Heron

Literally just mentioned it again as soon as they went back to the Stadium of Shite

On Final Score one of the first things they said about the Mackems was "Top by 5 points and they may be playing Newcastle United in the Premier League next season" sad bastards.

FIFA, UEFA, respective FAs, the big wigs that own clubs and the television. The working man's game is anything but. Businessmen and corrupt officials screwing the working man for their every last pennies to see their respective teams play, and folk lapping it up because that's their main source of "letting loose" at a weekend (which is absolutely fair and understandable).

An Australian world roots jazz group.

The vampires of football have almost sucked every last drop of blood.

I agree with you. But just for clarity - I'm not putting the poor performances down to Tonali. I've said we've been playing better with Tonali just not getting wins in recent weeks. Before reviewing the games (earlier in the thread) versus the Twitter statement - I was suggesting that selecting a winning team is more important than picking the best 11 players.

Again though "Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round". He hasn't been. He's played in the more recent games when the team have collectively played better, despite not picking up wins. Longstaff was playing in the side when we weren't collectively playing well, adding credence to both sides of the debate (of course)...

But you do want Newcastle to win games - right?

Other comments suggested it was. As for the rest - I agree.

Yeah, that's fair. However, it being raised (albeit via Twitter) is also fair. It's not as clear until someone does more digging (as I have done). I'm not saying Longstaff is better, I said (on the basis of the data I had at the time) we win more with him in the side - which is more important. Now that data has been (in)validated then it's obviosuly different. What doesn't change, is that folk have absolutely zero objectivity in their analysis of Longstaff at times. Bizarre.

Howay man. That's basically fingers in ears going "lalalala". Absolutely zero attempt for folk to be objective in Sean Longstaff's case at times. Similar happens with Dan Burn. I really don't get it...

If we do win more with Lonfstaff in - what is concerning about it? We're here to win games by fielding the best team. Not by playing the best players. That being said - I agree. You would expect Tonali would feature in our "best team".

Longstaff Starts - Not subbed Southampton (W) Wimbledon (W) Longstaff Starts - Subbed Bournemouth (D) (Losing 1 -0, Willock replaces) Tottenham (W) (Drawing 1-1, Tonali replaces) Wolves (W) (Losing 1-0, Tonali replaces) Tonali Starts - Subbed Nottingham Forest (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces, Newcastle win the game on pens - Longstaff scores his) Man City (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces) Everton (D) (0-0, Longstaff replaces) Longstaff doesn't feature Fulham (L) Longstaff Subbed In Brighton (L) (0-1, Longstaff replaces Gordon)

Howe will be having conversation about this all the time you'd think - surely? It's his job to pick a team that wins, not a one that has the best players in. Undoubtedly, he will expect we're better with Tonali (in time). I think we all do.

With all due respect this is always an excuse that is immediately made. We keep possession from a passing perspective with Longstaff in the side, based on data. That was the point I was making (which based on the data is accurate). Chances created - Tonali is better - as outlined. Folk seem to rush to Tonali's defence claiming "misleading data" because it suits their narrative that Tonali is better and Longstaff is the devil in disguise. I just don't get it, personally.

According to Fotmob (which I am not sure how accurate it is as a data source): Pass Accuracy: SL 109 (86.5%) ST 93 (81.6%) Accurate Long Balls: SL 2 (66.7%) ST 1 (14.3%) Tackles Won: SL 9 (81.8%) ST 5 (71.4%) There are other stats which are in Tonali's favour - as you'd expect. Chance creation, shots on target for example. However, perhaps ball retention is something Howe is looking at? Again - when watching - Tonali is clearly a better all rounder, but how they both link in with those around them and what results we get from it is more important than starting the best player. For what it's worth - as per the Howe discussion - this conversation wouldn't be being had, had Gordon, Isak and even Lonfstaff taken their chances in the last 3. As we'd be third top.

That's fair - we have played better in recent games, undoubtedly. However, we also haven't got results. So the tweet is valid in that it is asking the question whether as a team we're better off with Longstaff in the side based on how we play. Folk rushing to rubbish it is just bizarre. I don't really care who plays for Newcastle as long they're morally alreet and we're winning games. Folk rubbishing it without making any discussion about it are (in my eyes) saying the best players must play over Newcastle winning games - to some degree. What I am saying is, we will be better once we find a system or way of playing or simply Tonali settles better into the existing system. But at present Longstaff isn't the massive problem folk perhaps make out.

There is a debate because the results suggest we perform better with Longstaff starting. As for the last sentence - what a weird remark. Tonali is undoubtedly a better player but teams win games not individuals. Until we find the right balance of how to utilise Tonali and as a team we're maximising his potential then it is absolutely fair that folk ask what is going to continue to get us results. Why would anyone dislike Sean Longstaff as a Newcastle supporter? A Geordie playing his heart our for his home town side. He may not be as good as Tonali but he is as inoffensive as can be. Peculiar crack.

Whatever narrative you want to follow. The reality is both are (at least) decent and have their uses. Just folk don't like Longstaff and do like Tonali... Madness when one played with an injury for us all season whilst the other couldn't play for being hooked on gambling. I for one like both...but just saying...

Lush that last bit. Hits a very soft spot for me right now.

Absolutely. I just think there's folk citing Howe is the problem and that is by and large an easy thing to do - but I'm Intrigued about who is the solution. I (for one) do not think Howe is the problem, albeit there are problems for him to address.

You say about me reading the earlier posts but you have quote-replied to my question. Therefore, have you actually read what I asked? Which managers are available who could do better? -Tuchel has just arrived at England -Emery is already building something decent at Villa -Your third and final solution was Iraola Good lord.

So you'd risk what Eddie has built for Iraola? The other two are in essence irrelevant as one manages England and the other Aston Villa.

I think it's just that there are doubts about whether whoever we get could do more with this current squad/set up. Genuine question: which managers are available who could do better do folk think?