tmonkey

but, and i'm asking here as i didn't see the match, he didn't do anything damnable right? he played a decent match for a debut, yeah? Bramble when playing well will look better than most defenders because hes physically perfect for defending. An agile hippo.

For such a big man, he looked a tad lightweight in the air. Not dominating at all when you would think hed be, but also pretty easily shoved aside - although he managed to get freekicks whenever brushed aside However, hes probably had one full training session, and its his first game in a competitive league. Would be silly to try to assess him at this point in time.

Because Kuyt wanted to go to Pool, thats why we came to land Martins - obviously opinion as no doubt only Roeder and a few others truly knew if Martins was his first choice all along. It also needs to be said that a whole series of events took place that led to us getting Martins. Ie, the Italian scandal, which meant several top players went to other top clubs, which meant Inter getting Ibrahimovic, which meant Martins was suddenly unwanted. I also dont recall any other club being after Martins this summer, and imo that was down to the moderately high price, raw talent, but also the age concerns. How many other players had that surrounding them? Combination of things there that led us to him, one off things that arent likely to be repeated. I admit im being a bit harsh on the board/manager, especially Roeder, but im merely going by the recent big money failures that weve gone through as well as the debacles of the last 2 windows. We spent 50mill under Sounses with the current chairman in charge, and right now none of the big 8m+ signings we made have done been value for money. Weve signed a player we didnt need for 5mill who has long been off form and nothing like he used to be, and weve also signed several players who are nowhere near good enough to be playing - along with one who cant even get fit. I think theyve earned the seeds of doubt that they plant in the fans' mind.

Miles away IMO. Aye. Just cant see it. We need more players of Owen's, Nobby's, Dyer's and Emre's abilities as a minimum to reach that level, that needs to be the core level of players we have, with the Butt's and Milner's being on top of it. Kind of like an egg. http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:OXoU9pcgeXnA1M:http://www.incredibleinedibles.shoppingcartsplus.com/i/Breakfast/VC126710.jpg The yolk, the main part of the egg, should be players with solid ability on the ball, whilst the other players around it should be ones with abilities that the team needs (Butt defensive steel, Milner end product) but players who can be erratic or inconsistent in the basic parts of their game. Unfortunately, our yolk players are injury prone (Dyer, Emre, Owen), or getting on (Nobby) or long off the boil (Duff). I dont think weve ever had all of them playing together. The rest of the squad are all the white part of the egg, and were never going to get anywhere near top 4 with that calibre of player as wed be no better than the other mid table teams, some of whom are much more organised than us (eg Bolton).

Player power, combined with a big transfer fee, and hed be off. Ie, if someone like Barcelona or ManU came in for him, and he wanted out, Shephard might not sell. But if they came in for him, and he wanted out, AND they offered 25mill, Shephard would have to consider because its silly money, especially since on paper we wouldnt be the losers - getting rid of an unhappy player and making a fortune in the process. The problem I have is that I think the current lot would blow that money away, because its obvious that our scouting and recruitment methods are pretty shiite. Hence, itd be a massive blow to see Martins go because I seriously doubt well get anyone anywhere near as good. We were lucky with him - Roeder's first choice looked to have been Kuyt, who although a good forward in his own right, hasnt got anything like the ability or potential of Martins imo, and would be struggling for us as opposed to Martins excelling with nothing around him to work on. As stoli says, weve landed on a gem out of the blue, its easy to forget that this is Martins' first season. The lad is already our star outfield player imo, and hes got massive potential. Would be a big, big blow to lose him purely because of a few messy transfer windows.

...and the fact that he looks a class above the shower of shit hes playing with? These past two or three games, most of what was considered negative about him have dissappeared. The first touches have been good, the link up play intelligent, the passing and vision suprisingly creative, and the dribbling has at times been a joy to watch. Its only been a few games, so it still might be too early, but the way hes played over the past few games suggests hes now up to speed with the Premiership and that he has indeed turned the corner. All those areas of his game were weaknesses until recently, yet he was still considered good value for 10mill because of his pace, energy, work rate, strength, leap, and of course, shooting ability, and I think that those negatives, as well as the age concerns, must have been why we ended up with him, and not another CL club. Now, if all of these weaknesses have been ironed out, that means hes basically turning into a complete player, which he looks like being on the road to - wont the big CL clubs then view him differently? I think the boy is really coming on, and very soon, so will the big clubs. The major problem that I can see coming up is that we arent going to qualify for Europe, good reason for star players to want out, and even if we get 15-20 mill in for him, I dont trust the current board or manager to use that money well. Theyre more likely to blow it all as they are to find another Martins. Dont know if anyone else feels this or if its a kneejerk view.

