Andy

He is like, and I'm not judging that off today, I've never, ever rated him. He backs off and doesn't have a clue when to actually make a challenge. The only things he has going for him as a defender are his physical attributes - he is strong and above-average in the air... His reading of the game and positional sense leave an incredible amount to be desired.

Err... I would have complained. I've posted my opinions on Taylor many, many times on here before - he's a very poor defender at this level.

What else could he have done? Apart from start Taylor right wing which is much the muchness. Ferguson left, Guttierez right, Taylor on the bench.

Not sure about the above, but the XI that finished the match was as bad as I've seen us field in a Premier League match for a good while.

Not really.

Looking at the replay, Simpson should have tucked in and picked Osman up there like.

Yep. Like I said:

Where is this supposed adulation? He was an England international coveted by top teams in his prime. With all his supposed end product, how come neither England or leading clubs are interested in Fatty Nolan? It must be bias. I'm not even going to warrant that with a decent response tbh. Here's a picture of a gerbil. http://www.petsworld.co.uk/images/gerbil.jpg

Well yeah, but how often was he actually at his best? Besides, I'm not even comparing the two. I'm just baffled by the adulation he's receiving.

Baffled by the hyperbole over Dyer in here like. He was fast, direct and could dribble, in that sense he was exciting and useful -- literally every other element of his game was lacking both in the final third and defensively. He looked a better player than he was for being part of an attacking force featuring Shearer, Bellamy, Robert and Solano, but it was still apparent to the vast majority of Newcastle fans at the time that he flattered to deceive.

Of course he was, but nonetheless, he served a similar function which was to get the ball and run with it. I'd like to see Dyer's goals and assists statistics though - because for a player who spent quite a few games out wide and up front, I'd hazard that they'd be very low.

Indeed. I liked Dyer but his influence on Robson's team was nowhere near as significant as Robert/Bellamy/Shearer/Solano/Speed... He was a good outlet, much like a better version of Guttierez, but his end-product was infuriating and he rightly used to be torn to shreds for it on here.

Now you've chomped at his chomp.

Funnily enough, Kuyt is probably the inverse of Nolan, he's everything our captain isn't. So, you're saying Nolan isn't as good as Alonso and if we're looking to finish 2nd in the league (arguably, challenge for the title) then we need to replace Nolan with an Alonoso-esque player. Why stop there? Let's replace him with a Xavi-esque player and push for that Champions League final place we so rightfully deserve.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think Nolan is a better centre midfielder than Barton by some distance.

Agreed, it's not world-class marthon runner standard, but it's really nowhere near as bad as so many of you imply. He's conditioned to perform for 90minutes, not 3hours. He should be looking visibly tired by 80minutes+ if he's been giving 110% to the cause. Nail on head here: Your point would be all well and good - except he looks knackered and immobile after 8 minutes, never mind 80 minutes. Your point would be all well and good if there were any actual evidence of our midfield being overrun as a result of his apparent lack of mobility. It was a bit of a joke to be honest. I don't genuinely think he is tired after 8 mins. He at least makes it to 20 mins. Seriously though, I don't really know how anyone can reasonably defend his mobility or his fitness levels because they are, quite frankly, not very good. They are also massively exaggerated... However, this time, you are missing my point - I'm not defending his lack of mobility, I'm questioning its relevance when he makes up for it positionally.

Did you see our midfield performances earlier in the season when Nolan was out injured? We looked far more limited with Barton or Guthrie in the centre alongside Tiote - and yet Barton is far more mobile than Nolan and theoritically a better footballer... As I've said, it's very easy to overlook the tactical know-how that Nolan brings to the team but there's good evidence to suggest that it's far more valuable than a lot of people realise.

