samptime29

First pen is soft. Second one is a pen.

Can't play in centre midfield ever again.

Second half wasn't good enough. 1-0 up at HT to a poor Watford side. Should be looking to kill the game off. We never looked like scoring. Subs too late aswell.

Villa and Bournemouth are fucked like.

Really bad 2nd half. If we come out strong in 2nd half and get a goal: the game is over. Needed earlier subs like - again first pen was soft/harsh IMO, but second one was sloppy.

We've missed Hayden like, Schar in centre midfield just doesn't work.

Muto is the Invisible man like.

Dire second half. First pen was harsh but the second one was too easy. Hands were all over him.

Been a poor 2nd half from us.

Soft and unlucky but also a penalty. Ritchie should do better, but I hate seeing Pen's like that. Just looks so soft.

Soft pen that, barely any contact.

Best football we've played in the last 3 seasons. That Almiron chance aswell, bit unlucky there.

Amateur hour. I noticed that.

Played fairly well, not amazing, but we've had a few chances. Shame ASM couldn't score that chance he had. Watford as dirty as fuck like.

Lovely corner that. Nicely worked.

Said a few times. Watford win, they stay up. They don't and it's still all to play for. Villa have to beat Palace though on Sunday.

Really hope ASM is back.

A true legend of the game. RIP.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime. I find facts can distort the truth sometimes. I'm a good believer in using common sense and my own judgement on subjects I'm well versed in. You should try sometime it instead of acting like a robot. You believe we played better football under Carver? 15% win ratio, 8 losses in a row, and 3 total wins in 20 games, but we played better football than we do now? Do you agree with gjohnson? Try reading the post properly again you plum. Never said Carver was any good cos he wasn't, he was utter garbage, but he didn't send out a starting eleven to cower in their own half and hope the other team made a balls up and conceded You said: " If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession." I provided evidence that is the last 7 games (excluding City) our possession stats were 45% to 62%. Do you see why you look a moron now? Even Rod doesn't agree with you on this. Even my good friend LV wouldn't agree with you on this one. Carver was the worst manager we've had in my lifetime. Worst football, worst manager. This point isn't up for debate. And you have still completely and utterly missed the point. Quite impressive really "If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession."

Steve Bruce is nowhere near important enough to write stuff like this about, it's ludicrous from Edwards. Only way to unite the fan base.........FIGHT!......... or get a new manager Careful, the Judge and Samp will be on here ridiculing your brave ideas. Not really given I want rid of Bruce. Judge/Samp, there is a good piece in The Mag by Jim Robertson regarding the media bias and unfair reporting on Bruce/Newcastle United. The responses are great (as in fans have had enough). Then there is a brilliant story by George Caulkin in The Athletic slagging off Steve McManaman for his outrageous platitudes towards Bruce. You really need to read them and realise that we fans do have a voice and it now doesn't seem so silly of me saying we really need to take the gutter media to task. Just saying. I want a new better manager next season. I want the takeover asap. If next season, we are stuck with no takeover, and with Bruce and Ashley, I will be pissed off and angry about it.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime. I find facts can distort the truth sometimes. I'm a good believer in using common sense and my own judgement on subjects I'm well versed in. You should try sometime it instead of acting like a robot. You believe we played better football under Carver? 15% win ratio, 8 losses in a row, and 3 total wins in 20 games, but we played better football than we do now? Do you agree with gjohnson? Try reading the post properly again you plum. Never said Carver was any good cos he wasn't, he was utter garbage, but he didn't send out a starting eleven to cower in their own half and hope the other team made a balls up and conceded You said: " If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession." I provided evidence that is the last 7 games (excluding City) our possession stats were 45% to 62%. Do you see why you look a moron now? Even Rod doesn't agree with you on this. Even my good friend LV wouldn't agree with you on this one. Carver was the worst manager we've had in my lifetime. Worst football, worst manager. This point isn't up for debate.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime. I find facts can distort the truth sometimes. I'm a good believer in using common sense and my own judgement on subjects I'm well versed in. You should try sometime it instead of acting like a robot. You believe we played better football under Carver? 15% win ratio, 8 losses in a row, and 3 total wins in 20 games, but we played better football than we do now? Do you agree with gjohnson? No Good - we've found some common ground.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime. I find facts can distort the truth sometimes. I'm a good believer in using common sense and my own judgement on subjects I'm well versed in. You should try sometime it instead of acting like a robot. You believe we played better football under Carver? 15% win ratio, 8 losses in a row, and 3 total wins in 20 games, but we played better football than we do now? Do you agree with gjohnson?

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Not this knacker using "facts" again. We can't play against 10 men all the time you know. Two recent games. Palace away game 56% possession. Burnley home game 54% possession. Facts back up your argument. You should try it sometime.

If you look at the table and the table alone, then technically Bruce has not done a bad job. If you look at the actual football that is played then it's been a worse job than even Carver pulled off....at least a few of his attempts at managing games got above 35% possession. The only time a respectable football team should win a match like that is if it's a 2nd/3rd division team against one of the top six and it's been a massively hard fought shock. No topflight premiership team should be sitting in their own 18 yard box for 3/4 of every game regardless of opposition and expect to get any results other than through luck. Bruce has had us playing like a league 1 side, scared to death of every other team they've come up against (except for maybe Bournemouth). No modern manager should have only one plan that consists of putting 10 men behind the ball every game and hoping to score a goal on a counter attack. Fine against top half teams, but when it's against relegation candidates its pure cowardice and being more concerned with not losing than winning. This should not be considered acceptable by anyone who wants the best for their team. Loved Carver's free flowing football. Tasty on the eye and we got results. :lol: Recent games possession: Southampton away 62% Sheffield United home 46% Villa home 52% Bournemouth 45% West Ham home 57% Every game above 35%. Yes we don't usually have much of the ball, but you can't argue Carver was better, because he sometimes got above 35% possession. Use facts, use evidence in your arguments man. Read the post properly. Not saying Carver was any good as he clearly wasn't, but the football was still better than anything served up by your mate Steve. I've learned the hard way. I used to ignore him but just lately I have had a go back at him. He just loves an argument. Just wait, you'll see. The football was shite under Carver. What the fuck are you about man? We lost 8 in a row under Carver. He won 3 games, drew 4, and lost 13. Win ratio of 15%. "But the football was still better than anything served up by your mate Steve" :lol: Again you stated Carver was better, because sometimes we were over 35% possession with him. Implying that we are never over 35% possession currently. Excluding City in the last 5 games we've had possession levels of 45% to 62%. :lol: I'll ask again: what the fuck are you about?