sicsfingeredmong

'Distribution' has always been the short straw in his repetoire, along with his hesitancy when dealing with crosses but his shot-stopping skills made up for it. And we needed these attributes over the past few seasons - ie. post SBR - because the team mostly played on the defensive backfoot. More genuine chances against us, more shots on goal against us, in essence he prevented from losing more premiership points during this period when he was at best. The problem as i see it, and this also relates to supporter sentiment as to not wanting to let an iconic figure go due to his 'years of excellent service' despite there being warning signs which point to the contrary, is that age & injuries - especially the last one: the collision with Harewood - are catching up with him. The club made a big mistake by not phasing out an age & injury weary Shearer when the time was right, the club effectively allowed him to dictate the terms of his retirement. Because of his status it would have been politically incorrect not to do so. Behind Shearer & Speed, and of the three players mentioned Speed was moved on prematurely imo, Given is the next long-serving figure on the honour roll and is looked upon in a similar light.... and deservedly so. But the same mistake cannot be made twice, if form dictates otherwise. Keegan has been away from the club for over a decade, cries of 'but what about Given's service over the past decade, that has to mean something' most likely means little to him when evaluating the goalkeeping situation. To him there is no such thing as an predisposed pecking order, regardless of form. The same selection criteria should have applied to Shearer as well. If Keegan has other plans - ie. phasing Given out of the goalkeeping picture - then so be it. Kudos go to him for not adhering to the politically correct path, by not treating some players, or 'fans' favourites', as protected species.

Keegan re-educating this team, teaching them how to play football again. Under three previous managers, many of the current squad haven't experienced this during their time here ie. the polar opposite to Keegan's effective, 'keep it on the deck' based football where movement & width feature heavily. He's a implemented a template which should be built upon this Summer and it's now up to the board to financially back the one bloke who turned the team's form around, and with it prevented Ashley's investment from slipping down the drainage pipe.

You reckon he can hit nine goals in eleven games? For us? Ooooooooooh Just 2 short. So, no new contract for Owen then? Not on the same wage. Then you won't keep him. Owen can bugger off on a free after next season, and get a signing bonus at whatever UEFA-challenger club needs a top-quality striker. Those clubs, with no transfer fee, wouldn't have a problem managing his wages at 80k per week (his "cut" wage at NUFC) and he'd be at a club that might actually win something. Even better for him if it's in the NW, as he can sell his second home and the helicopter and save the money, thus making up his loss in wages. Same if he's sold this summer, though at least NUFC would recoup something for him, even if a meagre 7 mil (and Smith cost 6 mil...who sets these fees? It's utter insanity). See, here's what I don't understand: why do people think Owen should/would accept a cut? I wouldn't take a 30% cut in my wages. If I were offered such a deal, after finishing successfully on a major project for my employers (even if I'd had a serious illness and been out before that, say), I would say "F*** you" and find a different employer. Footballers are men too, with just as much (if not more) pride than any of the rest of us, and cutting wages is an insult. If I were in that position, I'd rather take the cut at a NEW employer than for the people who just spit in my face after I busted my arse for them. Especially if the new employer were a better one (more prestigious). Michael Owen is not Alan Shearer -- he has no ties to the Northeast other than his paycheque. Take that away and...what's keeping him here? It's not the scintillating football, or the bright prospects for his international career. His family lives in Wales, he said as much in a recent interview, and he commutes into Newcastle for work. Why insult him? Cutting his pay is an insult, which clearly says "you aren't worth what you're on, we don't really want you to stay." Without Owen, the new formation never would have even been thought up, and Newcastle might've been relegated, or at least further down the league. He's the top scorer in both League and total goals. He's captain. He's the best and most prestigious player at the club. He's finally fit (run of what, 20 matches?) and has scored 7 in the last 9. If the club turn around and offer him an insulting contract it only makes the club look bad. Especially since, let's be honest, Michael Owen is made of Teflon. Nothing sticks to this lad -- just enough rough edges to him (the horses and bit of gambling) to make him human, but he's so clean-cut he squeaks and he's an international and national favourite. Also -- a replacement could cost more than keeping him. Keeping him on the same terms would cost the club approximately 20-22 million over four years, correct? A replacement, if Crouch is being offered for 15 mil and Bent went last season for 17 mil, will cost between 12-15 mil in transfer fee, AT LEAST. So, then, that player would have to agree to wages of less than 7 million over 4 years, which comes to less than 34k/week -- just to break EVEN. This doesn't account for the loss of revenue from Owen, who moves a lot of kit internationally (and nationally) as well as providing royalties for the club for things like PES2008. All of that doesn't even add into the fact that Keegan -- the "messiah" manager -- has said Owen was to be his first and most important signing. If he doesn't get that, it could disrupt the club's relationship with Keegan, so there's the risk of the whole mess of ANOTHER new manager. For f***s sake, just pay the lad his extra money. Should he have been paid 100k/week to begin with? Probably not. But cutting it just doesn't make sense, in any way. Not financially, nor in terms of public relations. I can't imagine Ashley became a billionaire by not seeing the simplicity of this issue. Couldn't agree more. Re-signing Owen imo would act as a catalyst for signing established and emerging top-line players over the Summer. It sends out a message, to any potential targets especially, that players of Owen's international pedigree want to be part of Keegan's rebuilding of the team/club and this would prove to be an invaluable bargaining tool when pitching the merits of the club/1st team to the sort of targets i speak of ie. of Modric's ability. In the wake of the current board being unable to the seal the Woodgate & Modric transfer deals Mort has come out and said words to the effect of 'it will be hard to attract these sort calibre of players when we're competing with the bright lights of the bigger cities ie. London'. So once again maintaining Owen's services, when there is potential interest elsewhere - ie. from clubs in bigger cities, who will either compete in are on the cusp of qualifying for Europe - in an international-calibre goal-poacher who is entering his final contract year, will prove to the contrary on this front. Another 'bargaining chip' in the locker, on the transfer front that is, and with Keegan on the sidelines when it comes to selling the club/sealing transfer deals we need as many such chips in our armory. With Carr's departure, and there are others forthcoming ie. Ramage, maintaining Owen's current terms - or improving them slightly - shouldn't be a massive issue, but then again Ashley and Mort are daily spreadsheet operators/businessmen and this is how they've run their business interests away from football and here appears to be obstacle as to why Owen's contract talks have hit a standstill. However in terms of football economics, and this relates to the opening paragraph, not sealing Owen's signature amidst not offering the appropriate terms - and offering a smaller package is an insult as inferred in the quoted post above - smacks of 'lack of ambition' on Ashley & Mort's part.

