merlin

For what exactly? for being a glory hunting c*** looking for his first goal, when Lovenkrands is stood alone in the 6yd box. A tap across and its 2-0. You could see half our team point straight towards Lovenkrands before he tried to score from behind the goal line. The one where he took it around Dawson? Come off it man, he's entitled to go for goal when he's made himself an opening like that. Disagree Dave - would Beardo have done that?(er-wait, yes he might have done, but he would have scored..!!)? No, in all probability, he would have seen the man on the far post ; that's what makes great players - they have the vision to know whether to shoot or pass. Hopefully, Ranger will develop that because his first duty - as is all the players' - is to win the game for the club, NOT personal glory-seeking.

A good result considering the absentees but it should have been 3 points on chances created. They were the better side in 1st half, Newcastle in the second although I could see their goal coming as our m/f were knackered by then and losing their shape. Even then, Ranger should have won the match for us after doing well to beat Dawson and attempting a very tight angled shot when Lovenkrands was unmarked at the far post ; a simple tap-in if Ranger had squared it.... Their m/f quality enabled them to keep possession well when building up attacks(we missed Tiote badly in that area)but our defence was up to the job for 90 minutes. Noticeable that the goal came from Lennon who had lost his battle with Enrique and switched to the other flank, probably on managerial instruction... With regard to apportioning blame for the equalizer, I would edge towards pointing the finger at Williamson ; Simpson was always going to find it tough against Lennon but he did a reasonable job until the player beat him on the inside...it was then that Williamson should have made a better job of helping him out but he fluffed it and Lennon scored. A pity - another 2 points would have been edging the club to safety but as it is, we shall still have a few nail-biters to contend with ; reinforcements for the squad are badly needed or players like Barton will start to flag. Overall, I would have accepted a point before the game but we could have snatched it on chances.

Coloccini is the only player in the side who I under-rated after his first season - the guy has come back to beat most of his PL demons and has been excellent this season with the exception of the game at Bolton. He was instrumental in disheartening the Mackems last week, and was great again v Spurs, topping off his performance with a good goal ; I was more sorry for him than any of the others because if anyone deserved a win bonus yesterday, he did esp on his birthday ! Now showing why he was considered a 10m player.

Have to agree with this - the performance in SA last summer was possibly the worst I have seen in a World Cup - I was too young to remember the defeat by the USA in 1950.. The best side in recent years was SBRs 1990 team....and that is nearly 21 years ago although probably the best performance in that time was beating the Germans 5-1 away in 2001. The 1990 side had the likes of Waddle, Beardsley, Gazza, Bryan Robson, Shilton and Lineker - all of whom were streets better than their modern equivalents ; the 1970 team that defended the WC in Mexico were very unfortunate - man for man, perhaps better than the 66 side that won it. Terry Cooper, the Leeds full back was at least as good at overlapping as Ashley Cole today, and the 70 side had to play their most crucial group game against Brazil in Guadalajara at mid-day when temps were in the low 40s. Brazil were without doubt the best team I have seen but England only lost 0-1 and should have equalized through Jeff Astle near the end. Bobby Moore was out of this world in that game and the side kept possession far better than the current one. The loss to the Germans in the QF should never have happened, and probably wouldn't have done if Ramsey had left Bobby Charlton on the field ; when he came off, Beckenbauer was able to come forward and it changed the game. Banks was suspected of being food-poisoned as he suddenly fell ill just before the game, and I doubt he would have conceded at least 2 of the goals. Don't think modern players care about the National side and many of them lack talent. They get their money too easily and there are other social factors ; even Brazil are not producing the players they used to and they have a pop of 160m.....

