The Prophet

It's a good job it's just the mods who can change thread titles. If it had of been me I'd off changed the title, looked up your IP address, tracked you down and I'd of shaken you until that ten second of my life you just wasted fell out of your senseless head.

It's a win-win situation if it's true. If he comes in, does well, and we start progressing we're laughing tea cakes. If he comes in and does shite then it gets him out of the system for good.

Solano, Emre or Dyer, providing they were on pay as you play contracts. We badly need people who can retain the ball in midfield. I'm unsure why people are picking Parker to be honest.

Think your being a bit harsh on grant there. People keep harping on about his Chelsea days but you've got to remember he's been a manager since 1980-odd. He turneed Hapoel Tikva from minows into title contenders, breaking the dominance the Maccabi clubs had on the Israeli league. He later managed both of the Maccabi clubs with a fair bit of success. People will judge him on his short spell with Chelsea but its worth noting the man has put a hell of a lot into Israeli football. so? it means nowt Aye, twenty-odd years in professional football management counts for nothing. I'm pretty sure there are other managers in other random European minnow leagues who have 20 odd years in football management (say in norway, sweden, cyprus, poland, bulgaria, etc...) Why go for someone who's done it in Israel and not someone who's been managing for quite some time say in Holland or Germany or France? Would you take Christian Gross as manager for example? What about Jacques Santini? Guy Roux maybe? I love it when an argument gets blown out of all proportion. I wasn't saying just because he has a good record in Israel we should appoint him. I was simply saying it is worth pointing out he has that experience in his favour. Fair enough. But so do Barry Fry, Bryan Robson, Terry Venables, Tony Pulis and Joe Kinnear! Just to clarify, it's not ONLY Grant's record that puts me off him, it's also his zero personality. He would not be able to handle the club in the state it's in. Exactly, of course there is better out there, but how are we supposed to attract better at this very moment in time? I'd take Grant over Kinnear every day of the week. It really depends whether Grant is in it for the short or long term in my opinion...

Think your being a bit harsh on grant there. People keep harping on about his Chelsea days but you've got to remember he's been a manager since 1980-odd. He turneed Hapoel Tikva from minows into title contenders, breaking the dominance the Maccabi clubs had on the Israeli league. He later managed both of the Maccabi clubs with a fair bit of success. People will judge him on his short spell with Chelsea but its worth noting the man has put a hell of a lot into Israeli football. so? it means nowt Aye, twenty-odd years in professional football management counts for nothing. I'm pretty sure there are other managers in other random European minnow leagues who have 20 odd years in football management (say in norway, sweden, cyprus, poland, bulgaria, etc...) Why go for someone who's done it in Israel and not someone who's been managing for quite some time say in Holland or Germany or France? Would you take Christian Gross as manager for example? What about Jacques Santini? Guy Roux maybe? I love it when an argument gets blown out of all proportion. I wasn't saying just because he has a good record in Israel we should appoint him. I was simply saying it is worth pointing out he has that experience in his favour.

Think your being a bit harsh on grant there. People keep harping on about his Chelsea days but you've got to remember he's been a manager since 1980-odd. He turneed Hapoel Tikva from minows into title contenders, breaking the dominance the Maccabi clubs had on the Israeli league. He later managed both of the Maccabi clubs with a fair bit of success. People will judge him on his short spell with Chelsea but its worth noting the man has put a hell of a lot into Israeli football. so? it means nowt Aye, twenty-odd years in professional football management counts for nothing.

Think your being a bit harsh on grant there. People keep harping on about his Chelsea days but you've got to remember he's been a manager since 1980-odd. He turneed Hapoel Tikva from minows into title contenders, breaking the dominance the Maccabi clubs had on the Israeli league. He later managed both of the Maccabi clubs with a fair bit of success. People will judge him on his short spell with Chelsea but its worth noting the man has put a hell of a lot into Israeli football.

It's a bit of a no-brainer really, who would you realistically prefer? The irony of it all is that he'd have fit perfectly into Ashley's system. He's worked under a director of football and is well known for giving the young lads a chance.

Which was my point really, the league hasn't settled yet at all. Once it does I think they'll struggle to pick up results.

I honestly think it will be that kind of margain again this year. The league hasn't settled down yet. West Brom are fucked in my honest opinion, they just don't have enough to stay in the league, simple as that. Then you start to look at the other contenders: I think both Bolton and Stoke will struggle on the road but will pick up points at home due to their rough-house tactics. Fulham as always will be down their. Hull have given themselves a great chance but will gate-crash the scrap. Sunderland look good bets to struggle as well as ourselves. If we continue to pick up results at home, as well as the the odd away result and I think we'll keep our heads' above water

So what do you propose we do about it? We're snookered until Ashley sells up.

I'm unsure why people were so desperate to get Owen on the park. When your going to a ground like Fulham you know the play is going to be as tight as a ducks arse. As it happened it turned out that way and I was disappointed with the way Kinnear reacted to it. Why on earth did he bring Owen on? Whats the point in bringing on a finisher when there was no chances to finish? In that situation you want someone who can create a yard of space, keep posession and pick a pass in the final third. For me we really lacked Guthrie today, I was slightly bermused as to why he wasn't brought on. Guthrie and Gonzales would of worked wonders for us today and I'd have brought the former on before I'd of even considered Owen.