Do I count? Entitled to our opinions tbh Allright then, of course you're entitled to an opinion. I'm just curious about what you're basing your opinion on? It certainly can't be what Zog or Keegan have come out with recently? Keegan isn't Souness, he's not going to come out and put down one of our players in public. Because unlike Souness - who will embark on a media driven defamation mission, in a bid to appease his own ego/to justafy any grudges against a player for footballing & non-football reasons - Keegan understands the nature of transfer market economics, that is not reducing a player's market value by slagging the player off at every opportunity/airing dirty laundry.

Keegan came back to finish what turned out to incompleted job the the first time round. If promises were made by Mort & Ashley to lure him back, and Ashley fails to live up to them i know who i'd prefer to have around and it's not 'Johnny Come Lately' Ashley, although there's only going to be one loser in this instance. Ashley's a ruthless figure in the business world, both as a razor cutter type - ie. buy low, keep expenditure down, sell high - and somebody who will cut any supposed opposition loose, as already been eluded to, and Keegan will be back running his coaching schools sooner rather than later if there's substance to these 'showdown talk' stories. And Keegan should be running thing in terms of selling the club to any potential big name players, established players and potential stars alike. Would be targets want to hear the selling pitches straight from the horse's mouth, the bloke who'll be adorned in the tracksuit out on the training pitch..... not some 'hot winded' talk from a high powered suit-orientated delegation ie. Viterre. This is exactly how Chelsea lost out to Arsenal in the bid to sign Walcott. Wenger sold the youngster the idea of where the team was heading on the pitch, his methodology. Kenyon and Arnesson, with an emphasis on Kenyon here, threw money at the kid and ultimately they lost out. Keegan should've been at the forefront in our bid secure Modric, he should've spearheaded the club's attack in this instance. Obviously Mort & Ashley have different ideas on this front, re: Vitterre's role in our transfer dealings/being the 'club seller' & 'deal closure', and they're wrong.

