Which manager had the best style of play at Newcastle?

[Guest black]

Where is the Coxy option?

 

Seriously if you're having a list based on the "sky" years why haven't you included dogleash, rodent and gullit?

[Tsunami]

Keegan's was better, Sir Bob had imo had a harder job to take on. KK had nowt to lose & we had a head start on most other clubs in terms of spending. SB took over when we were in a right mess, when expectations were very high, where we were on the decline & where we were no longer the entertainers that KK had made us.

 

Both did fantastic jobs & I'd have no problems with those who chose SB; KK did after all chuck his dummy out in the end.

[Guest SLK]

It was a close one for me between SBR and KK but I went for King Kev...I still remember the 5-0 thumbing of Man U...What a match that was....

[Guest alex]

No contest imo.

[Guest Deep456]

So this vote's solely on managers we've had in the Sky era?  :parky:

 

Solely on the amount of time I have lived as I am 13.

 

Your missing 3 managers.

 

Only chose the best few. Obviously Roeder and Gullit failed.

[Guest alex]

So this vote's solely on managers we've had in the Sky era?  :parky:

 

Solely on the amount of time I have lived as I am 13.

 

Your missing 3 managers.

 

Only chose the best few. Obviously Roeder and Gullit failed.

Unlike Souness

[danswan]

F***ing stupid question.

[jackyboy]

There is no doubt that it was Keegan. Newcastle were dubbed 'The entertainers' and it was them who put Sky football on the map and set them on the road to where it is today. Everyone in the country loved to watch them, the runs that Albert made from defence to attack was something never ever seen before and I've seen nothing like it since. It was a whisker from perfect football.

It has been said by many of the TV pundits that if KK had won the premiership that year it would have changed the whole face of football.  Other managers would have felt that to beat them and win the league they would need to build even more attacking sides. The mind boggles

[gray]

Anyone who saw us play under Keegan voted for him.

 

Still have the tape of the West Ham game when we managed over 30 shots on goal in a game. Compare with yesterday which felt better than normal with 12 

 

been after that for fing years, i will pay you to do me a copy!

[Guest Knightrider]

While Sir Bobby's Newcastle played really attractive and attacking football, Keegan's football was on altogether different planet in comparison. If I could describe KK's style it was a cross between Arsenal and Man Utd last season. We had the build up and approach play of Arsenal from defence to midfield and the direct and ruthless attacking play in the final 3rd of Man Utd. We would simply batter teams and some of the quick, one touch, forward play hasn't been bettered since in my opinion. Our first season in the Premiership with Andy Cole and Beardsley... I doubt you'd see a more dovetailed partnership or a team that was so fluent. And it wasn't manufactured fluency either, it was spontaneous and off the cuff. That's why millions loved to watch us, why that side/era captured the imagination of the whole country and why KK is loved so much here on Tyneside. It was fairytale stuff at times. We played like that home and away, in all conditions and in all competitions, including Europe. I remember before we took on Antwerp all the so-called experts said we'd get found out and would have to change our play, we of course put 5 past them in both legs home and away. What made KK's brand of football all the more unique is that, contrary to popular misconception, we actually had a very mean defence, the second best in the League at the time. Indeed that year we nearly won the league, we conceded less goals than Arsenal did in their unbeaten season, that's how tight at the back we really were. Only because we were involved in a few high scoring games (that Liverpool game for example) and our defenders would wander upfield, it was potrayed that we couldn't defend. We could and that's not what cost us the title. Experience and a lack of mental toughness cost us that, nothing else. That and Man Utd's incredible run of wins, something like 14 in their last 15 games. Had KK stuck around I'm in no doubt we'd have won the title at some point or had Sir Bobby taken over from him and not Dalglish, as he had the experience and air of calm that was often missing under Keegan. But would we have had it any other way? I'm not so sure. Those truly were the halcyon days and we'll never see them again, footballing wise or for the sheer buzz and excitement around the city and club. The Premiership has changed, so has the game, and so has fans and managers. It's now a cynical game where entertainment and the beautiful game are in competition with tactics, statistics and every other stranglehold that grips it tightly, none more so than money. Under KK there was nothing cynical about our play, style and ambition. We wanted to win the title in style, wealth didn't even come into it, it was all about creating a club we as fans could identify with, in our own image. This is why I admire Arsene Wenger and Arsenal football club more than any club or manager in the world outside of my own. I do hope they win the league once again playing that wonderful football they do, in abandon of the perceived wisdom of needing millions to spend, mega stars, tactics etc. etc.

