targets, nor was he forcing signings without the manager's approval - what he was doing was reducing the manager's shortlist with no real intention to sign those players, and giving the managers no choice but to acknowledge/accept the alternatives - the alternatives, of course, being the chairman's prefference. Souness spent all summer talking up a 4-3-3, all of his targets were geared to that system, and its the system we signed Luque for - yet strangely, we went for a forward and a right midfielder that would mean we'd be playing 4-4-2 for sure. As for the debt issue, of course its fair for Shepherd to deny his manager the funds if the money isnt there, but that wasnt the case. Shepherd denied his managers the funds necessary to land the players the manager wanted because Shepherd had it in his mind to use those funds to sign the players he thought would be better. If they money caused us to go further into debt, then it shouldnt have been spent to that degree - to gamble the club's debt position on one player, as the chairman intended, was far more risky than gambling it on 3-4 players. Regardless, Shepherd did not back his manager. And finally, just a comment on your posting style. Can you please refrain from constantly insulting the intelligence of anyone who has a different opinion than you every time you want to voice your own one? Anyone could say "A = B and if you dont agree, then youre stupid", but thankfully most people dont do that on here, apart from those who are insecure enough to feel the need to do so.

He needs to stay fit to do that, then he needs to improve considerably on last season's form, and the form he showed for Chelsea the season before. Asking alot of him. I'll be hoping he can do it, since I really want to see us playing 4-3-3 with better players, but he needs to show something this season otherwise he'll surely be shipped out, and deservedly so - hes been mediocre for us compared to his former standard.

1) And I guess you were sitting on the board were you, with full knowledge of the influece Shepherd had on the running of the club pre 97? A football club is run by a board of directors, with the board being led by a chairman. It could easily be the chairman's strategic plans, controls and actions that ultimately decide how the club is run and what decisions it makes. You have absolutely no proof, nor idea, as to what contribution Shepherd made to the running of the club before becomming chairman. Neither do I. Until then, the only assumption that can be made is that he was merely part of the board that was following the protocols, strategies and visions of John Hall, or that he was part of a board that contributed to all of those aspects of the club's governance, with John Hall as the lead decision maker. I certainly dont think that from 92-96, Shepherd and Douglas Hall were the ones solely running the club and making the decisions, which clearly was the case in the past half decade or so. 2) Weve been down this route before. You specifically highlight the positives of Shepherd's reign as chairman, and completely ignore everything else, particularly the overall picture. The overall picture is simple. Before Shepherd took over as chairman, we were title challengers with strong resources and pulling power. Granted, noone is arguing that we should have maintained that position at the very top, but considering the competition below us were Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, its certainly a damning indication of the incompetency of the previous board that we slipped from 2nd to lower mid table, flirting with relegation dogfights several times, whilst the competition have all maintained or improved their positions, and won several trophies en route. Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool had good sides at the time, and they've maintained that status throughout the past decade (Chelsea never looked like a lower mid table team even before Abramovich's money) - whereas on the pitch we have gone from have a good side to a woeful one, purely because of the decisions made by Shepherd. For you to argue that we havent gone backwards since 95/96/97 is just you talking bollocks, and you'll know it more than others seeing as you go to every home game. Anyone with half a brain who has seen the huge decline in the quality of the team, especially after Bobby Robson's dismissal, can testify to that. Dont get me wrong, im not a Shepherd hater, I still admire him for having the balls and ambition to go for someone like Rooney. However, im not going to ignore the terrible deicision making, idiotic comments in the press, failure to back his managers at the appropriate times, and woeful appointments, made by Shepherd. You have it in your head that we went backwards as part of a natural process of peaks and troughs for a football club, but im telling you we went backwards because of bad decisions by Shepherd, not because of anything else. 3) Erm, yes, they do - its different for every business and a matter of choice for the shareholders. You clearly know f*** all about business from that statement. Many large companies have directors who are accountable to the shareholders (mainly at AGMs or EGMs), directors who tend to have no or insignificant shares in the companies they are running. If they make bad decisions, you can be sure theyll be held accountable and voted off, but they still make decisions in running the business, and obviously for practical reasons wont be getting the shareholders' permission for every decision made, even many major ones. Shareholders appoint these directors in the first place, which is why they tend to appoint people who know what theyre doing, and then you have standards and practices which deal with the relationships between directors and shareholders, fiduciary duties, etc. Anyway, irrespective of the points youve made, you quite clearly arent going to accept that Shepherd's reign as chairman should be seperated from his term as merely a board member. But lets not pretend we know how the board was run, nor try to redefine established business practices just so that we can form an opinion that is pleasant to us. Put simply, youre making huge leaps and jumping to conclusions in a desperate bid to portray Shepherd as a major play behind the successful times from 92 to 96. And at the end of the day, its pretty much a mute point as to what Shepherd did pre 97. The man made a mockery of the club post Sir Bobby by his own idiotic decision making ("lets back Souness!!!", the laughing stock of the nation) and outright lies ("ill appoint a top manager this time!!! I definately wont get it wrong, I cant get it wrong" after the Souness debacle, then appointing the caretaker), on top of leaving the club with massive debts whilst filling his own pockets at the same time.

