fredbob

I honestly dont think we need a striker now, maybe one on loan like Saviola but no one permanent just yet, would rather the money went on midfilders, especially our right wing and a DM. Shame we missed out on Diarra, think he could of been just what we needed.

Mark Emmery aka Sexual Chocolate

He naturally likes to move into the centre when hes on the wing anyways, i just think he could be more effective inthe centre with the type of strikers we have. Hes not been brilliant in hte centre in the past but i think hes matured alot recently. Wasnt he moved into the centre when GR took over after souness? Stick an extra competent DM behind him and i think he could be excellent with a bit of coaching. EDIT: Dont get me wrong i think he's very very good on the left, but it hink his skill could be utilised more in the centre where he would be more effective in the cnetre.

I think his best position is in the centre, i like his direct running, he draws out defenders which gives forwards more space, he is very good on the left but with the strikers at our club i dont think his talent would be best used on the wing.

To be fair, the genrally accpeted populus view is 1000 million = 1 billion. Northern rock havent just taken a 25 million million pound loan from the Bank of England. More like 25 thousand million.

Fully agree. +1 would rather that £10m go on a different position, i think we have a lot of variety up front (im including Smith in this as well). Would like the money go on the wing and CM to be honest.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change. If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating. Its alot more than physical in my book. err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ? And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ? I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well. Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays. Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on.

Highly unlikely, but I would lose it if Quaresma was signed. I think id do a sex wee in my pants.

I hate that "would rather win the FA cup..." quote with a passion. To be fair though, Keegan has been spouting that "win with style thing aswell"

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change. If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating. Its alot more than physical in my book.

i'd take maldini in his prime or baresi over vidic ,terry or carhvallo. So you'd take some of the worlds greatest ever? Yeh so would i i think. you chose some of the best in the world of todays football. i chose 2 of the best from the past 20 years....seems fair to me 20 years, or ever? I thought that they were a reflection of the changes in football, in the EPL in particular. Im just someone who thinks that football has changed alot, primarily the way we think about football and to an extent the way a team plays. ~I thougt we werent talking a bout the past.

i'd take maldini in his prime or baresi over vidic ,terry or carhvallo. So you'd take some of the worlds greatest ever? Yeh so would i i think.

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style. chelsea often use a 4-3-3 whereas man utd go more 4-4-1-1 as do arsenal.(no dramatic change) liverpool still 4-4-2.(hey 4-4-1-1 think beardsly playing off ferdinand or andy cole) but anyway they are fluid and moving,only chelsea play quite rigid. keegan like his players to move,to have the nouse to use space and to cover for others. it's not subbuteo...players can move. one of the most disappointing things about nufc's play since robson left is that you could tell which nufc player had the ball by where on the pitch it was see the connection with those 4 i quoted..they are the ones with the best players Id have o agree to an extent with you there, but what about the world game, what about the hugely successfull clubs in Europe (arguably better managers). You're over simplyfying this too much, your making it sound far far too easy. I really disagree with you if you think football hasnt changed. Do you think uber successful managers in the past would make a success of any team inthe present day? If not then surely you are contradicting your "football hasnt changed at all stance". we are talking about 3 years.....if you think football has changed that massivly in 3 years you'll have to do a damn sight more than that to impress me. the players have got quicker and stronger...the basics are the same. the team with the best basics has been the most succesful team in this country for the past dozen years. as for morinhos "immaculate organisaation" take the team in 4th add twice as much as anyone else can spend. i'd argue redknapp or hughes in charge would take them to the title Fair point, i think in the EPL changed when Mourhino and Abramovich came. I just think it took it had a completely different outlook from that point, eveni thnk the basics are the same, i could agree with your more, but i think the finer points have changed dramatically. Also, do you think a manager of the past would be just as sucessful as they were then now?

