The Prophet

Most recently the Partizan Belgrade match, it wasn't just a bad result but the whole night went tits up. Was the begining of the end for Sir Bob really. mackems.gif You s*** yourself in the Gallowgate, bet you got some funny looks as you ran to the toilets like a cowboy.

Some interesting points in this thread. I think the defensive midfielder has become more common in recent years as football has become more tactical due to the money involved. I wouldn't give the position a text book mould because you get different types of player who play in that position. Obviously the bread and butter job of a defensive midfielder is to sit in front of the defence and break up the opposition attacks. He remains disciplined and takes a bit of pressure of the defence. However I think this position has evolved in recent years. You now have players play in that position to receive the ball from the back four and dictate play, take Pirlo for example. He never really gets out of his own half due to his defensive duties but his footballing brain and long range distribution are a fantastic asset for launching attacks. You also get defensive midfielders who remain defensive but still get forward. By this I mean they don't just sit in front of the defence all game. They remain there when under attack or during slow build up but when the pressure is off and their team is comfortable they will venture up and join the attack. The most recent example I can think for this is Gilberto Silva. I don't think a defensive midfielder is essential. It would be pointless someone like Derby in last year's campaign having a someone in this role when they were shipping goals for fun anyway, they may as well have another player contributing to the attack. However there's no doubt this position has become more common of late, especially in the Premier League. I think some of this has to do with the emergence of Makelele at Chelsea and what a fantastic job he did, but I think the main reason is money. When you see two top sides play now the first half is usually like a chess game. Neither team want to risk going a goal down early on so they stick a lad in front of the back four for a bit of extra protection. This is due to the high stakes in these games which is born out of the fact that winning them and achieving long term success increases revenue. Now this sounds far fetched but think about how tactical the game has become in recent years, attacking midfielders, defensive midfielders, the increased reliance on full backs have all emerged as teams have tried to evolve and become more successful because that's where the money is. As one team attempts it and succeeds other teams will follow. I'm not sure where this leaves the box-to-box midfielder, put it this way if you want to play that position you have to be very good at it. You can see the consequences of playing the position badly by watching Scott Parker and his spell here. Whenever he sat in front of the back four, fine. As soon as he had his action man cap on it all went to pot, his midfield partner didn't know whether he was on his head or his arse, was he defending? Was he attacking? And there were pockets of space all over the park because of this. So I do think the box-to-box midfielder can work but it has to be played in the correct system where the individual is given a lisence to play this role knowing his team mates will be positioned to cover any gaps he leaves free and knowing his positioning will not affect the shape of the team (See Gerrard at Liverpool). So yeah the defensive midfielder is becoming more popular rightly or wrongly and there are many pros and cons to having one but I don't think they are essential. However with the multi-million pounds being pumped into the game and managers becoming more cautious as a knock on effect I think they're here to stay for some time yet. This also applies to the box-to-box midfilder. As formations become more diciplined the need to fill a particular role in the team will become more crucial which spells troube for a position that improves football matches (from a viewing perspective) when it is played in the right manner.

Been saying this for a while now, I really fancy them for the top five this season. Last season they were a back four away from having a very good year. They have creativity and industriousness in the middle, pace and great delivery from the wings and a big strong forward up top. If they can continue keeping clean sheets I can only see them improving again this season.