I'm just shocked anyone was expecting any different.

Aye we've never turned in a pathetic display at the cottage before have we? Jesus. It's not about one result, it's about where we are as a club, and why.. I agree with you, but the comment above is an utterly pointless with no relavence to the point at all. We've always had a problem travelling to smaller opposition. It's doesn't indicate we're going backwards.

Aye we've never turned in a pathetic display at the cottage before have we? Jesus.

He is. At least he doesn't f*** off when the going gets tough. When the "truth" comes out that might prove to be the bare bones of it, but as it stands it's nowt more than speculation. I was meaning as far as man-management and the like goes, more than anything, despite the fact that seems to be one of Big Joe's strong-points. Obviously I hope he continues to do well but anyone seeing him as a long-term answer will be sorely disappointed I think. it looks like a roeder situation all over again. i was interested to see how roeder fared given how well he did in the caretaker role but after that sorry escapade, not again. i wouldn't be against Kinnear leading us for the remainder of the season if he has proven to be good enough by the time the takeover goes through. so far i'd say he's done pretty well but a defeat today and everyone will saying he's s**** - as they did after the mackem match (and to a lesser extent west brom). jury is still very much out on JFK. But it really isn't. Yes the scenario is the same but given the full time job I think Kinnear would handle it very differently. Roeder was afraid to upset people. He was pleasant toward the fans, the media and I would think the players. If you remember at the time a majority felt in the end he had to go but had mixed feeling because he was such a sound bloke. Roeder was undoubtly a good coach but he just didn't have the metal to make it as a manager. Joe on the other hand is an old fashioned manager. He has an old fashioned attitude towards football and won't hold back when he feels something needs to be said. He's got the whole siege mentality going on and it really looks like it's rubbing off on the players who are playing as a solid unit. Do I think Joe should be given the Job? (See an earlier post of mine) The jury is very much out. Should he be in contention? Very much so. how is it not? you're looking at the situation from our position today, you have to forget everything that happened after roeder was appointed and compare now to when roeder finished the season with us as caretaker. qualifying for europe after souness left us relegation threatened was nothing short of miraculous, and roeder did far better in the job, and had more support to be a permanent manager, than Kinnear. Kinnear is an old fashioned manager who delights in adversity and creating an us vs them mentality. he thrives in situations like this, being underdogs, having problems, swearing at the press and so on. it's just like the crazy gang routine. but that is not going to cut it in a full-time job when circumstances will be different. if he is to be in contention his record should be viewed objectively like every other candidate out there, and that means looking at his time at luton or notts forest too. I was looking from the perspective of the managers credentials but even their time in charge has been different. You can't judge the two on results until the end of Kinnear's reign. So what exactly is the same? It's a different period in the season minus the injury crisis and the threat of relegation. Not to mention Roeder had the fan's hero by his side. If anything Roeder had the more difficult scenario, but Joe has more to lose. The only factor linking the two is that they're both in temporary charge and want a crack at the full time position.

He is. At least he doesn't f*** off when the going gets tough. When the "truth" comes out that might prove to be the bare bones of it, but as it stands it's nowt more than speculation. I was meaning as far as man-management and the like goes, more than anything, despite the fact that seems to be one of Big Joe's strong-points. Obviously I hope he continues to do well but anyone seeing him as a long-term answer will be sorely disappointed I think. it looks like a roeder situation all over again. i was interested to see how roeder fared given how well he did in the caretaker role but after that sorry escapade, not again. i wouldn't be against Kinnear leading us for the remainder of the season if he has proven to be good enough by the time the takeover goes through. so far i'd say he's done pretty well but a defeat today and everyone will saying he's s**** - as they did after the mackem match (and to a lesser extent west brom). jury is still very much out on JFK. But it really isn't. Yes the scenario is the same but given the full time job I think Kinnear would handle it very differently. Roeder was afraid to upset people. He was pleasant toward the fans, the media and I would think the players. If you remember at the time a majority felt in the end he had to go but had mixed feeling because he was such a sound bloke. Roeder was undoubtly a good coach but he just didn't have the metal to make it as a manager. Joe on the other hand is an old fashioned manager. He has an old fashioned attitude towards football and won't hold back when he feels something needs to be said. He's got the whole siege mentality going on and it really looks like it's rubbing off on the players who are playing as a solid unit. Do I think Joe should be given the Job? (See an earlier post of mine) The jury is very much out. Should he be in contention? Very much so.

