LucaAltieri

I argue what I believe to be correct, whether popular or not. If you fancy it you can take a crack at some of the actual points I made too, you know?

Wenger does that all the time How have I never noticed this? Is this a thing?

I'll tell you now, he's not capable of delivering within my expectations. Ashley's, perhaps, but not mine. And Wullie is spot on about Pardew. He's not a good man manager at all. Keegan was, he'd have players running through walls for him but if they crossed him they'd be out. He got the best from everyone, made them feel 10 feet tall going onto the pitch. We believed we could beat anyone, and because of that we often did. Padew's a coward, he often has us beaten before the game even kicks off. Sure the players like him, but that's because there's no pressure on them and no expectations. I'd much rather we had a good manager the players feared than a weak and cowardly one that they liked. Complete conjecture. But if we're looking at the mood of the players. Whether they're performing above or below their potential. We can say that they are definitely lacking in confidence right now - Cisse in particular - and they're not playing as well as they should be. But there have been periods where they have excellent under Pardew and played out of their skins. How much of that is down to the manager (either way) is open to debate. If the players like him and want to play for him... and he likes the board and wants to work with them... can we really ask for more? Here's the question... if Pardew is so bad and holding us back, let's say we sack him tomorrow, who do you want to replace him with and where do you think their Newcastle side would finish?

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if f*** all to with the lack of English talent. We are s***, we were s*** before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement. Are there? Care to name any of them? It's impossible to say that with any certainty at all, the better players make it, the lesser players don't. When the league was predominantly English we were equally as s*** as we are now . I'm not particularly au fait with the youth systems of other teams but we've got several players who've been doing nothing but playing reserve football for five years and now look ill equipped to deal with the Premier League. Hate to agree with Wullie, but he's right here. It's not about having a Zidane sitting on the bench somewhere, it's about giving players the games they need to get up to standard. Being patient with them instead of buying a cheap import who is already ready. And you're sure if they get that game time they will be up to that standard? I really don't think that happens as much as you think it does. I hate to repeat myself but the coaches who see them every day, wouldn't recognise the talent, that they would make the first team? It's cheaper after all. The best players get fasttracked. Wenger gets hammered for playing Wilshire too much, to the detriment of England. Rooney was banging in goals at 17. Remember Josh Mcechran? Everyone was crying out for him to play, he was the next big thing, went to boro and looked average at best. Not every kid is going to turn good, but neither is every import. It just seems much more acceptable to give a foreigner a season to adjust than it is to give a kid a season to work his way into a team. There's no good argument for not giving the young English players a chance other than needing results NOW. TODAY. You can't say for sure that you're fielding a Dan Gosling or Wilshire until you give them the games. Players typically do get better the more you play them. Walcott, Lennon, Bale, Henderson... they were below par, then average, now they're turning into very good players. It takes time and desire to bring the kids along.

How's he meant to be "good enough" at 17 man, and better than Player X who's 26 and been playing in Ligue 1 regularly for 8 years and is available for £3m? Howay. That's completely hypothetical. 1) and academy player would be cheaper and negate the need to but a replacement. 2) good enough is old enough it's really that simple. We were awful before the influx of foreign players, we are exactly the same now. It's the coaching not the foreigners. Gerard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? Also it's entirely unfair to compare a 26 year old player with a 17 year old kid regardless of nationality. So f*** that Stephen Gerrard was in the Liverpool team when he was 18? How is one example proof of anything? You mention Carroll - the only reason that bloke is anywhere today is because we went down and he had the opportunity to develop by playing first team football. If we'd stayed up, he certainly wouldn't have got a look in - he barely even got one in the first half of the Championship season because he looked a bit s**** until a few months in and we brought in Marlon Harewood to play instead. If we'd stayed up, we'd have bought someone else and he would have drifted down the leagues, and maybe worked his way back up like Danny Graham did when he couldn't get a kick at Middlesbrough. I'm not really sure what to say if you think football doesn't help footballers develop. The game is littered with players who've played 300 games before they're any good at all. Didier Drogba was rattling around in Ligue 2 until he was about 24 - by your logic, he should have been the same Drogba at 16 as he would go on to be at 25 when Marseille bought him. Literally not once said that, your cherry picking what you want to hear to support your own argument. I used one example to prove the point that "good enough is old enough". You've completely and utterly missed the point and pretty much everything you've set out in your response, I didn't say. I never once said playing football doesn't help you, I never once suggested that a player would be the same at 16 as he was at 25, though he was a slightly late developer. I contended that it is wholly incorrect to suggest that our importing of foreign talent if f*** all to with the lack of English talent. We are s***, we were s*** before, it means nothing. People must think there is the English Zidane sitting on a bench somewhere but he can't get a game because a 2m player from Porto is ahead of him. You're using examples like Zidane to create a ridiculous hyperbole. Of course there are young English players at every club who can't get a game because it's easier, cheaper and less risky to buy a foreign ready-made replacement. Are there? Care to name any of them? It's impossible to say that with any certainty at all, the better players make it, the lesser players don't. When the league was predominantly English we were equally as shit as we are now . I'm not particularly au fait with the youth systems of other teams but we've got several players who've been doing nothing but playing reserve football for five years and now look ill equipped to deal with the Premier League. Hate to agree with Wullie, but he's right here. It's not about having a Zidane sitting on the bench somewhere, it's about giving players the games they need to get up to standard. Being patient with them instead of buying a cheap import who is already ready.