It's far too easy to blame yesterdays display on Kinnear. When we employed him, for me, he was nothing more than an unknown quantity. He wanted to get his name back on the footballing scene and he actually had the bollocks to take on a club in a dark situation. It was a situation where the opportunity was (and still is) there for him to get himself a job, whether as manager of our team or of another. Yesterday showed he is going to be no messiah, but should he take the heat for the performance? I'm not so sure. I have no complaints about the side that was fielded, it was a team with a bit of confidence after a battling display against Man City. First half was a typical derby display I expected no less. Both sides went for it and the half finished level, the game was there to be won and this is where the problems began to creep in. Second half the midfield became over-ran and consequently the defence had no protection and the strikers no service. Butt was his usual sloppy-self, Guthrie was on best behaviour after a booking and the wingers didn't get involved. Now in the scenario surely some responsability has to be taken on both sides. Butt, on the field as captain, not to mention other players have to start earning their keep. Why didn't the wingers tuck in? Why didn't the strikers drop a bit deeper? Both of these would have helped shift the midfield battle back in our favour and surely it's up to the skipper must see these things. Similarly why didn't Kinnear replace Guthrie or one of the wingers who were having little influence in the game. I know, eventually he did but by then the damage had been done. Also surely Kinnear must have noticed the the midfield was struggling, why didn't he pass on a message to Butt? It became evident yesterday Kinnear isn't brilliant at thinking on his feet, but to write him off already is just pathetic, it's as though some fans couldn't wait for a bad result so they could give us the old "I told you so" speech. There's no doubt this result has been blown out of proportion. The fact it was a local derby and the recent s*** we've had to endure hasn't exactly helped matters, but then I suppose that's the point. Kinnear was the only one brave enough to take this job. Is he a hero or is he just bonkers? I don't know. The fact is until we clear the fallout from this mess up no one is going to be able to do an effective job at this club. Yes, Kinnear didn't cover himself in glory yesterday but there again neither did the players. He may of shown glimpses that he isn't able to cut it in the big time but surely it's too soon to tell? So do I blame Kinnear for yesterdays result? A little, same goes for the lads on the park, but I still look at the likes of Ashley, Wise and Keegan before I go laying the blame on his doorstep.

It's been coming like a mile of bad road but awful timing with an important match tomorrow.

At the end of the day we've known he was s*** for ages, we've said for ages he should be replaced, its one of the many areas we need to strengthen. If we truly want to go back to the days of Champions League football we need a deep squad something we've not got by any standard. His minds good but his poor speed and tackling is f***ing us over constantly. Im starting to debate his reading of the game with examples like Everton and Hull penalties. Yet some fans would still have him in the side. Why not drop Guthrie back into the deeper role and have Barton, Geremi or N'Zogbia playing attacking midfield, it can't be any worse can it? People talk about needing a new attacking midfielder but a new defensive midfielder is just as vital. The defence will never improve until we are capable of at first winning and then retaining the ball in midfield.

I don't think we'll know until Bassong has played with Colo to be honest. Taylor has been poor for a while now. His positioning is non-existent, he's clumsy and he doesn't think about what he's doing. I want to be able praise him because he's such a passionate lad who turns in the odd good performance but he just hasn't been good enough. When he first came on the scene he was so promising but he seems to have learnt nothing over the years, its worrying. Bassong on the other hand looks exactly what he is, a centre back playing in full back. He's solid defensively and gets the job done, however his attacking play is limited to say the very least. I'd like to see how he does playing alongside Colo. Overall the rear guard has improved and in particular they deal with set pieces a whole lot better than they did, but from open play it's the same old problems. We back off and invite the shot, we get sucked to the ball in wide positions and we still get caught out with the second ball in. Having said that I don't think that's helped by the lack of protection from midfield, Butt in particular.

I think the result today has obviously put him back under the spot light but he's been poor for a while now. His major problem isn't his reading of the game or his challenging for the ball, it's his distribution. It amazes me how many times he wins the ball of the opposition, looks up, gives it back to them and then gives away a foul. It makes me wonder why it takes a derby defeat before people start realising he's a poor football player.

Just a few thoughts from the game: Thought overall the mackems probably deserved their win. Typical blood and thunder derby in the first half, they dominated at first, got their goal, we dominated and got our goal. What pissed me off about the match was our complete lack of fight in the second half. The game was their to be won and we just sat back and let it pass us by. What has impressed me a lot about Kinnear is the way we've come out after the break firing from all cylinders but today it wasn't there. Sunderland weren't anything amazing it was more our pedestrian approach to the half that cost us in the end. Oh and the pitch invasion, please. They want to be seen as a big club? That really isn't the way to go about it

"I'm no crazy fool, I've got nuts" *Laughs* "Fuck off Nile, who's the one with the straight bannana now" *Laughs* "Cuff my nuts? It's Shola for fuck's sake"

Took Chelsea, Barcelona, Bremen and Athletico at 12-1 Then a bit of silliness, Athletico to win 2-0 and Forlan to grab the first 40-1

Robinho conducted himself like a cunt all night to be honest. I was particularly annoyed when he grabbed the ball thinking it was a foul and when Styles played on he failed to book him for intentional hand ball. Don't suppose anybody else saw the cosy little chat they were having at half time?

Then wouldn't those thoughts be based on a knee-jerk reaction?