Hope we make a move for Tevez after theyve gone down.

Looks a solid player, although a fair few defenders have done so for us before turning into utter shiite.

Said it a million times in reply to those who think hes shit because hes not taking on teams like ManU or Chelsea on his own or having 25 assists to his name - we have no presence, no passing, in central midfield when Emre's not playing. The rest of our central midfield options are good in their own right, but not one of them has the ability to dictate play like Emre does, nor can any of them maintain possession or spread the play for us like he does. Vital player, despite his faults, and has been one of our best players this season up until the Blackburn injury. I think were going to miss out big time if we dont try that Emre Butt partnership again, the only partnership since the peak of the Speed/Dyer one under Sir Bobby that truly looked like it clicked, with both players combining well and each compensating for what the other lacks. We definately need to sign someone, but there are far more important areas we need to worry about before spending 5-6 mill or more on another central midfielder.

Duff should get match fit in the reserves. He can play one half and Luque can play the other. He should, yes, but then again, because of Roeder's hatred of Luque, and his inability to plug the severe gaps in other areas of the squad, weve got noone else to fill in at left wing. Which means Duff had no choice but to be played. Like Luque, its a shame if the player is going to get stick for the manager's inability to use a player correctly.

Duff Nowt to say about him as its already been said - although the "hes not match fit" arguements are true, so he does need to be given some breathing space.

Sibierski needs to go, cant simply give him another contract because he did a job for a few months. Bramble should be made to sign a new contract now, then sold in the summer. Luque needs to go for obvious reasons. Everyone else needs to stay for another year whilst we concentrate on bringing in another forward, a centreback, and a left back.

Dyer is basically invisible in central midfield for the majority of a match. Hes great at driving forward from central midfield, but he only does that when the team are counter attacking. The rest of the time when hes not breaking, he plays a very simple, controlled game with simple passing. That would be fine if he was a powerhouse midfielder or anchorman, someone specialising in tackling or strength/aggression in that area of the pitch, but its just a waste of a central midfield spot if hes not. Better utilised on the wings or up front, but at the same time, hed be a good option in central midfield for specific away games where we will be looking to counter with pace through the middle. Probably against teams with slow central midfielders who arent strong at covering, although thats pretty rare to find in the Premiership now compared to several years ago.

If hes better than Bramble, he needs to start.

Yeah.

The playing style definately put a strain on the defence, but some of the games we dropped points in, away from home, the defence was just shiite. I think the stats reflect that fact that we were a top side overall, some games the opposition were lucky to get anywhere near our goal. It also needs to be said that we didnt have a top keeper. Just two average ones. There was a gulf in class and performance levels between the defences of better sides, and ours. For example, Arsenal had Seaman in goal, with defenders like Adams, Bould, Dixon, Winterburn etc, ManU had Schmeical with the likes of Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, etc. The difference between their defences, and ours, was that when under pressure, ours crumbled, but theirs held more often than not, and alot of the time was the reason why they won games. And the reason why we were so close at the end, despite the differences in the calibre of defences, is because our attack was better earlier on, and that 9 or 12 point gap we opened up when the team was at its best took advantage of ManU having a poor early campaign. When it came to the crunch, when ManU hit form, our defence let us down time and time again. I keep harping on about that horrible night at Ewood, but thats the best example I can remember of where our defence collapsed yet again away from home and cost us points we should have won. Hence, the reason why I believe we should have sorted out the defence first, and then found a replacement for Gillespie second. Its obviously opinions and fair enough if you think the defence was good, but would you honestly say that if Woodgate were put into the defence we had during the 95/96 season, we wouldnt have seen a major improvement? Thats what its about for me, why didnt we look to sign a player of that calibre, or near abouts that calibre (certainly plenty were available) when we had the ability and the finances to do so? Answer imo is because we bought Shearer, not because these players were unavailable or because we lacked the money or the pull. We put the signature of one player above everything else.

Milner is like the opposite of someone like Dyer atm. Poor general play, but lots of end product. Still frustrating, but glad hes playing for us.