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later). When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era. No doubt you know that the club had the same "owners" all this time, therefore you'll agree that those people who think the way you describe are idiots. Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later). When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era. I'm sorry, but the major shareholders were the same from 1992 until 2007, and the chairman doesn't make make decisions on his own without the major shareholders. This has been explained in great detail before. You can ignore this to suit your opinion and I'm sure you will, but its the truth. My God. I dont know whether to laugh or cry. So lets get this straight. Because Shepherd was a director on the board, and a stakeholder in the club, you attribute all the success under Sir John Hall to Shepherd as well? Theres just no response to that, because its so idiotic and fundamentally flawed that its quite obvious that youre not interested in anything other than twisting everything possible in the favour of Shepherd. Lets be clear here. Shepherd was on the board from 92 to 96. John Hall was chairman at the time, the man who made the big decisions and lead the overall direction of the club. Whether the directors or board members vote on issues is irrelevent, its still the chairman who is the overall manager of the club. From 97 onwards, Shepherd assumed this role, and its from here that we started going backwards. Whether the rest of the board was still the same or not is also irrelevent, since the previous senior manager had left. But hey, lets ignore the clear and dinstinct differences in roles and the organisational structure of the management in order to back Shepherd.

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later). When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era.

Hes talented, a good finisher, but is neither strong nor quick. Type of forward who gets marked out of a game pretty easily, and who you dont notice unless a chance falls his way. Biggish gamble.

Cameron Jerome looked a pretty decent player against us, could be well suited to a 4-3-3 as he seems to have all the attributes.

He isnt s*** at all. We have some average players who play regularly and he has twice their ability. Equally Cole and Ljungberg were in a different league to anything we have in our side. Some players get on your tits but you can't go dismissing ability like that. Leave that for the real tat. Quite a few people have rubbished my post, so ill try to make things a bit clear. Of course Diouff isnt s*** per se. A truly s*** player is Ameobi. Its within the context that hes s***, ie for his reputation - hes not got great ability, hes just a solid player who plays the game in an experienced fashion, ie knows how to draw fouls. Its like calling Beckham s*** after hes had a major tournament for England. Noone is saying hes a sunday league player, nor that hes no better than anything we have, but for his reputation he plays s*** in the big games, hence hes s***. There needs to be a context when judging a player, ie a standard, and most of the time its implied, otherwise a statement like "Ameobi is s***" would be wrong unless you say "Ameobi is s*** for a Premiership footballer". Here, the implied standard was these player's own reputations. As for Cahill, Cole and Ljungberg, I think the statement was structured a tad incorrectly - I meant to say that theyre overrated players who tend to play for dives more then actually playing good football, as opposed to them being average players. Again, like Beckham, because im calling them overrated doesnt mean im saying theyre no better than what we have, or average in terms of the bigger picture. Ashley Cole especially is obviously far from an avearge player, in my books hes a good left back at the top levels, but hes still overrated for me (ie often called one of the best in the world) and often does nothing in the big games (when hes last time you remember him getting forward and doing anything, for club or country, or even putting in a top class display? Again, this is supposedly one of the best in the world). Hes meant to have good ability on the ball, he used to be a good player going forward with Arsenal, but the past few years hes resorted to playing for free kicks and diving to get himself out of trouble, and generally being a whinging t*** instead of using his abilities to be the good player that he should be. Just a note on Ljungberg, but for me was always an average player. Even when he was scoring 20+ during his one off purple patch, he looked to me like a player who was benefitting greatly from being surrounded by vastly superior players, as opposed to being a very good player in his own right. His personal ability level wasnt that great, he just happened to fit into a great team well, a team that used his attributes to the fullest. For me, that didnt hide the fact that most of the time he (similarly) did nothing constructive in games except for miss chances or getting the ball and then playing for a dive - Robert Pires in contrast was imo a top player, a very good one, in comparison to Ljungberg who was playing above his level and "covering his tracks" by using his experience/intelligence rather than ability (ie, playing the game like a fag). Hence why I think hes s*** in context to his reputation of being a very good player.

Side-splitting stuff once again. I can't decide if you're a wum or just thick. Stop being so negatively biased. Or is it positively biased? Or just plain old biased?

Cant see Allardyce spending £8mill on what is in truth a better version of Smith, having spent £6mill on Smith himself.

You have Anelka signing for us , doing well & then us selling him for a profit. Talk about jumping the gun I was replying to the questions over his commitment to us IF he were to sign, and a CL club came sniffing later on.