Agreed, it's not world-class marthon runner standard, but it's really nowhere near as bad as so many of you imply. He's conditioned to perform for 90minutes, not 3hours. He should be looking visibly tired by 80minutes+ if he's been giving 110% to the cause. Nail on head here: Your point would be all well and good - except he looks knackered and immobile after 8 minutes, never mind 80 minutes. Your point would be all well and good if there were any actual evidence of our midfield being overrun as a result of his apparent lack of mobility.

I love that people genuinely think they can second guess Mike Ashley. The guy himself probably hasn't even made his mind up on how much of it will be spent yet -- from what we've seen so far, he operates on impulse rather than with any kind of logical planning. It sounds stupid for a businessman, but I really think the amount that Pardew will be able to spend will genuinely depend more on what mood Ashley is in at the time than anything else.

Ashley will probably give Pardew £70m now just to spite Keegan.

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. First, you would have to consider whether they are goals that could have been scored by a) someone else in the team doing the same job (ie standing in front of the keeper at corners or b) in his position as a midfielder breaking from deep. That's an even more simplistic way of looking at it tbh, because it's disregarding one of the most little-found elements in a central midfielder's game. How many other midfielders in Europe have scored as many from his position this season? I bet you could count them on one hand. The debate that we're having in this thread about Nolan is deja vu -- the same discussions took place over Laurent Robert in the Robson era. Most people didn't realise the value of his goals and assists until it was too late. That's pretty much what i've said...? Part a) addresses whether these goals could have been scored by someone else on the team had they taken up the set play position he did (which is controllable) and part b) addresses whether another midfielder playing in his position would score the amount of goals. This would weigh up his finishing ability, his ability to time his runs, but then also the fact that that is his role in the team and he is given the licence to do so. Sorry, by responding to my defence of Nolan I actually thought you were using that as an argument against him -- saying that other players could bring the same qualities; which is obviously extremely debatable. I don't like the argument that he doesn't cover enough ground either, going back to your original post. He's not the most mobile (although nowhere near as immobile as people like to make out), but as I said a few pages back, mobility isn't the be-all/end-all in midfield and he has Tiote alongside him for that purpose anyway. More important is having the intelligence to be in the right places and to hold the shape of the team; Nolan excels at that more than anything else. It was very noticeable when he was absent earlier in the season - our midfield were poor even with Tiote in the middle.

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. First, you would have to consider whether they are goals that could have been scored by a) someone else in the team doing the same job (ie standing in front of the keeper at corners or b) in his position as a midfielder breaking from deep. That's an even more simplistic way of looking at it tbh, because it's disregarding one of the most little-found elements in a central midfielder's game. How many other midfielders in Europe have scored as many from his position this season? I bet you could count them on one hand. The debate that we're having in this thread about Nolan is deja vu -- the same discussions took place over Laurent Robert in the Robson era. Most people didn't realise the value of his goals and assists until it was too late.

Why isn't he the kind of player England would call upon then? Because he hasn't been called upon by England? So the reason why he's not the kind of player England would call upon is...."because he hasn't been?" Why is it relevant? Some players are effective at club level without quite being international class -- Nolan is one of those players. I don't think that anyone could say that Nolan as a goal scorer is inferior to any current England midfielder, in fact the stats show he's better than most. So it's obviously the other parts of his game which are considered lacking. That doesn't mean he can't be an effective club player, but the same limitations means while he's here we'll be limited as well. Limited in what sense though? With him in the team we're playing well, defending quite solidly and creating chances for the forwards. He may not be a Champions League standard midfielder, but Jesus, we've just been promoted -- he's more than good enough to help with a Europa League push.

Why isn't he the kind of player England would call upon then? Because he hasn't been called upon by England? So the reason why he's not the kind of player England would call upon is...."because he hasn't been?" Why is it relevant? Some players are effective at club level without quite being international class -- Nolan is one of those players.

So what is the point you're making? That we should overlook his contribution (goals, good team performances, good results with him in the team) on the basis that he isn't as good as Jack Wilshire and he isn't the kind of player who England would call upon?