I love these cliches where people say football has "changed". I didn't realise that the goals were bigger, or teams played with more players .............. What a surprise, NE5 with a pathetic attempt at a dig at someone who has a different opinion, mate you're so pathetic its unreal, grow up and take the statement as it was attempted. Do you think football is exactly the same as it was then? I dont, ever since the likes of Allardyce and Mourihoin came on the secene, in my eyes the game took a different outlook, teams are incredibly organized, and the whole "containing" mentality came into play, i dont ever remeber seeing a team having a containing mentality, i remeber the days when Derby would go and try and outplay Man U and actually come out with 3 ponts, that would never happen in the modern era, never will. Draw your own conclusions? The lack of organisation in defense was one of keys reasons that i cite as being one where Keegan old style of football may not be entirely successful. Do you think the likes of Bruce and Pallister in there prime hold a flame to Ferdinand and Vidic or Terry and Carhvallo in their prime. Persoannly i dont think so. There is a reason for that, a more scientific approach is required in the game, but no too much, the days where the whole "get stuck in lads" way of coaching doesnt work, its the primary reason why i dont think there are many good British managers. It just an opinion NE5, in future if you dont accept it or understand it just ignore it , petty retort make you look like an idiot. Ill be honest, im very optimistic about Keegan, he could be just what the club needs, and the buzz around the club is like nothing ive seen before, he wouldnt of been my first choice personally but i will support him 100% of the way. Nowts changed I'm afraid. Talented players playing with a positive attitude to their strengths will beat muddled tactics anytime. How anyone can defend this having suffered the crap "tactics" under Souness, and sadly Roeder and Allardyce because at least they tried to do right for the club, is beyond me. Well, if you didn't see the first time around, I have a sneaking feeling that you may be on the brink of another u-turn to match the last one, especially when you see the quality of players he brings in once he starts spending some money and setting different standards to what you are used to. Was i not right in not wating Allardyce to have too much miney this period? I think so. Also, if you cant see the difference in not wanting to give a current manager funds after not doing too well with his own purchases and me advocating giving a new manager funds so he can make his own purchases then i really see no hope for you. Should take this to PM but quite frankly im very bored with you. which is of course not the reason you gave for not spending money. As for being bored, ditto. Its one of many reasons i gave for not spending money, but i guess you see what you wanna see. I could prove it to you if you'd like? no thanks. You said previously you would blow my top 4 statistic away, and backtracked when you realised you couldn't :sign5:

I love these cliches where people say football has "changed". I didn't realise that the goals were bigger, or teams played with more players .............. What a surprise, NE5 with a pathetic attempt at a dig at someone who has a different opinion, mate you're so pathetic its unreal, grow up and take the statement as it was attempted. Do you think football is exactly the same as it was then? I dont, ever since the likes of Allardyce and Mourihoin came on the secene, in my eyes the game took a different outlook, teams are incredibly organized, and the whole "containing" mentality came into play, i dont ever remeber seeing a team having a containing mentality, i remeber the days when Derby would go and try and outplay Man U and actually come out with 3 ponts, that would never happen in the modern era, never will. Draw your own conclusions? The lack of organisation in defense was one of keys reasons that i cite as being one where Keegan old style of football may not be entirely successful. Do you think the likes of Bruce and Pallister in there prime hold a flame to Ferdinand and Vidic or Terry and Carhvallo in their prime. Persoannly i dont think so. There is a reason for that, a more scientific approach is required in the game, but no too much, the days where the whole "get stuck in lads" way of coaching doesnt work, its the primary reason why i dont think there are many good British managers. It just an opinion NE5, in future if you dont accept it or understand it just ignore it , petty retort make you look like an idiot. Ill be honest, im very optimistic about Keegan, he could be just what the club needs, and the buzz around the club is like nothing ive seen before, he wouldnt of been my first choice personally but i will support him 100% of the way. Nowts changed I'm afraid. Talented players playing with a positive attitude to their strengths will beat muddled tactics anytime. How anyone can defend this having suffered the crap "tactics" under Souness, and sadly Roeder and Allardyce because at least they tried to do right for the club, is beyond me. Well, if you didn't see the first time around, I have a sneaking feeling that you may be on the brink of another u-turn to match the last one, especially when you see the quality of players he brings in once he starts spending some money and setting different standards to what you are used to. Was i not right in not wating Allardyce to have too much miney this period? I think so. Also, if you cant see the difference in not wanting to give a current manager funds after not doing too well with his own purchases and me advocating giving a new manager funds so he can make his own purchases then i really see no hope for you. Should take this to PM but quite frankly im very bored with you. which is of course not the reason you gave for not spending money. As for being bored, ditto. Its one of many reasons i gave for not spending money, but i guess you see what you wanna see. I could prove it to you if you'd like?

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style. chelsea often use a 4-3-3 whereas man utd go more 4-4-1-1 as do arsenal.(no dramatic change) liverpool still 4-4-2.(hey 4-4-1-1 think beardsly playing off ferdinand or andy cole) but anyway they are fluid and moving,only chelsea play quite rigid. keegan like his players to move,to have the nouse to use space and to cover for others. it's not subbuteo...players can move. one of the most disappointing things about nufc's play since robson left is that you could tell which nufc player had the ball by where on the pitch it was see the connection with those 4 i quoted..they are the ones with the best players Id have o agree to an extent with you there, but what about the world game, what about the hugely successfull clubs in Europe (arguably better managers). You're over simplyfying this too much, your making it sound far far too easy. I really disagree with you if you think football hasnt changed. Do you think uber successful managers in the past would make a success of any team inthe present day? If not then surely you are contradicting your "football hasnt changed at all stance".