An extremely relevant point, re: the original post. Admittedly though the majority of those results occured during Allardyce's reign - ie. negative team mindset, playing for 0-0 draw - and Keegan's intial phase of transition where he pretty much had to teach this side how to play football again ie. width, playing it on the deck & using the football from the back, & movement off the ball courtesy of the outfielders/midfielders. Today's result can be labelled as a good loss. It shows how far we're behind the top echelon and at the endo of the day we were overpowered in the 2nd half, at home. This should eradicate any misconceptions that Keegan could deliver the current side into the European mix next season with minimal spending/upgrading the squad come Summer, a misconception that Ashley & Mort may have reached amidst the recent run of results while forgetting our overall record against the league's traditional & current big guns. The result today was a welcome eye opener, despite the revival in form and the team's overall pattern of play under Keegan, and Mort & Ashley would be foolhardy to look the other way.

I agree with that. Rooney & Tevez are too similar, and as such they don't have a plan B when top-line defenses handle them in Europe - although this doesn't happen often. They need somebody - ie. Berbatov - who can slow down the tempo in the final 1/3 by holding the play up, a player who will bring his attacking midfielders into the game alot more. As opposed to having a pair of forwards who both look to drop deep & run at the heart of the defenses at just about every opportunity, and imo they isolate the outfield's attacking midfielders in the process more often than not. IMO, in Europe against the more disciplined defensive units who hold a deeper/cautious line, the likes of Ronaldo have to find their into the game by themselves due to Rooney & Tevez' running instincts/lack of hold-up play. Berbatov, in European play at the very least, represents the missing piece of their almost complete attacking puzzle.

I'd like to know the relevance behind Oliver's 'Modric Leak'. Did that leak result in Spurs jumping in with a better offer later in the week, bombing us out of market - and Mort's a cautious player in the transfer market, too cautious imo - in the process? If so, Oliver should be shot. Until now, and i haven't read the appropriate threads etc, i simply assumed that he favoured the Londoners over us.

Completely agree with their take on Robson & Taylor, and Taylor won't have long in terms of showing Keegan that he's worthy of a spot in KK's plans. And i'm also in agreement with Beardsley's take on Shearer ie. coaching & the Newcastle job. On another note, it's a shame Asprilla's on-field productivity - re: consistency - didn't live up to his team bus antics.

if it means they missed the boat in January ? "we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............ I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future. Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing. A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts. Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road.. Woodgate in January 2003 wasn't a signing for the future, [we won't even mention getting in first before all our rivals at the end of the season in question] but 2 months ago he would have been a good buy ? Good one that . Same rule applies just about re: the age issue, and fitness permitting - and Keegan keeps his players fit, he's one manager who would stand a good chance at keeping Woodgate on the pitch consistently - Woody's still the calibre of player a manager would hope a build a defensive rearguard around. Calculated gamble, given his durability issues of recent years - Yes, no doubt. Worthwhile gamble - Yes. The transfer market is all about taking risks, acting on the pretense of such gambles.

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka... I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling. Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen. If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer? Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was. Agree with the third point in bold, minus the 'also' reference that he was a 'fan appeasement' signing as well, as that was our predicament at the time, but that and the followng ties in with the first section placed in bold. Souness chose to blow most of his Summer kitty - ie. that 10m you speak of prior to the panic signings of Luque, & Owen in particular - buying central midfielders, Parker & Emre, as opposed to correctly prioritising by moving for a necessity player, somebody of Anelka's ilk, after handing out 10m+ during the previous window, to secure Buomsong and Babayaro, money doesn't grow on trees - especially in the wake of a 14th place finish. The following i've said before, and you're welcome to disagree. Souness dug a grave for the club/team by failing to correctly prioritise earlier in the window, and he did mention that Dyer would usurp Bellamy as the team's goal scoring creative/forward in his accustomed nasty manner - so this imo was another factor as to why he neglected the team,s most essential needs re: the frontline ranks, and Shepherd imo had no other option - ie. moving for Owen, and paying big money towards the end of the window - but to bail his manager out of the proberbial s**** creek........ after the manager passed a piece of notepaper across the chairman's table of course How much do you think the club could afford to spend that Summer, given that we secured finance - ie. didn't a sponsor pay a lump sum, rather than pay us in yearly instalments........ i'm sure Baggio will be able to Google this from somewhere in order to prove or disprove this - in order to facilitate the Owen deal?