Their short passing game seemed decent but as soon as they attempted any kind of pass which involved moving the ball more than five yards the radar went to pot. No better than us in terms of passing tonight. Thought they missed both Elano and Petrov ennormously tonight. Ireland had a good game but I still don't think he can match Elano's vision and creativity. He bossed the game at Eastlands last year. Bit like Petrov really, who's pace and delivery ripped us apart. The biggest disappointment in the City team for me was SWP. Bassong wasn't at his best and he failed to exploit this. He seemd more intrested in taking pointless pot-shots than actually running at the fullback.

Why not? I ask this question not because I'm a Kinnear fan, but more for the sake of debate. Ask why you don't want Kinnear installed, because he's not a big enough name? He isn't good enough? He's been out of the game for too long? He's only a caretaker? He's a joke? He doesn't push your eruption button? Well, you get the picture. Now it's impossible to tell how well Kinnear is going to do, but I think people should at least consider the case for Kinnear. He's been brought out of the cold to go about attempting a job no body else had the bollocks to do. The bloke has nothing to lose. He isn't a big name, his reputation is lesser known that most, and he's desperate to show the footballing world what he's made of. The bloke will graft, he's hungry, every fucker has written him off before he's even started and he's determined to prove them all wrong. That's a fantastic attitude to have in my opinion. Just look at Ramos at Spurs. His children are homesick and he looks like a man who's more interested in packing his bags than sticking around for the long haul, and how many of you would have welcomed him with open arms this time last year? Now I know that's hindsight-tastic but the point is a manager shouldn't be judged by his reputation alone. If Kinnear is hungry enough to start getting results why should we deny him the opportunity of a full time job because we don't like the sound of his name? This determined attitude seems to be rubbing off on the players. It's along time since I've seen a Newcastle side go out with such a good spirit for two games on the spin. Don't get me wrong there's a lot to work on but in these troubled times it's nice to see qualities we haven't seen of our teams in the past. A bit of fight and grit, as well as the odd bit of quality. If Kinnear can get the team to play and continue to install this never say die attitude he may be on to a winner. Of Course we've seen this before with Glenn Roeder. However I think the major difference between the two is Kinnear isn't afraid to upset people. Roeder wanted to be everyone's friend, you can't imagine him giving a player a good rollicking after a poor performance. Kinnear (as we've seen) isn't afraid to speak his mind, he tells it like it is. If you listen to his press conferences he talks absolute sense. He's an old fashioned manager who's been around the block, he won't take shit from the modern day footballer or from the blood-craving media.any Now if the man doesn't get the results then so be it, but if was to go on a half-decent run why not? We've had our the big names, the samller name, the utter dross and of course Kevin Keegan (again) so why not give someone different a chance? Surely it would be a small minded fan who wouldn't even spare the man a modicum of consideration.

It was just a bad decisions on so many levels it was hard to believe. Beye got the ball we all know that, but pundits and referees a like seem to be buying into this ridiculous idea that any kind of contact in the box must result in a penalty, it's just getting beyond a joke. At the end of the day Styles couldn't wait to get his red card out, he didn't even stop to think about it. If he'd of taken a second or two he'd of realised the ball went in the direction of Beye's challange rather than Robinho's run. He may also of noted it probably wasn't a goal scoring oppertunity as Given was bearing down. If he was still unsure he could of gone and asked his linesman. This incident has just really shown how trigger happy referees and in particular Styles himself have become.

Is it really worth risking Beye and Martins if they're not match fit? Seems a bit pointless to me. Not only do you put them at risk of another injury but they'll be lacking match sharpness.

Ordinarily, if stories are not linked, I would probably agree. In this case though, this is just 1 huge f***ed up mess and my guess would be that if they have part of the story apparently correct, they have the whole lot. For me, the length of that statement convinced me the sale of the club has been an intention for some time - at best since Keegan walked out. Otherwise, Ashley has made a very quick and very rash decision - which is equally as annoying as I would have hoped for better from him. but why would he reject the arab consortium if he was trying to sell the club? He didn't reject the arab consortium. The consortium claimed Man City were simply "more receptive" when approached. true, but surely ashley trying to sell the club would be very receptive. I just think that ashley trying to sell to make a quick buck is against everything we've seen so far, and the pronouncement that nobody makes money from football, there are easier ways to make money. If we are to believe what these buisness analysists claim on SSN Ashley wants £300-£400 million for the club. I wouldn't exactly call that "receptive" especially when you consider Man City was snapped up for around the £200 million mark. It also suggests Ashley isn't looking for a quick buck and is willing to wait it out for the right price. I don't think Ashley bought the club with the intention to instantly sell it either. I think he's bought the club with the intention to enjoy himself and due to his inexperience in football executed his plans in a fashion where he ended up with two opposing parties trying to take the it in the right direction. As a result one party lost out, the fans over-rected and this made Ashley's position untenable.