Well, the main players that I remember: Centrebacks: Howey - Above average centreback, good when on form, but utterly injury prone. Not a leader at the back, and took time to gain form. Was set to be Adams' partner for England in Euro 96, but guess what - he got injured. Albert - Quality footballer for a defender, good sweeper, but very average centreback in a back four. Type of centreback who didnt make Bramble-esque howlers, but would leak you goals by not marking well enough. Peacock - Average centreback, limited player with limited ability. A lower mid table centreback. Fullbacks: Beresford - Average fullback, no real weaknesses. Barton - Good fullback. Watson - Decent cover. Although that list might not sound too bad, it needs to be remembered that as a defensive unit, we were pretty poor. At home, the problems werent that big because we were pegging teams back in their own half, but away from home our defence leaked like there was no tomorrow. If you look at any of the top defences in the Premiership today, all of them have one top centreback, who if theyre not playing, the defence struggles without. Chelsea's defence has been piss poor without Terry, ManU have consistently struggled when Rio is injured, whilst Hyppia and Toure are big misses the few times theyre out. Even when we had Woodgate, you could see the difference he made to the entire back line. Average players were made to look alot better, confidence was far higher, and the opposition would struggle to score against us - all because of one quality centreback. Jus one of these centrebacks can turn an average, or poor, defensive unit into a top one. Take away that defender, and even if you have all decent defenders in other positions or filling in, defences have often struggled. Consider that most of our defenders back in the 95/96 team were average, and there wasnt a leader to be seen in sight, then you can imagine why some of us were pissed off that we never dealt with that issue when we had the chance. There were plenty of away games in that season that our defence completely collapsed in, although I cant remember them specifically bar that sickening night against away to Blackburn where we probably lost the title (maybe Wimbledon, where we drew 3-3 when a competent defence wouldve seen a 3-0 win). We honestly had a huge amount of pull back then, and I think the only top defenders we couldnt have realistically landed were ones like Tony Adams or Maldini, the ones who wouldnt want to leave their boyhood clubs. Most other players we would have had a big shot at had we truly made a move for them, and there were so many good players around the globe. There was nothing holding us back from getting some true quality in this department, except for us using all the money elsewhere. With regards to Gillespie's injury, it was a massive blow that always was, and always will be, underrated. The first half of that season, Gillespie was on fire - extremely direct, fast, always looking to take his man on and with very good crossing. The team benefitted immensely, because on the other flank was Ginola, ripping teams to shreds because of his skill and crossing ability. The team therefore could go both ways, and that was our main system of play, a two flanked attack that had pace, skill and great crossing - from which Ferdinand benefitted the most. The rest of the time, Beardo was pulling strings in the middle, with Lee running from central midfield chipping in with goals. It was the most fluid team weve had since the Premiership began. Soon as Gillespie got injured, we had noone to replace him. Ruel Fox, a pacey right winger who was half decent and pretty good for a backup player, had already been sold, the other midfielders were all central ones (Clark, Batty, Lee) so the only thing we could do was play players out of position. Which meant Tino, a "flair" striker, coming in and "unbalancing" the side because he had to play down the right in midfield. Very little came from that flank for the rest of the season, so everything had to come down the left - which pretty quickly led to Ginola being a marked man with the team having noone alternative and no Gillespie to relieve him of the creative burden, and therefore Ferdinand's main supply line was instantly cut off - hence why Ginola and Ferdinand are so often called failures for that second half of the season. The team as a whole lost all of its fluidity, games became harder to win as a result. That injury had a massive effect on us. Its funny (and sad) that the situation repeated itself to an extent many years later, when Nobby was sold - Robert's game went down hill because the team went from a two flanked attack to relying heavily on one "flair" winger to create consistently. Prior to Nobby's sale, Robert was considered by everyone a good palyer for us, mainly because he was indeed a quality attacker when he did something, but if he wasnt doing anything Nobby was consistently playing well on the other flank, taking the pressure and all the eyes off of Robert - soon as Nobby went and the team lost its balance/fluidity, all the "lazy" or "doesnt track back" comlpaints started to surface. Same thing happened to Ginola. What needs to be noted also about the Gillespie injury is that when he returned, he was a shadow of the player he was, and became injury prone pretty quickly. Yet we never replaced him, we never bought anyone in who could play right wing - because we spent everything on Shearer. Which meant a whole season, and more, of having to play central midfielders or strikers out of position to cover for the lack of a right winger, or having to switch formation (dropping Ginola) in order to compensate for this deficiency. Again, a reason imo why we shouldnt have bought Shearer - the end result was not only a slide, but the exit of Ginola, who went on to be the best player in the country for Spurs. Regardless of the right wing problems, had we a good enough defence, wed have won that title, because we actually lost some key games because of bad defending.

My thoughts exactly. I'd happily have paid £2m or £3m for Upson and taken a 'chance' on his fitness but he'll never play 30 games a season for them. Smacks of desperation TBH. Thats exactly what West Ham are, desperate. If they didnt improve the defence, theyd be in big, big trouble.

Martins' general play and passing were top class today. Completely different to his normal performances. Big improvement imo, hope its lasting.

