Parky

Van Poncey?

Are we talking about the same club that is 3rd bottom?

I wonder if anyone can knock up a list of Wenga failures.

But is it good for the game? It's good for his employers! Nothing to stop any other manager from finding these young players and signing them before Wenger gets there first. You're missing the point. Oh I get the point! It's not good for the game in general for a clutch of young talent to be at a few clubs. My point is that Arsenal are benefitting from appointing an excellent manager who has established a fantasyic scouting network. They're reaping the benefits of having a good manager. The talent is out there, Wenger is finding it. We know what Arsenal are doing. What is your opinion regarding the point in question? I thought the point of the article was to criticise Arsenal's youth policy? It clearly isn't. It is only an example an indicator of wider issues. Most big Euro clubs do the same as Arsenal. I think the Platini has picked out Wenger as they are mates. Would you like to see some changes in the rules regarding young players?

I'd say yes. It's unrealistic at such a young age ie 15/16 to have to compete with the best players from around the globe.

But is it good for the game? It's good for his employers! Nothing to stop any other manager from finding these young players and signing them before Wenger gets there first. You're missing the point. Oh I get the point! It's not good for the game in general for a clutch of young talent to be at a few clubs. My point is that Arsenal are benefitting from appointing an excellent manager who has established a fantasyic scouting network. They're reaping the benefits of having a good manager. The talent is out there, Wenger is finding it. We know what Arsenal are doing. What is your opinion regarding the point in question?

But is it good for the game? It's good for his employers! Nothing to stop any other manager from finding these young players and signing them before Wenger gets there first. You're missing the point.

But is it good for the game?

Platini hits out at Wenger for teenage buys Daniel Taylor Wednesday October 31, 2007 The Guardian Arsène Wenger's policy of recruiting teenagers at Arsenal has been strongly criticised by Uefa's president, Michel Platini. Wenger has a reputation as one of Europe's foremost talent spotters, with Cesc Fábregas, Theo Walcott and Fran Mérida, a highly rated teenager signed from Barcelona, among the youngsters he has brought to the club, but Platini disapproves of his compatriot's approach in the transfer market. "I do not like the system of Arsène Wenger," the former France international said. "In France, Italy and Spain it is easy to buy with money the best players at 14, 15 or 16. I don't like that. If the best clubs buy the best 15 or 16 players, [then it] is finished for all the clubs in Europe. If my son is playing at Millwall and at 16 Manchester [united] come in for this player, then when will Millwall have a good team?" One idea would be youth players having to stay at nurturing clubs till they are 19/20. http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2202099,00.html

They haven't even got enough money to take Terry Mac off us nevermind our assistant or Clark. Ideally they'd take Clark, Pearson and Round.

Avram Grant is a long-time and close personal friend of Ambramovich apparently. Mates stick together and regardless of the nationality involved, or more specifically the racial demographic at play, a professional judgment - ie. Mourinho's sacking & Grant's appointment - as a footballing based decision could very well be compromised by a non-footballing based factor as mentioned above. IMO there's no room in football for sentimentality or allegience based decision making, both in the boardroom and matters relating to the playing side. Sad if true, but you could very well be correct re: any cloak & dagger dealings pertaining to Mourinho's demise. Mourinho's departure in part was imho self-inflicted. If after winning a couple of Premierships the owner says he wants more flair and style in the play, Mourinho can't be surprised when he's sacked if he carries on as he had done for the past 2 years. Winning 2 premierships shouldn't be discounted but if Abramovich says he wants attacking play, he'll keep making changes until he gets what he wants. Abramovich possibly going to his mate Grant saying "Should I get better attacking play from this squad?" and getting the answer "Of course mate, I could easily produce more exciting play" wouldn't have helped Mourinho's cause either! If he wanted more flair and style it might have been an idea to let Jose buy the players HE wanted and not the players recommended or purchased by the various 'power bases' at work at Stamford Bridge. Couldn't agree more. But Schevchenko is a friend of Abramovich just like Avram Grant. Maybe the real problem is that Abramovich has too many friends?? :lol: I want to be his friend.

"Glenn Roeder doesn't wake up in the morining and make excuses, Glenn Roeder doesn't wear scarecrow outfitts or stand cluelessly in large fields, when Glenn Roeder looks in the mirror he sees a big carrot where his nose should be".