Schmeicel was another 'big-framed' keeper who reduced the shooting angles of any potential goal scorer, another keeper who also created many what i call 'forced misses/shooting errors'. Obviously Schmeicel's the better all-round keeper but frame-wise, as shot-stoppers and as keepers who can put off a shooter with their physical presence, they're of a similar ilk. Manchester United was not a just 'one-man' band, when they hauled back our lead at the top of the table. They still had the creative matchwinners, and the necessary attacking outlets while PS held down the fort, needed to pinch a result away from home, ala the momentum turning game at SJP being the notable example. Obviously Blackburn's attacking outlets don't match United's in terms of calibre, but without the likes Bentley/Pederson/Santa Cruz & McCarthy cashing-in on Freidel's good work - ie. keeping them in games away from home amidst a counterattacking orientated team philosophy - and these guys really provide them with a cutting edge on the break and without them they'd be a 'scrappy bottom 3 team featuring a highlight reel keeper' imo.

if it means they missed the boat in January ? "we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............ I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future. Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing. A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts. Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat. First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board. Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

Everything Mort has said, in relation to transfer policy/spending, thus far borders on a pretty cautious line. Approx 20m will be Keegan's outlay imo, and this had better not be the case........ if Mort & Ashley hope to retain a proven club manager. The question is however will this type of figure/outlay be enough to keep Keegan around for the long haul, if Mort & Ashley provide Keegan with enough evidence over the Summer which paints them out to be a pair of 'Johnny 'Come Latelys' who have come to the table expecting success minus supplying the neccessary outlay in order to achieve that goal ie. backing the manager, especially the manager of their own choosing, something which Keegan is. Keegan got a read on SJH amidst the PLC stuff/goings-on and he's been let down before, when Hall broke promises made to Keegan during his final season in the manger's hotseat, and he'll quickly sniff a rat if things go astray - ie. hitting too many brick walls in the form the club/Mort's price evaluations of our transfer targets being vastly different to the going rate in the market - over the Summer. If Mort & Ashley don't live up to Keegan's expectations of them, or his own level of ambition and HTT has used the term 'to finsh off what he started', i'd empathise with Keegan if he decided to walk at a later time in the event of him being disappointed again..

......and managing a team that is sixth in the League and in the Cup Final. Let's give credit where it's due. Point is here's another bloke - ie. Rednapp - having a go at Keegan by implying that he's a tactical muppet of sort. In reality though Keegan has assessed & evaluated where Owen's game sits right now, and unlike Rednapp has been able to distinguish between the two seperate stages - ie. playing upfront as an 'on-the-shoulder' striker internationally and domestically - and has duly altered Owen' role in the team.

What's annoying about Rednapp's comment is that it's another dig at Keegan, for supposedly being a 'tactical muppet'. Owen, as an all-out striker, will remain productive on the international stage. Defenses hold a deeper line, and the centrehalves concentrate more on defending space in the box/playing a zonal orientated system. This suits Owen because he's adept at slipping off defenders in the box & finding space. Different kettle of fish in the league, and this is where i think Rednapp misses the mark. League = higher defensive line + manmarking orientated system = Owen is no longer the impact he once was versus such a system.

A "Bellamy........... he's history" threadstarter to follow.

The one from the miss cleared corner not much to do with his new deeper role that. Big credit Keegan for changing the system but I think the side would benefit from Owen playing higher up the pitch and Viduka deeper seems obvious to me considering what both are best at. I agree with Redknapp comments regarding Michael Owen role completely. Fair enough. I personally don't think he's quick enough to play "on the shoulder" these days, because most Premiership centre halves aren't the cumbering giants of old. He has struggled when playing up front this season, from what I've seen, looking absolutely toothless at times. Obviously his rehabilitation from injury and lack of match sharpness at times comes into it, but he's certainly lost a fair bit of his pace and a good chunk of his initial acceleration over a few yards. He barely got a touch of the ball during his games up front in a 4-4-2 either, did he? He was more detrimental to the team at times, in my opinion, because he wasn't involved and he wasn't a threat over the top. Everyone sees a different game though, as they say, 4 goals in 4 games says a lot though - and he's been playing very, very well at times too. Agreed. Another thing to consider is that even at his best Owen was always a streaky player at Liverpool, form wise as a scoring striker that is. He generally scored in clusters, and then would go through an accompanying flat spell. Likewise i don't think he has the attributes - ie. the loss of his acceleration off the mark - these days that matches up well against the athletic centrehalves of the day. As an 'on the shoulder' striker i can no longer see him lighting up the scoring charts in a manner which is comparable to his previous hot spells of form during his Liverpool years, and even then he never hit the 20 goal mark - ie. in the league. Durability & injuries, and the aforementioned tendency to score in clusters and then to hit a barren spell, played their respective parts in this. With his reduced attributes, and he is a much easier one-on-one match-up in the wake of his injuries, it's key to involve him in the game early. Even it's just being involved in some simple link-up/passing play. The key is to keep his confidence level up. But he still has the predatory instincts, and the football smarts needed to read the play & the midfield/attackers teammates' movement, and he's been drifting into scoring positions because he's tough for a central defender to track him into the box when he is playing so deep.