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him. no he shouldn't. he should be assessed by the staff and decided on whether he is worthy of a run. That's what you have managers and coaches for isn't it...! I doubt even Pardew would let Forster go without having a look at him in the first team. The problem is that some on here would whinge pitifully if Forster displaced Krul permanently ...... why do you think he should be given a proper run in the team then ? Why not - don't you, or have you seen him play regularly...?? no i haven't and i wouldn't want players given a run of games in the team on the grounds that i haven't seen them regularly. So do you think his performances - esp given his age - at other clubs DON'T warrant him getting a run in the side ? What other guide do the manager and coaching staff have ? That is why the guy went on loan in the first place ; to give him experience and to see how he performed in competitive games. So rather than go off on a tangent, would you be in favour of him being selected for our first team or not ? If not, why ? i see, so you've seen him play a few games then, just your post (531) makes it seem like just wanted him in blindly as you weren't too keen on krul. why didn't you say it was based on having seen him a few times. i would never put anyone in the first team not having seen them a bit first and for me thats more than the 1 reserve game, 2 norwich games and 2 celtic games in which i've seen him (and in one of those games he was sent off after about 10mins and in another he had f*** all to do). then again i don't pick the team. This is going nowhere, and frankly, your comment about my wanting Forster in the side 'blindly' is ridiculous. You have admitted that you made a judgment on his capabilities as a keeper on the basis of his getting sent off at Celtic and also his appearances at Norwich where you claim he had f--- all to do. If you watch ANY keeper in a game where their side is on top, they end up having F--- all to do - that's what you would expect. No, I HAVEN'T seem Forster play regularly, and neither have the majority of our fans which is why we ALL want to see what he can do so we can actually make a judgment - as will the manager - on whether he is a better keeper than either Krul or Harper. The comments from supporters of both Celtic and Norwich indicate that the majority are impressed with Forster, so for me, that is worth giving him a crack at the PL - if he fluffs it, so be it, but he deserves a chance. No, I am NOT as impressed with Krul as some seem to be because he does not inspire confidence in his penalty area handling - in that respect, Harper is a far superior keeper but we won't know how good Forster is until we see him in action. have you even read what i posted ? i'm saying the exact opposite of what you seem to think in that i haven't seen him enough to say what we should do and as i said "I" certainly wouldn't say anyone should get a run in the team on that basis. oh by the way, it was at norwich he got sent off (at tranmere if memory serves) and the game was for celtic where he had f*** all to do. can you point out to me where i made a judgement on him ? edit. the line "we won't know how good Forster is until we see him in action." i've heard used so often about paul brayson, chopra etc and it's a silly thing to say as it could easily be said for every player thats not in the first team. Not interested in pursuing this any more - you clearly have an agenda either in favour of Krul or against Forster. Thankfully, as you said, you don't pick the team(and I'm sure their are plenty on here pleased about THAT!) However, time will prove who is correct about this - I look forward to seeing Forster given his chance as he undoubtedly will be in due course - we shall see........

8million. Right now, you are probably correct - Blackpool are not technically safe yet and the loss of Adam would make it far more likely that they will be dragged into the relegation scrap so it will take a big fee to make them part....on the other hand, I reckon 5-6 million will get him if they were to wait until summer ; Adam himself is reputed to want away now, so I reckon Liverpool will get him if he goes anywhere.

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him. no he shouldn't. he should be assessed by the staff and decided on whether he is worthy of a run. That's what you have managers and coaches for isn't it...! I doubt even Pardew would let Forster go without having a look at him in the first team. The problem is that some on here would whinge pitifully if Forster displaced Krul permanently ...... why do you think he should be given a proper run in the team then ? Why not - don't you, or have you seen him play regularly...?? no i haven't and i wouldn't want players given a run of games in the team on the grounds that i haven't seen them regularly. So do you think his performances - esp given his age - at other clubs DON'T warrant him getting a run in the side ? What other guide do the manager and coaching staff have ? That is why the guy went on loan in the first place ; to give him experience and to see how he performed in competitive games. So rather than go off on a tangent, would you be in favour of him being selected for our first team or not ? If not, why ? i see, so you've seen him play a few games then, just your post (531) makes it seem like just wanted him in blindly as you weren't too keen on krul. why didn't you say it was based on having seen him a few times. i would never put anyone in the first team not having seen them a bit first and for me thats more than the 1 reserve game, 2 norwich games and 2 celtic games in which i've seen him (and in one of those games he was sent off after about 10mins and in another he had f*** all to do). then again i don't pick the team. This is going nowhere, and frankly, your comment about my wanting Forster in the side 'blindly' is ridiculous. You have admitted that you made a judgment on his capabilities as a keeper on the basis of his getting sent off at Celtic and also his appearances at Norwich where you claim he had f--- all to do. If you watch ANY keeper in a game where their side is on top, they end up having F--- all to do - that's what you would expect. No, I HAVEN'T seem Forster play regularly, and neither have the majority of our fans which is why we ALL want to see what he can do so we can actually make a judgment - as will the manager - on whether he is a better keeper than either Krul or Harper. The comments from supporters of both Celtic and Norwich indicate that the majority are impressed with Forster, so for me, that is worth giving him a crack at the PL - if he fluffs it, so be it, but he deserves a chance. No, I am NOT as impressed with Krul as some seem to be because he does not inspire confidence in his penalty area handling - in that respect, Harper is a far superior keeper but we won't know how good Forster is until we see him in action.