I love these cliches where people say football has "changed". I didn't realise that the goals were bigger, or teams played with more players .............. What a surprise, NE5 with a pathetic attempt at a dig at someone who has a different opinion, mate you're so pathetic its unreal, grow up and take the statement as it was attempted. Do you think football is exactly the same as it was then? I dont, ever since the likes of Allardyce and Mourihoin came on the secene, in my eyes the game took a different outlook, teams are incredibly organized, and the whole "containing" mentality came into play, i dont ever remeber seeing a team having a containing mentality, i remeber the days when Derby would go and try and outplay Man U and actually come out with 3 ponts, that would never happen in the modern era, never will. Draw your own conclusions? The lack of organisation in defense was one of keys reasons that i cite as being one where Keegan old style of football may not be entirely successful. Do you think the likes of Bruce and Pallister in there prime hold a flame to Ferdinand and Vidic or Terry and Carhvallo in their prime. Persoannly i dont think so. There is a reason for that, a more scientific approach is required in the game, but no too much, the days where the whole "get stuck in lads" way of coaching doesnt work, its the primary reason why i dont think there are many good British managers. It just an opinion NE5, in future if you dont accept it or understand it just ignore it , petty retort make you look like an idiot. Ill be honest, im very optimistic about Keegan, he could be just what the club needs, and the buzz around the club is like nothing ive seen before, he wouldnt of been my first choice personally but i will support him 100% of the way. Nowts changed I'm afraid. Talented players playing with a positive attitude to their strengths will beat muddled tactics anytime. How anyone can defend this having suffered the crap "tactics" under Souness, and sadly Roeder and Allardyce because at least they tried to do right for the club, is beyond me. Well, if you didn't see the first time around, I have a sneaking feeling that you may be on the brink of another u-turn to match the last one, especially when you see the quality of players he brings in once he starts spending some money and setting different standards to what you are used to. Was i not right in not wating Allardyce to have too much miney this period? I think so. Also, if you cant see the difference in not wanting to give a current manager funds after not doing too well with his own purchases and me advocating giving a new manager funds so he can make his own purchases then i really see no hope for you. Should take this to PM but quite frankly im very bored with you.

How about the formations that are used nowaday, there has to be a reason why the 433 is now so popular when it wasnt 15 years ago? What reason to do you cite for the change in formations preferences? What about the immaculate organizsation of teams since mourihno came into the game. What about allardyces "contain" them mentality which gears teamm towards defendeing. These are all changes in my book, remeber when Derby would go out and try and outplay Man U with inferior players and still come out with 3 points. Would that happen ever again? Things have changed, and i think people are being navie by saying that it hasnt and all these managers who have studied and been apart of the game continuously for 40years are simply "over complicating" things. If football hasnt changed then you'd all agree without thinking twice that successful managers nthe past, such as Shankly, Clough etc would be successful managers now with the exact saem style.

I love these cliches where people say football has "changed". I didn't realise that the goals were bigger, or teams played with more players .............. What a surprise, NE5 with a pathetic attempt at a dig at someone who has a different opinion, mate you're so pathetic its unreal, grow up and take the statement as it was attempted. Do you think football is exactly the same as it was then? I dont, ever since the likes of Allardyce and Mourihoin came on the secene, in my eyes the game took a different outlook, teams are incredibly organized, and the whole "containing" mentality came into play, i dont ever remeber seeing a team having a containing mentality, i remeber the days when Derby would go and try and outplay Man U and actually come out with 3 ponts, that would never happen in the modern era, never will. Draw your own conclusions? The lack of organisation in defense was one of keys reasons that i cite as being one where Keegan old style of football may not be entirely successful. Do you think the likes of Bruce and Pallister in there prime hold a flame to Ferdinand and Vidic or Terry and Carhvallo in their prime. Persoannly i dont think so. There is a reason for that, a more scientific approach is required in the game, but no too much, the days where the whole "get stuck in lads" way of coaching doesnt work, its the primary reason why i dont think there are many good British managers. It just an opinion NE5, in future if you dont accept it or understand it just ignore it , petty retort make you look like an idiot. Ill be honest, im very optimistic about Keegan, he could be just what the club needs, and the buzz around the club is like nothing ive seen before, he wouldnt of been my first choice personally but i will support him 100% of the way.

just out of interest, what happened to that chilean winger at liverpool? gonzalez or whatever his name is...

Proabaly the best CM we have in the squad. Dont know who to play him with, if its Zog then he has to be a DM esxclusively. Cant think who else could play in thecentre and give us the same dynamism as those 2.v

Dont think he should last too long in the first team, i dont think his movment is very intelligent, and his pace lets him down when hes too far away from the box, also when he cuts 9 time out of ten he will slow down play by doing his shimmy thing. If we are after a playmaker, then we need our outlets to be equally as good.

Barton, if he gets out of jail.

I wanna see zog in the centre, last night he was superb and i think he'd be very effective in the centre. SWP has been very effetive in the centre for Chelsea recently, i think zog could do a similar job. Duff can stay on the left for me!!

I think it would be a shrewd to make Barton captain, it might sort his head out and give him some responsibilty, was he captain for Man C? If so, forget this. Make it his captainship to lose, i can imagine it working to be honest, providing he doesnt go down tht is.