............ and directing death chants, and an accompanying chorus along the lines of 'you'll never be one of us', towards the Arab-Israeli who scored against the Dutch a few years back, when the aforementioned Israeli international's domestic club visited Beitar a week or so later.

This just further strengthens the case, and you only have to read some of the factual accounts where this mob are concerned, that a large percentage Beitar's matchgoing supporter-base are the most unruly bunch of shitebags in world football, and that includes the more reported examples in Spain & Italy ie. Lazio ................. and the outcome here - ie. losing their domestic cup by default/disqualification - is a fitting and long overdue one.

Perhaps you should create a separate "Save Stevie Taylor" website, with a petition and all................. try and collect 10000 signatures, try to convert the those who are unconvinced with his ability, conduct your very own version of the Salem Witchcraft Trials for those who remain unrepentant etc etc. This i mean in jest btw. For various reasons, and i've posted them before in a couple of threads and i think my opinion re-Taylor has some degree of depth...... at least i think i'm not some type of shallow thinking t***, i thought Taylor's NUFC career was at the crossroads at the beginning of the current campaign. Comparing one player - ie. Taylor - to another - ie. Senderos - who isn't fit to the lace the boots of Wenger's preferred centre-halves of current & recent times, players like Toure/Campbell & Gallas, is a pretty weak attempt at justafying or defending Taylor's supposed worth to this club afterall Arsenal's team performance should be the overall goal. Taylor & Senderos both showed early promise, however they haven't progressed. That's how the cookie crumbles, intangibles or no intangibles, that's the nature of football. Some make it, some don't. For every Cherno Samba or Steve Taylor - ie. previously celebrated youngsters whose development & careers have stalled at varying degrees - there'll be another who'll suddenly appear out of the woodwork and grab the opportunity afforded to him, Edgar might just fall into the latter group as our current example. To the contrary by asking the question 'is he really as bad as Senderos' - and i think this more relevant in the team's fall from grace with & without the other factors involved ie. Souness' mismanagement of the 1st team, Roeder & Allardyce also being out of their depth - you're talking about a player who has been branded as the brightest prospect our academy has produced in many years, and the opinion regarding these two players seems to be split, you're illustrating how inept our coaching staff has been in recent times in terms of being able transform potential into 'consistent premiership-standard performers. And over the last 2 seasons Taylor doesn't qualify for the latter category imo. This has been of a greater concern to me.

Makes a difference - re: 2nd half fade-outs under Big Sam - when the outfield isn't going through lengthy phases of having chase the ball after needlessly giving up possession via the aimless punt up the park. The difference in styles of play, where we're now more possession & width based all the while keeping the ball on the deck, has played a massive part imo.

I think he would to be honest. He's a tough little buggar, and sure he might not have the technique in the tackle & at times bends the rules with some of his challenges on the ball, but for me he doesn't noticeably shy away from the physical/contact side of the game in a major way as compared to Viana, and Viana throughout the early stages of his career - ie. at Portugese Youth Level, and at Sporting - was very much a 'protected' 4-5-1 loose/creative midfielder hence the club/SBR never saw any defensive accountablity on his part. IMO i always thought that Viana was a poorly scouted acquisition on our part. Whereas Deco's aforementioned toughness somewhat balances whatever he lacks in terms of physical presence, but it's more about achieving the right defensive/attacking balance in the central midfield engine. If Keegan is able to find a complimenting defensive midfielder partner - and i think Butt will still make a worthy contribution in a rotational basis - Deco will be fine. There were a couple of heated matches during the later stages of the WC, which Portugal were involved in, and he stepped up to the plate so to speak. For me his attitude & aptitude resembles that of a streetfighter-type midfielder, like Acuna minus the obvious defensive instincts/ability to read the game from a defensive standpoint. Deco's defensive application, or his willingness to get his boots dirty, is underrated imo. We haven't had an 'all-out' attacking central-playing creator/playmaker at our disposal since Beardsley hung up his boots. Deco, if available at the right price, would be too good a player to ignore.

When he was still our most productive attacking midfielder by quite a margin.