 

 

[gray]

...or had Sir Bobby taken over from him and not Dalglish...

 

jesus that would have sorted us if it came off. mourinho as his number 2 wasnt it at the time?

[Guest SLK]

...or had Sir Bobby taken over from him and not Dalglish...

 

jesus that would have sorted us if it came off. mourinho as his number 2 wasnt it at the time?

I always had thoughts about what would have happened if SBR had taken over from Kevin Keegan...

[Rob W]

keegan - best football , most exciting team, best results in my 40 + years

[Baggio]

I voted Allardyce.

 

His long ball football is fantastic, much better than Keegan's so called "Entertainers" and Sir Bobby's lightening quick counter attacking team.

[toptoon]

F***ing stupid question.

 

Agreed. Anyone (with half a brain)  that saw Keegans team play would vote for him.

[Yorkie]

F***ing stupid question.

 

Agreed. Anyone (that wasn't a foetus)  that saw Keegans team play would vote for him.

 

FYP.

[toptoon]

I voted Allardyce.

 

His long ball football is fantastic, much better than Keegan's so called "Entertainers" and Sir Bobby's lightening quick counter attacking team.

 

You Wind up merchant from hell!!    Surely no one will fall for this though.

[toptoon]

F***ing stupid question.

 

Agreed. Anyone (that wasn't a foetus)  that saw Keegans team play would vote for him.

 

FYP.

 

   

 

[ToonCanuck]

While Sir Bobby's Newcastle played really attractive and attacking football, Keegan's football was on altogether different planet in comparison. If I could describe KK's style it was a cross between Arsenal and Man Utd last season. We had the build up and approach play of Arsenal from defence to midfield and the direct and ruthless attacking play in the final 3rd of Man Utd. We would simply batter teams and some of the quick, one touch, forward play hasn't been bettered since in my opinion. Our first season in the Premiership with Andy Cole and Beardsley... I doubt you'd see a more dovetailed partnership or a team that was so fluent. And it wasn't manufactured fluency either, it was spontaneous and off the cuff. That's why millions loved to watch us, why that side/era captured the imagination of the whole country and why KK is loved so much here on Tyneside. It was fairytale stuff at times. We played like that home and away, in all conditions and in all competitions, including Europe. I remember before we took on Antwerp all the so-called experts said we'd get found out and would have to change our play, we of course put 5 past them in both legs home and away. What made KK's brand of football all the more unique is that, contrary to popular misconception, we actually had a very mean defence, the second best in the League at the time. Indeed that year we nearly won the league, we conceded less goals than Arsenal did in their unbeaten season, that's how tight at the back we really were. Only because we were involved in a few high scoring games (that Liverpool game for example) and our defenders would wander upfield, it was potrayed that we couldn't defend. We could and that's not what cost us the title. Experience and a lack of mental toughness cost us that, nothing else. That and Man Utd's incredible run of wins, something like 14 in their last 15 games. Had KK stuck around I'm in no doubt we'd have won the title at some point or had Sir Bobby taken over from him and not Dalglish, as he had the experience and air of calm that was often missing under Keegan. But would we have had it any other way? I'm not so sure. Those truly were the halcyon days and we'll never see them again, footballing wise or for the sheer buzz and excitement around the city and club. The Premiership has changed, so has the game, and so has fans and managers. It's now a cynical game where entertainment and the beautiful game are in competition with tactics, statistics and every other stranglehold that grips it tightly, none more so than money. Under KK there was nothing cynical about our play, style and ambition. We wanted to win the title in style, wealth didn't even come into it, it was all about creating a club we as fans could identify with, in our own image. This is why I admire Arsene Wenger and Arsenal football club more than any club or manager in the world outside of my own. I do hope they win the league once again playing that wonderful football they do, in abandon of the perceived wisdom of needing millions to spend, mega stars, tactics etc. etc.

 

 

 

amen,KK .

[Mowen]

Souness.