Ferdinand's form when he partnered Shearer never got anywhere near what it was the season before, before Gillespie's injury. And although both players scored heavily and the partnership "ticked", the team was never as fluid or as balanced as it was when we were playing 4-4-2 with wingers down both flanks. We were lucky to finish 2nd that season, doing so on the last day of the season (jumped 2 places) via goal difference iirc. It wasnt because of the partership per se, but when you dont have a right winger and your most creative and skillful player is a left winger who needs to play in a 4-4-2, its going to hurt the team overall - which is what happened. Im not debating whether or not Shearer gave us good performances for 15mill. Its about whether the club should have purchased him in the first place if its actual goal was to win trophies. Im arguing we shouldnt have, because to win trophies we only needed to sign some good defenders, and if we needed a striker, we could have landed other top forwards who werent going to cost us an arm and a leg to add to what was already the best attack in the country - ive used Stoichkov as an example, a top player who was desperate to sign for us and publicly stated this desire. In what way does that make me 12 or a madman. I cant see how its anything but a reasonable arguement. Its fair enough to disagree, of course its all about opinions and there isnt just one way to build a squad, but I cant for the life of me see what is so "ridiculous" or laughable about what im trying to argue.

Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things. You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form. Theres nowt else for me to contribute to in a thread where there are plenty of posts that do nothing except ridicule anyone with a different opinion. Its not arrogance, ego or me saying im 100% correct - ive not said any of that, and im not sure how youve got that from one line where im trying to cut myself off from debating this topic any further because id merely be repeating myself, and hence wasting time. What you also need to realise is that although I initially replied to you, I also have the habit of replying to other posts/posters within the same reply. I dont mind debating if youre going to bring up some actual points that can be debated, which youve done, I was more pissed off at the childish replies on here that noone can "debate" with since theyre just one line comments bearing no relevance and followed up with a smiley or two. Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldnt be arguing any different. IMO we lost the title for several reasons, but most of all because we lacked the defence to win it, that was the key difference between us and ManU. Games like Blackburn away when Shearer and that other Geordie lad, Fenton or something like that, bagged two sitters iirc, with horrible defending, is what cost us big time. Too many away games like that that season. Bring some good defenders in and wed have been a different team. I was hoping at the time wed move for someone like Southgate, who imo we could have landed at the time had we put a good bid in, or one of the many highly rated defenders from Euro 96, like Thuram who looked really good (and others who have turned out shiite but also looked good, cant really remember them now). Instead, we got noone for the defence. Why? Because we spent all our money on one forward for a world record fee. The defence was shiite for a side looking to win the title. Any team in the Premiership could score against us, and easily so, completely different to the likes of ManU. It was a lower mid table defence, the reason why the stats would probably show that defence to be in the near the top is because the rest of the team was very good, and at times sublime - St James' was a fortress, many a team spent most of the game pegged back in their own half Obviously there are always other factors into why we failed to move forward since 95/96, no doubt the new board put a chokehold on the finances, which was probably why Keegan walked - but thats not what is being discussed - its whether or not we were right to spend 15mill on one forward, when the squad could have done with several players and the defence particularly needed a top class recruit. For example, the notion that Asprilla caused the side to be unbalanced - imo it was Gillespie's injury that did that, not Tino's arrival. Like the defence, Gillespie's injury and the resulting lack of cover cost us the title, although imo not as much of a factor as the defence. We went from a fluid, two flanked team, to one with an out of position player doing nowt on the right, and Ginola being the only true winger getting marked out of the game - which is why in the second half of that season, the likes of Ginola and Ferdinand were shiite in comparison to the first half. We needed another winger, I remember it took ages for Gillespie to get fit, and when he returned he was poor, a shadow of what he was previously - like us needing a defensive recruit, did we buy a replacement right winger? No, we bought another striker with all the money we had, and as you suggest, probably more than we had. Thats the thing, we wont ever know. It could be either way, but it pisses me off that people say with such certainty "wed have gone down". Of course wed have gone down if we hadnt had Shearer AND noone to replace him, but then thats a silly notion to think that without Shearer wed have just sat around doing nothing. Shephard has never been that thick to think wed do well without a decent goalscorer. If we hadnt bought Shearer in the first place, or had sold him at some point during the time we were shiite, wed have replaced him like weve replaced him today. Maybe we got lucky with Martins, but the point is that there are plenty of good forwards out there, ones that we either dont know about or dont watch regularly because theyre not in this country and rarely on telly, and its just not on to say theres absolutely noone. Who knows. Maybe we wouldve been the ones who signed the promising Vieri from Juve (following summer after 96), and not Athletico, and wed have been laughing it up when hed have been banging it in for fun, or maybe wed have gone for someone like Yorke, or Heskey, or someone shit. Who knows. Shearer deserves praise for what he did, but again, its not about what he did. Its about what Newcastle United did at a point when they had enough money to spend to break the world transfer record and a team that was lost the title because of inadequacies in the defence and an injury that upset the balance of the team in midfield. IMO, they spent the money wrongly, and the fact that Shearer had to keep us in this league just 2-3 seasons after we lost the title suggests that it was the wrong thing to do.