Avram Grant is a long-time and close personal friend of Ambramovich apparently. Mates stick together and regardless of the nationality involved, or more specifically the racial demographic at play, a professional judgment - ie. Mourinho's sacking & Grant's appointment - as a footballing based decision could very well be compromised by a non-footballing based factor as mentioned above. IMO there's no room in football for sentimentality or allegience based decision making, both in the boardroom and matters relating to the playing side. Sad if true, but you could very well be correct re: any cloak & dagger dealings pertaining to Mourinho's demise. Mourinho's departure in part was imho self-inflicted. If after winning a couple of Premierships the owner says he wants more flair and style in the play, Mourinho can't be surprised when he's sacked if he carries on as he had done for the past 2 years. Winning 2 premierships shouldn't be discounted but if Abramovich says he wants attacking play, he'll keep making changes until he gets what he wants. Abramovich possibly going to his mate Grant saying "Should I get better attacking play from this squad?" and getting the answer "Of course mate, I could easily produce more exciting play" wouldn't have helped Mourinho's cause either! If he wanted more flair and style it might have been an idea to let Jose buy the players HE wanted and not the players recommended or purchased by the various 'power bases' at work at Stamford Bridge.

Should be the other way round. If results go badly, ther coach gets sacked, not the DoF, the DoF is there to maintain continuity if/when the coach is sacked. Therefore, the DoF should appoint the coach looking at his coaching qualities and ensuring that he and the DoF are totally on the same wavelength. Jol was Arnesen's man and wasn't in tune with Comolli, Ramos is very much Comolli's. who is the DOF accountable to ? I suppose we will have to wait and see then, I would say the right method is the one that works, and I don't see Alex Ferguson, Wenger or Benitez for instance being anything other than the absolute number 1. We aren't going to see the likes of David Pleat running the rule and casting judgements over people like that, nor are you going to get Alex Ferguson as a DOF hovering over his successor. Not being funny like, but you either have that situation, or two blokes running the club in tandem. And if the club is doing s***, why do you want to continue stability ? The DoF is accountable to the Board, no-one else. He is the one responsible for the day to day running of the club in its entireity. It the team (not the club) is doing s*** it is the DoF's responsibility to recommend changes to turn things around. Whilst the DoF system is usual on the continent, it's a fact that it's a rarity in England though it could have been argued that David Dein did the bulk of the DoF job without the title and Wenger and Benitez would have worked under a DoF when they were in France and Spain. The will to make it work must be there otherwise it will never work satisfactorily. If its the club that is doing s*** then surely it is down to the chairman/board to put things right. David Pleat was never a true DoF, it was a title given to him by Alan Sugar when Sugar (who knew nothing about the football side) wanted someone to advise him on footballing aspects. Sugar didn't want meetings with a manager not knowing whether he should do something or not so Pleat came in to be the buffer and take away the direct contact. Pleat was responsible for buying nets for goals, authorising purchase of fertiliser for the pitches etc amongst other things and he wanted more direct contact. So he started dabbling in matters outside his area and the friction started. The truth is that if Hoddle had been the coach with Comolli as DoF instead of David Pleat, Hoddle may well have still been at Spurs now. Tactically, he was right up there, with transfers he was awful bordering on diabolical. The whole DD thing is such a red herring. DD spent more time wining and dinning than anything.

Should be the other way round. If results go badly, ther coach gets sacked, not the DoF, the DoF is there to maintain continuity if/when the coach is sacked. Therefore, the DoF should appoint the coach looking at his coaching qualities and ensuring that he and the DoF are totally on the same wavelength. Jol was Arnesen's man and wasn't in tune with Comolli, Ramos is very much Comolli's. who is the DOF accountable to ? I suppose we will have to wait and see then, I would say the right method is the one that works, and I don't see Alex Ferguson, Wenger or Benitez for instance being anything other than the absolute number 1. We aren't going to see the likes of David Pleat running the rule and casting judgements over people like that, nor are you going to get Alex Ferguson as a DOF hovering over his successor. Not being funny like, but you either have that situation, or two blokes running the club in tandem. And if the club is doing shit, why do you want to continue stability ? Why only use examples in this country and use people like Pleat to try and prove a point? Why not look throughout Europe where it is more commonly used, like at Barcelona for example? Or Milan, Sevilla, Real Madrid and Juventus? Are these clubs doing it the wrong way? I don't know, why not ? This is England, why should the way they do it abroad be better ? Show me a team in England with a setup like those who have won our title ? I used Pleat because he's done it at Spurs. Spurs have operated the system using Jol, and they have sacked him, so show me where it has worked. The object is to do well here in our league, not just copy what they do abroad for the hell of it !!!! At the end of the day, its not the system, its having the right people, or person. You tell me who Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger would be answerable to ? They would both tell their chairmen to get stuffed if they tried to bring in someone who impeded on their authority, and rightly so too. Do every clubs in Spain and italy use this setup ? If so, then it simply proves the point thats its the people and not the system. Europeans don't like making descisions on their own. Benny 'the bad boy goatee' Benitez left his last club due to DOF aggro.