Routledge was decent in the CCC but has struggled to transfer that form to the PL - as he has with the other PL sides he played for. Despite that, my concern about this move is that the squad is getting dangerously thin. As geordemonster says, a look at Spurs m/f squad tells you just how weak we are in depth and as the injuries and suspensions pile up, we could well pay the price for this. We have already tried and failed to sign the likes of Larsson, who would have been a replacement for Routledge, so unless Pardew has something else lined up I am at a loss to understand why Routledge is being allowed go go at this point. When you look at the likes of Villa and now, Liverpool, trying to sign Charlie Adam(a player I rate highly, and who I think would definitely benefit our side), you get some idea why I have little confidence in the people running the club and whether they intend not only to ensure our PL place by competing for decent players who will improve, but also if they will fend off top offers for our saleable assets. I do not consider Adam over-priced at 5m(which is what it will take - minimum - to shift him from Blackpool but I will be surprised if we pay anything like that for any player at this time. Villa and Liverpool clearly believe that you have to pay if you want to be sure of staying up ; had all our players been fit and available, I reckon we wouldn't have to add to the squad until summer, but that is a dreamworld. Let's see how we do against Spurs today......

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him. no he shouldn't. he should be assessed by the staff and decided on whether he is worthy of a run. That's what you have managers and coaches for isn't it...! I doubt even Pardew would let Forster go without having a look at him in the first team. The problem is that some on here would whinge pitifully if Forster displaced Krul permanently ...... why do you think he should be given a proper run in the team then ? Why not - don't you, or have you seen him play regularly...?? no i haven't and i wouldn't want players given a run of games in the team on the grounds that i haven't seen them regularly. So do you think his performances - esp given his age - at other clubs DON'T warrant him getting a run in the side ? What other guide do the manager and coaching staff have ? That is why the guy went on loan in the first place ; to give him experience and to see how he performed in competitive games. So rather than go off on a tangent, would you be in favour of him being selected for our first team or not ? If not, why ?

Agree - rather take a chance on Krancjar from Spurs...IF we could meet his wage demands.

In the last 6 months, we have been a newly-promoted PL side - managers have been waiting to see how our players - esp the younger ones - do in the PL. Now they have seen how the likes of Carroll and Enrique have performed against better opposition, they will be more confident about signing those players for large fees. There is no relationship between what has or hasn't been done by Ashley & Co in the past 6 months to what they MIGHT do in the next - their resolve has not been tested over these players and I for one believe that if Man U came for Enrique and they wanted him badly enough. a deal would be done - Yes or No..??

Doesn't matter whether there has or not - managers like Fergie and Wenger will know all about ANY decent player at clubs they think could be persuaded to sell...

The Ashley/Llambias world where none of our top players have been sold you mean? ......and you think they WON'T sell any !?? You must be very trusting in them - lets see what happens in the next 6 months........

It won't be long before top clubs are sniffing round Enrique - he has had a great season and is undoubtedly one of the top 3 LBs in the PL...maybe not as good going forward as Evra or Bale, but a better defender than both in my opinion - imagine how Evra would look playing for NUFC ? He has a great temperament and has been no trouble at all...all these factors will make him a big target for top sides, esp as he has probably 9 years left at the top. Always rated this guy, even when some on here were slating him after his first few games, because he has genuine quality. It may not be in this window, but he WILL go before too long if someone pays the right money or comes up with a good p/ex deal. In a perfect world, we just wouldn't sell this boy but we live in the Ashley/Llambias world.

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him. no he shouldn't. he should be assessed by the staff and decided on whether he is worthy of a run. That's what you have managers and coaches for isn't it...! I doubt even Pardew would let Forster go without having a look at him in the first team. The problem is that some on here would whinge pitifully if Forster displaced Krul permanently ...... why do you think he should be given a proper run in the team then ? Why not - don't you, or have you seen him play regularly...??