I should hope so. N-O can use the opinion of someone who isn't a delusional manic depressive.

This is just a bizarre paragraph. You like that we've got a crap manager because he "makes up for it with harmonizing the club"? Are we a football team or a fucking old folk's home? I've missed all these young, hungry players too - we sign players because they're cheap. We sign young players (or players with something to prove) in general because they're cheap. That's the reason behind the approach. But we try to pick up promising players with the intention of getting them into the first team. Simpson, Bassong, Bigi, Ranger, Perch, Tiote... signed because they showed promise. No one we have signed was signed exclusively because they were cheap. Pardew isn't a crap manager, in my opinion. He's middle of the road in terms of football, but he's a very good man manager. However brilliant some other managers might be, if they want a giant transfer budget, or aren't happy with leaving the signing of players up to the scouts and the board, then we'll have the instability that goes with it. Pardew is a great fit for our recruitment system. Having someone who is better at the football side but doesn't like the way the club operates is only great until they walk out, then we're fucked. Padrew isn't fucking off anywhere. He knew the deal when he signed up and he's perfectly capable of delivering within our expectations. I'd rather have issues with the manger's use of subs than seeing our own players fight in the middle of the pitch or any of the other soap opera shite we're used to.

Eddy Baggio.

I don't necessarily like Ashley's way of handling some things. Hiring Kinnear as a fall guy. Deliberately being deceptive with the fans, etc. But in general, broad terms, I like that we're trying to sign young, hungry players. I like that we're stocking our youth ranks, I like that we're making sure we squeeze every penny out of transfer deals, I like that we're hanging on to our best players unless we receive silly money, and I like the appointment of Pardew - what he lacks in football terms he more than makes up for with harmonizing the club from players to board. My one, massive, objection is the way we're handling our youth team. We might be buying in promising young'uns but how many of them look like they're going to be anywhere near good enough? I want to see talent that we've developed make its way into the first team. Sammy looks like he's doing that. Carroll managed it. But aside from those exceptions we're not really seeing it. We've had too many promising young players come in then disappear or end up being sold to lower league teams. We need to change our approach to getting these players to kick on or the whole model is rather pointless. Whatever we're doing now isn't working.

1.

Nah. I'd actually watch that.

Indeed... Offer the most then be the only club in it Worked when we signed Owen.

David Bentley is a free agent Don't be daft, Wenger will snap him up before we get anywhere near.

Flamini is quality, like.

The calm before the (shit) storm. Arsenal bidding 20m for Cisse on the final day?

Im more worried he tries to get himself sent off. He's that petulant I wouldn't put it past him. Eh? Maybe I'm missing something, but how would that help him? Don't ruin it with logic!

Also worth noting that there's no "correct" use of wide players. It depends entirely on how you want to attack and what the opposition are doing. You're going to approach the standard zonal marking back 4 differently to the back 3 Martinez likes to play here and there. You're going to attack differently again depending on how those individual defenders are behaving - standing off or keeping tight, pushing you outside or inside, going to ground or staying on their feet, doubling up or letting you roam. It's all fine and well knowing what you want to do. But you need to figure out where the space is and use it as best you can. Disrupt the opposition's game plan as best you can. Your tactics don't exist in isolation. There is no "correct" way to use wide players. It really just depends.

I have no coherent reponse to this mess of a post. I can only sum up my thoughts with the following combination of emoticons: I stand by it. The man has been in professional football management for the best part of 15 years, FFS. He might not get it right all that often over the last 12 months but it's a fuck sight more nuanced than "lefties on the left, righties on the right, whip it in, lads."

I agree on 433 i'm just saying we could go 442 and have it work IF we get a winger and the right type of striker. As for examples i won't bother naming world class teams i'll just explain how it work from when we hold our shape and when we are in the final third in possession. Holding shape: In possession/attacking: Santon's a bit deep in the attacking bit as are the whole team, you Pardew Mole ? In that formation Debuchy has space in front of him. Santon doesn't. It's very common for teams to not be symmetrical. It actually makes more sense to have one fullback deep and one pushing up. You don't want them both bombing forward and leaving you without cover. Well thank you for explaining that, i shall go away and revaluate my opinion on the situation. Happy to help.

I agree on 433 i'm just saying we could go 442 and have it work IF we get a winger and the right type of striker. As for examples i won't bother naming world class teams i'll just explain how it work from when we hold our shape and when we are in the final third in possession. Holding shape: In possession/attacking: Santon's a bit deep in the attacking bit as are the whole team, you Pardew Mole ? In that formation Debuchy has space in front of him. Santon doesn't. It's very common for teams to not be symmetrical. It actually makes more sense to have one fullback deep and one pushing up. You don't want them both bombing forward and leaving you without cover.

Too simplistic. Too 90s. It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing. Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

Jokes aside, Shola for Vuckic is an improvement, sadly.

Our kids seem to knock the ball around with more confidence than our senior players.

Debauchy quadrospazzed.

What about doffing?