Whilst all that is undoubtedly true, it's not the way I've taken the thread personally. There have been people saying we've gone back 20 years over the past few months, that it's been the worst period in our recent history (I bet some mongs have even just said "history") despite the fact that we've had loads of injury problems allied to everything else. Yes the Keegan stuff has been the straw which seems to have broken a fair few thousand camel's backs after years of frustration, but as far as the playing squad goes and the infrastructure within the club goes (talking Academy/Reserves/First Team squad here), things aren't as bad as they've been made out to be, despite all the s**** that's gone on outside of that. Hopefully more than anything it's shown people just how much a manager - sometimes any manager - can influence a certain set of players and get them playing above themselves/to the best of their ability. It's not as simple a game as some like to make out, not by a long chalk. Oh I agree things have been blown out all of all proportion, that's why we're sat here with an owner wanting to sell up and a interim manager. As for your second point it comes down to that old cliche really: "the game isn't played on paper"

It's already been said, silly thread. By the opening post I take it we're discussing the team on the field. You can't compare two different teams from two different generations. Times have changed, the weaker teams are now stronger, the stronger teams are even stronger not to mention the problems off the park. Can you honestly tell me Sir Bob's team would be doing any better than the current crop? I doubt it. Same goes for the current side. Would they have finished third five years ago? Again it's very difficult to say. There's no argument to be had here, just speculation.

I'd keep things as they are for the time being. I'm not Shola's greatest fan but he doesn't seem to be working too badly with Martins. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. We should probably start to adjust to life without Owen, especially if he wants to talk to other clubs in January.

You could argue that he could have done better against Everton (to call it a silly mistake is bollocks) but what was this rick against WBA? Aye silly mistake is a bit strong. Didn't exactly cover himself in glory for Miller's goal did he? The centre backs were just as culpable like. Just as culpable? Far more I would say. Perfect pass, nothing Shay could have done. I was critical last season but he's been back to his best this year so far. Fair crack, I disagree though. Thought first couple of matches his saves won us points but as the team have lossed form so has he to an extent. I'm not saying he's been poor, anything but, but I still wouldn't say he's been back to his best.

You could argue that he could have done better against Everton (to call it a silly mistake is bollocks) but what was this rick against WBA? Aye silly mistake is a bit strong. Didn't exactly cover himself in glory for Miller's goal did he? The centre backs were just as culpable like.

First of all this was a theoretical point aiming to provoke discussion, it would be naive to think in this day and age you'd be able to take your time building a squad when other team a few years to build when you've got so many teams throwing large amounts of money about. Secondly Given has been both good and bad this season. Outstanding in his first couple of matches but he's made silly mistakes against Everton and WBA which have cost us goals. His general keeping has also been suspect at time, don't get me wrong still a great keeper, he just set a high standard and hasn't quite matched it this year. Also regarding your comment about how many matches I've seen is it really relevant?

I know it's a crazy notion, but I think a couple of seasons of near misses could do us the world of good. Now don't get me wrong I always want this club to do well but it might just be that it needs to go backwards before it can move forwards again. When you look up and down the league what do all the teams up the top of end of the table have that the rest don't? I think they have at least three or four players who you can look at who consistently perform. They don't necessarily set the world alight but they enjoy playing for their football team and play with a bit of pride and passion. You have Man United at the top of the league with the likes of Ferdinand, Scholes, Carrick and Rooney, lower down the league you have Villa with Laursen, Barry, Young and Agbonlahor and if you look at a team who's improved a fair bit this year take Boro who now posses players such as Wheater, Digard, Downing and Alves. Now obviously the better the team the better core of players they have at their disposal, but that core provides the foundation for the entire squad to be built on and I think that's where we're going wrong. On match day who do you look at on the team sheet and think: "They'll definetly perform today"? At the minute the only player I can think of in the entire squad who fits into that bracket is Jonas. What about the rest: Given hasn't been himself for about a year now, Coloccini has been largely a success but is still capable of a poor showing, Martins is a mixed bag and Owen tends to miss more chances than he puts away (when he's fit) and don't get me started on the midfield. If we go back a couple of years to the Sir Bob era Given was arguably the best keeper in the league, Speed was a rock, Solano would always put on a show out wide and Shearer was simply a legend. Can you see what I'm saying? Just look at Spurs as another example of a side that lack this core, hence their inconsistency. Now what does this have to do with the opening point you ask. well currently the foundation of our team is built upon a group of players who are paid large sums and produce little on the field. Now I know we're currently in a bit of a crisis but this has been going on since the days of Souness. The question is would you be able to stand a couple of relegation dogfights if we could wipe the slate clean? Wouldn't it be nice if those wasters took their greed to elsewhere and we could start again? It would take at least a couple of seasons to get rid of the current crock and begin to lay these foundations, then as we get better we begin to add the luxury players. Now this is very theoretical point. If we were to start such a rebuilding process based on a long term plan in this day and age there's the risk we'd get left behind. The money being pumped into Premier League sides now means you can't afford to hang around. The problem is with the current squad I don't think we're going anywhere fast, we need some kind of foundation and structure to the squad otherwise we're just pouring money into a bottomless pit. I'm also ignoring the fact of our current plight which still needs to be overcome, obviously new board members and management staff will have to employed before any form of team rebuilding could begin. The point is, we've gone about building our side the wrong way for too long now and a clean slate could be just what we need to progress. Discuss...

I agree to an extent. It was a fantastic effort but the keeper could of done better. He had a serious case of the old crisp packet hands. It was better than say Alonso's against ourselves but it wasn't as good as Taylor's efforts or Drogba's volley against Everton, and that didn't even manage it into goal of the season.