Yes, he basically made a public "come get me" plea to Keegan in an interview with the BBC iirc. Stoichkov was a top, top player who had passed his peak but was still a very good player, had more all round ability than Shearer but was of course a different type of forward with Shearer being alot more predatory and entering the peak of his career. He (Stoichkov) had had a good Euro 96, iirc all Bulgaria's games were at Newcastle and he absolutely loved the city, which is mainly why he was desperate to sign for us. Of course its not possible to say for certain what would have happened had we got someone like Stoichkov, or anyone else. I personally think hed have been as big a success as Zola, similar calibre forwards, because he had the ability to punish Premiership defences and with our midfield and the likes of Ferdinand, Beardo, Tino etc around him, hed have been a quality addition in my eyes, especially considering how open the Premiership was back then. Thats not the point though, whether Stoichkov wouldve been a success or not is iirelevant, the point was that we had money to spend on a side that only needed a strong defence to win trophies and establish itself as a top side, and if we needed cover for Ferdinand we could have gotten top class forwards for decent amounts and spent the bulk of that money on defenders and/or keepers. I also think that if we did indeed sign Shearer to prevent ManU getting him, it was just a pathetic show of throwing the towel in. No matter what side the competitor builds, success will always come if you have a good team with solidity and ability in every department. Real Madrid were meant to be unstoppable when they signed Zidane on top of Figo, and then Ronaldo. Of course a team like that will remain in and around the trophies, but good enough teams will regularly challenge them, and depending on how the season goes, will sometimes win or sometimes lose out. Again, pathetic to just throw the towel in and gamble in such a big way just to prevent a top player who we didnt truly need go to our rivals. All im arguing is that we should have spent the money in a way that befitted the team we had so that we could win trophies. Im not trying to deny that it was great for a local lad to come home, for him to lead the club to some good seasons, and to score heavily for us during his time here. What im looking at is what the right thing to do at that point in time was with regards to the club I support winning trophies and nailing its position down for many years to come as one of the realistic title challengers - and imo, it was just a bad decision to gamble all our money on one forward. I think ive made my points clearly, so will jump out of this "debate" because theres nowt else to say that hasnt already been said.

And your reason for saying all this is...? Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball. On top of this, I think the "Ferdinand became injury prone" arguements are purely ones made in hindsight - he scored more goals than Shearer the season they played together iirc, at the time we signed Shearer these problems hadnt surfaced at all. Easy to look back now and say "yeah, Ferdinand's career was nearing an end", but that wasnt the case when we splashed out a world record 15mill - we signed Shearer irrespective of Ferdinand. To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward? Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

Up until Shearer's retirement, we apparently would not be able to replace him with anyone good. Plenty of "we cant get rid of Shearer, who are we going to replace him with??". Right now, weve got a replacement who has the potential to be one of the best forwards in the league. There are, and always have been, alot of good players out there. Ive never bought into this "where would we be without XYZ??". Wed have signed someone who would have scored us goals, and with the right planning, wed have two or three players to do that. Weve proved in the past we could do that - some of our fans couldnt look beyond Andy Cole when we had him, yet we replaced him with a better forward. Same goes for the "Ferdinand was aging and getting injury prone" arguements. If we had sorted out the defence that summer instead of buying Shearer, we could have concentrated on buying a forward later, or looked for a cheaper alternative with alot of class to boot. I remember well Stoichkov being desperate to sign for us in the same summer we got Shearer, a bloody great stiker still with alot to offer and had just had a good Euro 96 in a shiite side - he went for a low fee iirc - were we interested in a forward arguably as fine as Shearer? No, we were looking at the bigger fish. There were alot of possibilities and alternatives, its rubbish to say we had noone else we could get. If we had got the defence sorted, wed have secured our position as a top, top side, because regardless of whether Ferdinand was getting more injured or not, we still have an excellent attack with goals from all areas, Ginola, Beardo, Rob Lee, Tino, and on top of this the attacking play as a unit was top class, its not just about the individuals - a good right winger was all that was needed for the attack itself, a good striker could have waited a year. Instead, we gambled everything on one player, and yes hes done well for us, but we still lost out overall because of that signing.