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him. no he shouldn't. he should be assessed by the staff and decided on whether he is worthy of a run. That's what you have managers and coaches for isn't it...! I doubt even Pardew would let Forster go without having a look at him in the first team. The problem is that some on here would whinge pitifully if Forster displaced Krul permanently ......

I can go back as far as 1969 when Alan Brown(the Mackems' manager) was saying that they had a great crop of youngsters who would be the club's future - the main star was Colin Todd...within a couple of years he had gone to Derby and people like Billy Hughes finally achieved some sort of success when he was part of the team that won the FA Cup in 73 along with Bobby Kerr and Dennis Tueart. Tueart also left(as did Dave Watson) for Man City and even though Stokoe(a former Newcastle great of course..!) was their manager in 73, they never really lived up to all the hype. Likewise their team of 76 which briefly flattered to deceive with the likes of Arnott etc.

Forster should be given a proper run in the side - I am just NOT convinced by Krul because whilst he can be a good reaction stopper, he doesn't inspire confidence with his general play or commanding the box. Until we see Forster in several first team games, I would not pick Krul over him.

This - nobody can judge Forster until we have seen him play several games for us in the PL.

Poolie family here. After all the tales about the monkey, methinks there is a pot calling the kettle black...!

I always think of Martins' thunderbolt when I think about Spurs games. The 7-1 hammering in 96/97 far betters that in my opinion ; one of the best wins under KK and what made it all the sweeter was one of their fans running on to the pitch after No 5 or 6 to confront their keeper as if he was to blame..! Classic. It was, I believe, KK's swansong as our manager.

That's not true. Lerner told MON to do something about the wage bill, not that he couldn't spend, as we had big earners, quite literally never getting used, not even making the bench. Sidwell and Davies goign will cover Bent's wages, I imagine, more than, in fact. I know for a fact that if MON had been given 18m to spend, he'd have spent it on Robbie Keane or Kevin Doyle, plus McGeady to add to our wingers collection. Yes but your logic defeats itself frankly - do you honestly think that players who cost a big fee are going to accept lower wages than they could get at another club ? You are virtually saying that Lerner is trying to be like Ashley over wages , yet still pay big fees for top players...just won't happen until all clubs do it. No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Lerner pointed out the players on big contracts and big money who weren't getting used - that's the key part, not getting used. Lerner's argument was that he doesn't mind paying out the money, but ideally we'd make sure the big money went to the right players - this is almost word for word what his right hand man said on our forums. Last season we had Shorey, Sidwell, Davies, Beye, NRC not even getting onto the bench most weeks. I'm guessing their combined wage bill per week was 200k. Lerner's approach was that he'd pay the big wages to the big name, but it is hard to make any remotely convincing business case for not moving on any of the above. Yes, I can see what you are driving at, but the sad fact of life in the modern game is that ALL PL players expect big wages...it was bad enough in the 70s when Supermac was obviously getting paid more than most(perhaps all)of the other Newcastle players, but he used to justify it by saying 'I'm the guy that sticks the ball in the net' or words to that effect ; you can imagine how that went down with the likes on Moncur, Nattrass and Alan Kennedy, who went on to win top honours with Liverpool - team spirit was not all it should have been. It's the same today and there will always be resentment if one or two of the squad are on megabucks and the rest on relative peanuts - which is what you seem to be saying that Lerner wants. I appreciate his wish to get value for money, but in the mad world of PL football, VFM and players' expectations do NOT go hand in hand. You either accept the situation as the Top 4 do because they have the dosh to keep doing it, or you do as Ashley has done and try to keep everyone below a certain capped level. Any other approach simply means resentment in the squad and therefore, lack of success. Ashley's approach also means lack of success for a while until you get a group who are happy with their lot, but that can only be done by bringing youngsters through - and eventually, they will get tempted away too. The whole thing is a circus, but it can't go on because too many clubs can't afford it now - only Sky money keeps the charade on the road. As for MON, he gave Villa a few good seasons and you guys should be grateful for that - as I recall, your fans exulted in our departure from the PL 2 years ago and you were only able to do that because MON had raised you from mediocrity just as KK did for us in the 90s. No manager makes perfect signings and KK also signed a few lemons but you won't find many NUFC fans dragging his time at the club down or citing things like scrapping the reserves/juniors which were detrimental to the club's future. You just don't get what he's saying at all. Just give up. I do - you don't. Just because you decide player A is worth the higher wages doesn't mean player B is going to be happy about it. MON DID make some bad signings - so do all managers, but as long as the club does better overall than before that manager arrived, not many complain...did Villa do better after MON arrived as manager or not - yes or no ? If you think I don't understand, why don't you let us have your interpretation of it ? Are you happy that Ashley' interferes' in team matters by setting a max wage ? I think that in time , he will be right, but it won't keep our best players in the current PL wage structure.