Exactly what i wanted to say, he's very highly rated and i don't expect Rennes to sell him for anything less than 5m. Would be more than that, Pompey were in for him in the summer but were put off by an asking price of £7Million. I wouldn't blink at £10m. My French mate tells me he is destined to become a fixture in the full French side. He's on Wengers list. Already been in the squad a few times, hasn't he? Aha.

Exactly what i wanted to say, he's very highly rated and i don't expect Rennes to sell him for anything less than 5m. Would be more than that, Pompey were in for him in the summer but were put off by an asking price of £7Million. I wouldn't blink at £10m. My French mate tells me he is destined to become a fixture in the full French side. He's on Wengers list.

blueyes.gif Spot on, imo, and if Sam doesn't change his away philosophy, tactics, and selections quick smart, then there's going to be so much pressure on our home form that any dropped points at St James's will feel like a complete catastrophe. Seriously, I don't wish to come across as a drama merchant / pessimistic cunt, but anything less than 3 points against Pompy, followed by another Derby or Reading-like away performance against the Mackems, and a promising start to the campaign would suddenly slip to being decidedly mediocre, especially considering that we'd then be facing three challenging fixtures in a row - Liverpool at home (although who knows what line-up Rafa's "wheel of fortune" selection policy will actually see us playing against), Blackburn away (who, given Sam would have been happy with a draw at Reading, he'll presumably be hoping not to lose to by anything more than 3 clear goals), and Arsenal at home (only this time we'll be up against the grown-up version, and not the Carling Cup Wunderkinder). Hold on to your hats lads because, although I hope not, I fear that we might be in for a rough ride ahead. :icon_pale: Yes and Sam has rather foolishly brought it all on himself with his negative 'shut up shop' away muppetry.

Pray tell us more.

Why do you say that? I'm not inclined to strenuously disagree, mind. I think Mort might not be terrible at making a choice, though. He seems sharp. I hope I'm not wrong and he's impressed by charmers, as other "savvy" business-types have been in Football. I take the fact he's Mike Ashley's caretaker as a positive. I just don't think either are that switched on when it comes to football, neither seem to have been great followers of the sport in the past and it makes you think what route they will go down when/if they have to replace Allardyce. Mort seems to me to be a top business man and will eventually turn this club around on the financial side of things, how he'll go about deciding on a replacement for Allardyce is another thing. He'll take advice. The first port of call of any successful professional.

What are the reasons iyo SA isn't aware of/gives credence to this stuff? Seems very set in his ways.

Very good player and still developing. Like a lot.

Nice to have something a bit different to talk about, isn't it? Obviously, discussion had been fairly stagnant in the dying days of Roeder and the old Board. Whilst the events of the Summer were interesting of course, a lot of it was us just experiencing sensations, waiting to see where things went. Now it's bedded down, we've got some time to both reflect and look forwards. New personalities, new challenges etc. I agree with that. Aside from the flurry of speculation amidst Ashley's takeover, he and Mort (A&M) have kept their ambitions for the future close to their chests surprisingly successfully, particularly given (partly because?) they've presented themselves as open and eager to engage with us as supporters. The next time they're getting slaughtered in the Bigg Market, someone should ask them just what they're intending to achieve... My sense is that they're happy to go along with Allardyce for next season, so long as we make the top 8, maybe even the top half. I don't really base that on evidence harder than the likes of the manner with which Mort presents in interviews and Ashley's demeanour in public; the way he looks contented with some of the performances he's witnessed (some might say the number on his shirt exhibits the standard he's happy with, at least for the time being). The question is whether all that stuff about spending sprees and wanting Allardyce to "think as big as he could" was partly paper talk or not - MA's comments about being prepared to spend more of his own wealth than other owners suggests the latter. I wonder whether events at Manchester City over the past half year have made them think, as well - they have emerged as our most obvious rivals in any fight to break into the CL monopoly. I'd been a supporter of Allardyce coming to our club for some time prior to his arrival. Ironically, half of my reasoning for this was smashed apart only days after it finally happened. I felt he was someone as good as we could attract in our circumstances, who could make an even greater impact with our natural resources and would overhaul bad practices in player management, refuse to bow to board pressure on all matters and could work on a small budget. With Ashley, the club had a larger budget, seemingly would innately understand the need to improve club practice, supposedly would allow a competent manager to do his job without unnecessary interference and, ultimately, probably could have attracted a high quality manager with more established credentials, no "proving" required. January will tell us a lot, then. I hope Ashley gives us a nice wodge of his own money, and I look forward to seeing Allardyce given the opportunity to spend it. All the same, it might become apparent that A&M have ideas higher than Allardyce, and will seek to find someone who matches their's more closely. Honest and fair assesment imo.

