fredbob

If you're Mike Ashley it's probably what you tip the paper boy. source?

Not a roaring success though which is what I want from every player. Maybe Martins will be that eventually, I would hope for that. Can't see it though. Yeh but how can you demand that from players in teams that have absolutley no cohesion. I think its a bit unfair to wave tht stick at Martins.

Diego is a class plaer but seems a bit lightwieght to me, need players that can ride a tackle or just plain avoid them with skill if they're gonna stand any chance of being a success in the prem.

I dont see how anyone can say otherwise. He's played under 3 managers now and 2 of the managers have played styles and systems which dont suit him yet he's still come out with a decent goalscoring record as well as being key in a fair few goals scored by other players in his time. By know means is he setting the world alight but he's done a very good job so far. Owen is obviously getting the likmelight in the media recently and deservedly so, but for me Martins has been instrumental in the revival. Especially at Birmingham.

What makes you say that?

But one is proven in the premiership is younger and financically cheaper, hungrier and ambitiuos and the the other is unproven in this league, more expenisve longer term and maybe not as hungry to prove himself. Although as you say ability wise not entirely comparable but i can se the merit in wating Bentley.

True, good job we didnt go for Barnes and Rush as well.

Im always wary of signing players who are 30 years or older. In fact, 28 years is abit too old for me, i dont know why, its completely irrational but i like the idea of having a younger side who mature together. Deco should be a signing that gets me very very excited but it just doesnt, especially at £15m, just seems too much.

For me, Butts performances have highlighted the importance of geting a new DM, thought for a while now that whever Butt has a good game so do we, unfortunately he's not getting any younger and isnt as effective as he once was. Still think his distribution is tosh at times though!!

Not sure i agree with all of that, my point was that Everton are handicapped as a club by having Livepool in the same city. i think its a bit of an unrealisitc view to suggest that the tradition of the clubs has much standing in todays game, unfortunately it is an aspect of the game which seems to be phased out in order to make more room for the souless business side of the game. I like Everton as a club, i think Moyes has done a fantastic job and maybe doesnt get half the credit he deserves (credit which seems to be reseverd for the english Sam Allrdyce) but i genuinely believe that having a good history, having a good standing at present and having a good tradition count for very little in toays more moey driven game. And especially so when you have a massive world reknonwed club on your doorstep. Its David versus Goliath without the rock. So what do you think about Atletico Madrid? They attract big name players every year and have pretty much an identical honours list to Everton and the biggest club in the world on their doorstep. The difference being money. You just said yourself that today's game is money driven, Atletico have lots of it and we don't. It's also worth considering that back in the 70's when Liverpool were far, far stronger than they are now and were winning everything in sight it was no handicap to us in the long run, we came through it stronger and won major trophies ourselves in the 80's. Back then we had the finances to compete at the very top end of the market and go after all the top players but now we're operating a step below that. If/when things change in the boardroom then that will be reflected on the pitch. We'll be able to genuinely compete at that point but until then, we're hoping one of the rich clubs will slip up and our manager will be able to capitalise on it. Same as Villa/City/Spurs/Newcastle. What about Athletico Madrid? There are alot of incomparable differences there that you cant really apply to Liverpool/Everton, such as the city, the weather etc. Does that not have an effect of the percieved glamour of the club? Also are Athetico competing with Real for these big players? I dont think so, and i dont think that there have been many cases of Real losing out on a player to Athletico. I think you've inadvertently explained yourself why Liverpool are comletely relevant to the success of your club, if Everton were the only club in that city, then do you think you wold of benefitted from that extra support? To say that having Liverpool in your city is irrelavent nonsense just sounds like yu may be in denial. I just cant see how you dont hink that them being in your city doesnt have adirect effect on how you do as a club.

Very happy at the moment! Really desperate not to put a dampner on things but theres a lot of assumption that the players will take to keegans method in the summer as well. Im citing Roeder and Allardyce and even Souness as examples of newcastle united players records of summer training. Roeder and Allardyce especially are good examples of managers whose pre season effect haent been seen on the squad, one manager had a similar confidences boosting run the season before that got them into europe and the other was reknowned for his prep skills and fitness training etc. Just a thought.

0-0 Bolton Style

sexy football was Gullits phrase, not Keegans. And for what its worth, Keegan's teams play effective football, not "sexy football". We don't really want him to sign tossers like Arsprilla who played one good game in ten again, nor do we want him to see anybody shoot Arsprilla although in far too many bread and butter league games I'd like to have done it Not a fan of Ginola either then??

Not sure i agree with all of that, my point was that Everton are handicapped as a club by having Livepool in the same city. i think its a bit of an unrealisitc view to suggest that the tradition of the clubs has much standing in todays game, unfortunately it is an aspect of the game which seems to be phased out in order to make more room for the souless business side of the game. I like Everton as a club, i think Moyes has done a fantastic job and maybe doesnt get half the credit he deserves (credit which seems to be reseverd for the english Sam Allrdyce) but i genuinely believe that having a good history, having a good standing at present and having a good tradition count for very little in toays more moey driven game. And especially so when you have a massive world reknonwed club on your doorstep. Its David versus Goliath without the rock.

Sorry. Nah, f*** it, I'm not sorry about the point, just the somewhat forceful wording. You know what I mean I wasn't biting. Not interested in getting into a pissing contest over who is the better club. What I will say is Everton and Villa have both had the same problems, incompetent wankers running the club and little to no money invested. That's why big names "won't come here"- because we can't afford to make them an offer in the first place. Also, Liverpool being in the same city is totally irrelevant nonsense. Really?? Id of listed that as one of your biggest weaknesses as a club. No matter how well they do in the league as long as they arent doing better than Liverpool on a consistent basis they will never be the club they could and deserve to be. Size of the club is directly relevant to the type of players you sign and unformunately even if you are doing a bit better han Liverpool, in fact even if you were doing a lot better than Liverpool, you still wouldnt in my opinion have the same pulling power as liverpool would have. Its the saem with Man City, the by rights could be a big big club as well but they will never ever hav the samepuling power as Man U irrespective of how much money they have and how well they are doing. To re illustrate tht point, Newcastle have benefitted massivvely from being a one club city.