Ordinarily, if stories are not linked, I would probably agree. In this case though, this is just 1 huge f***ed up mess and my guess would be that if they have part of the story apparently correct, they have the whole lot. For me, the length of that statement convinced me the sale of the club has been an intention for some time - at best since Keegan walked out. Otherwise, Ashley has made a very quick and very rash decision - which is equally as annoying as I would have hoped for better from him. but why would he reject the arab consortium if he was trying to sell the club? He didn't reject the arab consortium. The consortium claimed Man City were simply "more receptive" when approached.

We don't know if Wise has done anything wrong. We just like to assume he has because he was a wanker in the first place.

I'd go: Given Geremi Cacapa Taylor Bassong Gonzales Butt Coloccini N'Zogbia Owen Xisco The defence looks very fragile, but I think if we can have someone like Taylor doing a man marking job on Ashton it scuppers one of their attacking pivots. The strength in the centre of midfielder should be enough to overcome the creativity of Faubert and Co. That's providing the gap between Butt, Coloccini and the back four doesn't become too great. You'd need one of those two (Colo and Butt) to sit in front of the back four and one to play defensively further up the park. If we can stay solid at the back and retain posession in midfield West Ham are there to be had. If we can then get the ball wide to Gonzales or N'Zogbia and have a run at their fragile defence I think we can create chances for the forwards. It's too early for Gonzales to be playing in the centre of the park away from in my opinion, we don't know enough about him and his capabilities. Now I'm not naive enough to think: "ah we'll go with this system and it'll all run like clock work" because there are some massive factors to consider. One of the reasons I'd go with two defensive midfielders is because of the situation at West Ham. It's Zola's first game, their lot will really want to get out the traps and prove themselves. The crowd will be behind them and if we can do a stifling job they may just start to get a bit frustrated and hopefully that will allow us to create some chances of our own. Now the most important factor here is the attitude of Newcastle United. Are the players going to come out like they did against Hull? Yes, we're on a big low but it'd about time these players stood up for themselves and proved they're worth what we're paying them. I know it will be hard to muster team spirit in these difficult times, but these lads are professionals. They need to take a long look at themselves in the mirror and produce bit of fight during times of adversity, they need to show us the fans that our season isn't over. Similarly the fans need to get behind the lads. The atmophere at West Ham is going to be electric so we need to put in a good shift too. No more protesting, the board have got your message, the lads need a lift and we need to provide it. Whatever tactics you want to employ this match at West Ham is there to be won but it depends on us. No more feeling sorry for ourselves and no more revolting, lets have some togetherness. This is going to be tough given the circumstance, the last thing we want is for this to be another Hull, lets go down to London and show a bit of pride and dignity for a change, lets go there UNITED.

We were shown just how important spirit, confidence, belief, trust, faith and leadership is to a group of players regardless of their ability and just how fickle talent can be on its own without any back-up. I absolve the players of any blame. To me they worked hard and tried their best while not being at their best and I can accept that and pardon it in the circumstances. Aye, hope they sleep well having cashed their £50,000 cheque. At the end of the day the qualities you listed are very important when it comes to instilling team spirit, but there was enough talent on that park to beat Hull City. Just look at Xisco, that's the type of performance we needed. A fighting individual display which very nearly got us back in the game. We didn't need them to play as a team we just needed to do a job, a job which they're paid to do and they failed. I've said I can understand their mindset and some what sympathise with them, but the players have to accept some blame for the defeat.

Think it's for the best in the long term. Always thought he had the best intrests of this club at heart and this confirms it for me. Feel his mistakes simply boiled down to footballing inexperience.

The managerial crisis didn't help the team, the fans didn't help the team and injuries didn't help the team, but yet I'm still find there display a complete let down. The players that were put on the park were good enough to beat a Hull side missing it's two better players. They weren't too old, they weren't lacking quality, they just weren't good enough and that's down to them and there complete lack of professionalism.

Still not as good as Merson pronouncing it as "Sicko", he really is as thick as mince. Made me laugh anyway.