oldtype

People sincerely believe this over there. They're not even the slightest bit tongue and cheek. Take our forum and their forum and average them out and you'd get a forum that was neither overly gloomy nor deluded

Equatorial Guinea will definitely break my top 5 favorite country list if they bring both the two Dembas and Tiote home.

Which of these utterly distasteful teams do I actually want to win?

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place? You never responded to this post from Wullie did you? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,91227.msg3502484.html#msg3502484 I'd be interested to know what these weaknesses are that you keep banging on about; you keep mentioning the term weaknesses without specifying what you think they are. These would be detailed in the series of posts that were made several pages back before this degenerated into childishness. What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place? I'm being attacked on the internets!! Ouch! I was wondering when somebody was going to show up to pull the "he's actually taking an argument seriously, what a loser" tactic.

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion. Nice! So others should not belittle your argument and you start your first sentence by already saying that my argument is unreasonable...good example right there! The whole point of the Obertan point is just to put the argument in context i.e. despite HBA's weaknesses he is still the best we have for that particular position because relative to the other options we have, he is still the best we have. I'm sorry you don't find that as intelligent discussion. The best I can say is that we are just arguing from two different angles. You just want to highlight his weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) whereas others and myself are looking at the debate from the context of how the team should line up going forward. Is accusing me of doing whatever I say you're doing your "thing"? There's a clear difference between "I think you're being unreasonable" and "Obertan/Shola lover LOLZ" If you only care about how the team is going to line up then why do you feel the need to attack me for mentioning his weaknesses? It's not like I disagree that he should start ahead of Obertan in the first place?

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then? We're going around in circles. You can criticize HBA (or any other player for that matter), no one is saying you can't. It's just pointless if you're not relating to a) our potential future line up and the b) the alternatives we have. So others (myself) included are well justified to say that you're just moaning. Do you expect everyone to just nod in agreement with you? We are going in circles because you're argument is unreasonable. I'm "moaning" if I say "he played badly and that highlighted his weaknesses"? I don't expect people to nod in agreement but I expect people to be civil and speak intelligently as opposed to just misrepresenting and belittling anyone they don't agree with. "You think Obertan should start? " doesn't count as intelligent discussion.

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make. Well done, deal with an alleged strawman with a strawman of your own. Whose saying you can't criticize him? What's the point though if it's not in the context of how we should line up against Villa? I guess if you just like to moan, then by all means go ahead If that's a straw man, what exactly is the main point of Wullie's argument then? Because I never said he should be dropped, I never said he wast terrible, I merely criticized his recent performances and that is apparently grounds for ridicule. How is that qualitatively different from "you can't criticize him?" Again, your argument seems to boil down to "if you're criticizing him you must argue for dropping him or else you're just moaning." Where's the straw man then?

Gah, I can't possibly be allowed to be this excited. Surely one of them will go break a leg or something now.

What's tired is the same old tedious straw man of arguing that anyone who'd criticize Ben Arfa in the slightest is somebody who'd like to see us start with Shola and Obertan every game. He's obviously a good player but he had abysmally bad games against Brighton and Blackburn that highlighted his weaknesses. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.

I disagree. It depends what you mean by giving the ball away. If you mean only when a player tries to dribble then of course coz no other fucker except maybe Jonas and occasionally Best dribbles. Why should a long ball that is headed away by the opponent's center back not be considered as 'giving the ball away'? Not quite sure on your point of defensive support, of course in terms of positioning all attacking players by default should be staying high up the pitch when we have the ball so that they emm attack. The point is when we lose the ball, HBA is no different from other players in tracking his opposite number or moving down to help the defence Aside from the fact that it happens for frequently, there's an obvious qualitative difference here. For the former, everyone is in an attacking position and very vulnerable to counterattacks. For the latter, there is time and space to recover. The second point is just wrong imo. On average HBA always occupies more advanced position than his counterparts in similar areas of the pitch

I don't think anybody can debate that he gives the ball away more than other players. Shola may be the one exception, but he tends to do so in more advanced areas. Also, he's Shola. As for defensive support, it's not a matter of skill or effort (although I doubt he's got much of a tackle on him), it's a matter of position. He's going to (rightfully) be staying in areas where he won't be available to offer defensive support.

Ben Arfa comes with significant disadvantages, i.e. his tendency to give away the ball, his lack of defensive support etc. What's supposed to cancel out these disadvantages is supposed to be his unparalleled flair and natural ability that can produce moments of brilliance. As such, his production needs to be held to a higher standard than others. He's the kind of player you'd expect to turn things around when the others aren't preforming well. If he is just expected to play well when the rest of the team does and is immune to criticism when he plays badly, (he was much worse than most of his teammates were against Blackburn mind,) what's the point? Obviously he's better than Obertan, but Obertan is fucking terrible. This guy needs to be held to higher standards.

There's a good point in there somewhere. Somebody with Ben Arfa's talents should be able to lift us when the rest of the team's not playing well. If he's only any good when the rest of the team is good, what's the point really? You'd expect much more of him.

That dive was bad enough to excise any thought of wanting to sign Hoilett from my head. What a cuntbag.

I. Quotation marks II. Premiership Club (at the time) > Championship Club (at the time III. You pedantic bastard

Leave NUFC for "bigger club" -> Ruin career. Happens to a lot of people these days

I think him picking Hoilett off the ground in outrage was the first time I've seen him show genuine emotion He's the Steven Seagal of football. Only has one facial expression.

Shot stopping and kicking isn't as good BUT Given did not command his area like Krul does, admittedly he still has the odd moment BUT for a young keeper that is no major concern Given had abysmal kicking. In fact, so does Harper.

Can it really be the wrong position though, if it has saved us a goal? strikes me as exceptional positioning. All his clearances were from set pieces where he's instructed to stand on the line in the first place, so accusations of "poor positioning" don't make any sense at all really.l He's doing his job.

Time to edit the op

Was 100% the correct decision to take him off and strengthen the midfield today, even if it's unfortunate that the best player we could put on in that position was James Perch. We would have lost heavily without that tactical change. Don't know what's up with him these last two games really, been utterly, utterly shit. He's always been a bit erratic before but never quite to this level.

They'd wake up and fire me. They can't do that man. Haven't you heard of affirmative action?

WTF how are they eighth all of the sudden? Where did they come from?

Can we change the topic to Gabrilol Rofltan?

I suspect the club might not be paying a whole lot of attention to this year's league position. There's very little real merit to finishing seventh if it doesn't get us into Europe anyway, and perhaps even UEFA football itself is seen as a hindrance by our regime. They may just feel that they want to use our scouting network and efficient practices to slowly build towards a team that's actually good enough to challenge for something and aren't really fussed about where we finish in the meantime, thus the emphasis on long-term value and rejection of any sort of spending for short-term benefit. (Pardew's mention of "Tipping Point" seems to point towards this as well.) Obviously there's the "finishing higher in the league gets you more prize money" argument, but there's no guarantee that a third choice defender would have secured us more points while it is guaranteed that even a loan would have probably cost us at least 1m in fee and wages until the end of the season, money that could be better invested for long term gain. Personally I wish they weren't so extreme about it, but when you put everything together there does seem to be a coherent gameplan behind all this madness.