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful. you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire. as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level The better teams or the more attacking teams? I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions" You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration. More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions. man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ? See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill as a manager or coach to implment an interchangeable system. Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post. With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions. See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions. I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for. chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam. Which is reflective of the stlye of football that Wenger and Ferguson want to play, as oppsosed to the type of football that Mourihno an Liverpool want to play. Its all down to the managers.

but thats incredibly blinkered, he's had to do it with very limited resources, he had to turn an awful team into a decent team, and he has, maybe more. all people are saying is that if kev's given ample resources, we'll do much, much better than we have under souness, roeder or allardyce. is that hard to understand? or do you just disagree? and to answer your first question, i dont actually think the reaction will be TOO bad if we lose, even though i slag the booing c***s to high heaven, because i think people will recognise that we've turned a corner in the last few weeks I just disagree. the fundamental flaw in your point is that you are saying that if you play crap and sneak a lucky 1-0 win, its no different from an assessment of the team point of view as completely dominating a team, hitting the post 10 times, having 2 goals disallowed, going down to 10 men and also winning 1-0. Stretching a point maybe to make the point, but the scenarios are a world apart. Yeah, that's exactly what I said So because I don't cream myself over Kevin Keegan, and think he's going to do any better than a mid-table finish next year, I don't know anything? The crux of your initial argument is massivly flawed though, How can Keegans first 10 games be comparable to Allardyces last 10 games? Did Kegan have the summer with the squad, did keegan have his own signings? Were Keegans first 10 games against the same opposition as Allardyces last 10 games? Equating whats occured so far at the club down to a points tally is a litte tight if you ask me, if you cant see the whole picture ten surely you ust be extremely happy that we are doing better than last year positions wise? They are 2 completely different scenarios, what people on here are getting excited about, is that they have been able to see the gradual improvements in every single match bar a couple, and there is no reason why it cant continue in the future.

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful. you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire. as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level The better teams or the more attacking teams? I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions" You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration. More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions. man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ? See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill as a manager or coach to implment an interchangeable system. Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post. With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions. See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions. I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for.

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful. you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire. as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level The better teams or the more attacking teams? I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions" You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration. More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

Looks a quality player in that picture.

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently. Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis. Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions. The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick. My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective. In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically. Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish. I think you're romanticising a bit here. If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players. Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team. To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level. This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game. For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

Mate, the last thing I want to do is get into a slanging match, but have you watched much football this year? Everton are currently in fifth and looking closer than anyone to breaking the big four dominance. Spurs might want to concentrate on cracking the top half of the table before they look at the big four, and until last Sunday, a lot of people here were worried about relegation. Bentley wants CL football, he's only going to get it in three places. To be fair to the misguided lad, he was on about te "mystique" of the club and not the position we are in at the moment. And just a side note, not that i agree with him much, but it would be a testament to the club if despite having massive relegation fears this season we were still able to attract big players like we have done in the past despite having a bit of a checkered history. Just a thought.

Lennon-Maybe. Pennant-f*** off! what makes you say that? he's one of the best crossers of the ball in the league imo He seems like he would be another bad boy that we dont need plus I have only ever seen him have a handful decent games and none for a long time.I would way prefer Milner than him every time or even Duff tbh i would rather play a bloke with a wooden leg than duff tbh Same with Pennant though pennant has an end product, big difference there! he has more of an end product than milner imo Aye, but is that end product gonna be effective with the likes of Owen, Martins or even Viduka (not prolific with his head)leading our front line? We dont have a beast in the box like Drogba or Shearer for Pennant to be effective. Thats why i think Lennon would be better suited because he can manouever himself ito more dfangerous positions, putting the defenders onto the back foota and making spaces for the likes of Owen and Martins to exploit.

An indication of how little faith Ramos has Lennon's ability to deliver a half decent cross once in a while. I do like Ramos' attitude to anyone who isn't performing for whatever reason. Irrespective of whether it is a leading light or a squad player, JR's reaction is the same, They won't play if they don't match up to what Ramos wants. Lennon has to improve his final ball, doing extra training, Gilberto has some weight to lose and I won't even begin to tell you why JJ has been absent for the past couple of matches. MAybe this is the reason why you havent been climibing up the league like you should be in my opinion, we had a similar approach with SA and the team changed every week for whatever statistcal reason. It's notall its cracked up to be. I think it might be a factor. Whilst Spurs were struggling when Ramos came, and it is good to see underperformers not in the side, this is a team that came 5th the previous two seasons. You were s*** this year under Jol, but you haven't done that well in the league under Ramos either. Talk of a complete overhaul this summer. Should that really be necessary 12 months on from a clubs two highest ever finishes in the premier league? Having spent £40-50m this seaon as well.....

An indication of how little faith Ramos has Lennon's ability to deliver a half decent cross once in a while. I do like Ramos' attitude to anyone who isn't performing for whatever reason. Irrespective of whether it is a leading light or a squad player, JR's reaction is the same, They won't play if they don't match up to what Ramos wants. Lennon has to improve his final ball, doing extra training, Gilberto has some weight to lose and I won't even begin to tell you why JJ has been absent for the past couple of matches. MAybe this is the reason why you havent been climibing up the league like you should be in my opinion, we had a similar approach with SA and the team changed every week for whatever statistcal reason. It's notall its cracked up to be.