Because Allardyce is renowned for struggling against the big 4? Hate this "big 4" phrase. Why not "big 5" or "big 2?" Anyway, it doesn't matter what we do against the "big 4" if we do shite against all the rest. Well considering one of his points was about how Sam will cope with one of the bigger sides then I think its quite relevant. I doubt his comment needs to be taken so literally, tbh. What he's saying is something like, "how negative will Allardyce be against some of the better teams?" Fact is, if we beat the "big 4" and lose against everyone else we'd be relegated. The point you appeared to be making is that at Bolton, Allardyce had a decent record against the "big 4." Well, my take on that point is that at this stage it's irrelevant what his record was against the "big 4." BTW During his time as Bolton manager we were in the top 4 a couple of times (making us one of the "big 4" at that point in time) and I recall us thrashing them more than once. Regardless of the defeat. I think the defence is much better already than last year although there is still the odd unwanted error. The problems now for me has shifted to the midfield which normally supplies the cohesion and fluency to a side....Dare I say we are still missing a 'fulcrum'. This is also being hampered by some bizarre positioning and team selections. Without stirring a hornets nest, the defence was never the major problem despite the poor personnel. Since Souness decimated Robson's team the problem has been a combination of a lack of decent forward play and midfield play. This prevents us dictating and controlling games, resulting in the defence being put under too much pressure. I said ages ago that you could put the best 4 defenders in the country in our team and we'd still leak goals due to the pressure they'd be under. Obviously better defenders are important and we needed better players at the back, but we also need to control games and we won't do that by improving individuals at the back. Remember that we were a top 4 team under Robson with poor defenders. That's because we had the players ahead of them to threaten the opposition and to control football matches, thus proving it's possible to do well under those circumstances. If you can't dictate and control games you'll get nowhere, which is why the problem has been midfield/strikers for a while now and is why we're average/poor most of the time even with better defenders now. I think I've found myself agreeing with this before. And you're absolutely right. I kicked off a number of threads in the summer as it dawned on me we weren't going to buy and creativity/controllers/fulcrums. If you don't get an even share or control of the midfield the defence starts to drop back/get tired/ lose people and flaky goals result. This sums it up nicely... http://www.newcastle-online.com/2007/10/27/a-pragmatic-mis-reading-of-the-script/

As a Liverpool fan reading this it very much reminds me of the constant arguments at EVERY match from 2000 onwards. We played the same way as you seem to be now, 8 men behind the ball and the big hoof up to Owen, hoping that he could turn p*** poor service into goals. What you'll find, as the season progresses is that you may well nick a win against the "big four" now and again as they grow frustrated and Owen or Martins are good enough to take the on half chance that drops their way - however against the teams that you'd expect to beat you'll end up giving them so much possesion that their confidence will grow and you'll be on the end of some shocking results. When it worked for us the fans were split into two camps, one that said the style of play is rubbish and it doesn't matter if we won and the other side would say that the win was the most important thing and as our confidece grows then so will the attractiveness of our play. The thing is though, that evenb when we won those trophies in 2001 (largely on the back of a rock solid defence and Owens goals) the style of play stayed the same. Houllier seemed incapable of sending out a team that played good football, and I think you have a similar guy in Allardyce - people say he played long ball at Bolton because he didn't have the resources but he had Anelka,Diouf,Campo,Hierro and Speed and whatever you think of them nobody can accuse them of not playing the ball along the ground.His ideal would be to win 1-0 every gameand if I was a toon supporter i wouldn't be very hopeful of much entertainment this season. However, saying that if Owen stays, and with a bit of luck I can see you doing well in the F.A. cup this year. Whether you're prepared to accept the style in which you ploay is another thing bvut a guy that shells out so much on Alan Smith from his good friend Ferguson would not indicate that he's trying to re capture the free flowing days of Keegan Top notch post. blueyes.gif