Carver did a fine job as No 2 to SBR 10 years ago - he and Sir Bob got the side playing great football and achieving good league positions ; was sorry to see him leave. As has been said, he and Steve Stone have B&W blood so there should be no shortage of motivation from the dressing room staff ! Wish him all the best and hope it means he stays longer.

That's not true. Lerner told MON to do something about the wage bill, not that he couldn't spend, as we had big earners, quite literally never getting used, not even making the bench. Sidwell and Davies goign will cover Bent's wages, I imagine, more than, in fact. I know for a fact that if MON had been given 18m to spend, he'd have spent it on Robbie Keane or Kevin Doyle, plus McGeady to add to our wingers collection. Yes but your logic defeats itself frankly - do you honestly think that players who cost a big fee are going to accept lower wages than they could get at another club ? You are virtually saying that Lerner is trying to be like Ashley over wages , yet still pay big fees for top players...just won't happen until all clubs do it. No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Lerner pointed out the players on big contracts and big money who weren't getting used - that's the key part, not getting used. Lerner's argument was that he doesn't mind paying out the money, but ideally we'd make sure the big money went to the right players - this is almost word for word what his right hand man said on our forums. Last season we had Shorey, Sidwell, Davies, Beye, NRC not even getting onto the bench most weeks. I'm guessing their combined wage bill per week was 200k. Lerner's approach was that he'd pay the big wages to the big name, but it is hard to make any remotely convincing business case for not moving on any of the above. Yes, I can see what you are driving at, but the sad fact of life in the modern game is that ALL PL players expect big wages...it was bad enough in the 70s when Supermac was obviously getting paid more than most(perhaps all)of the other Newcastle players, but he used to justify it by saying 'I'm the guy that sticks the ball in the net' or words to that effect ; you can imagine how that went down with the likes on Moncur, Nattrass and Alan Kennedy, who went on to win top honours with Liverpool - team spirit was not all it should have been. It's the same today and there will always be resentment if one or two of the squad are on megabucks and the rest on relative peanuts - which is what you seem to be saying that Lerner wants. I appreciate his wish to get value for money, but in the mad world of PL football, VFM and players' expectations do NOT go hand in hand. You either accept the situation as the Top 4 do because they have the dosh to keep doing it, or you do as Ashley has done and try to keep everyone below a certain capped level. Any other approach simply means resentment in the squad and therefore, lack of success. Ashley's approach also means lack of success for a while until you get a group who are happy with their lot, but that can only be done by bringing youngsters through - and eventually, they will get tempted away too. The whole thing is a circus, but it can't go on because too many clubs can't afford it now - only Sky money keeps the charade on the road. As for MON, he gave Villa a few good seasons and you guys should be grateful for that - as I recall, your fans exulted in our departure from the PL 2 years ago and you were only able to do that because MON had raised you from mediocrity just as KK did for us in the 90s. No manager makes perfect signings and KK also signed a few lemons but you won't find many NUFC fans dragging his time at the club down or citing things like scrapping the reserves/juniors which were detrimental to the club's future.

Yes but your logic defeats itself frankly - do you honestly think that players who cost a big fee are going to accept lower wages than they could get at another club ? You are virtually saying that Lerner is trying to be like Ashley over wages , yet still pay big fees for top players...just won't happen until all clubs do it. That's not true. Lerner told MON to do something about the wage bill, not that he couldn't spend, as we had big earners, quite literally never getting used, not even making the bench. Sidwell and Davies goign will cover Bent's wages, I imagine, more than, in fact. I know for a fact that if MON had been given 18m to spend, he'd have spent it on Robbie Keane or Kevin Doyle, plus McGeady to add to our wingers collection.