Alan Smith

[Howaythelads]

I don't see what that has to do with Parker who was constantly slated. He was a player who would have 10 good games and 20 where he would give his all but that wasn't enough obviously. Now if there was a huge gulf in ability between Parker and Smith it would be quite clear but as there isn't I don't see why one is slated and the other one defended.

 

I agree. It's nowt to do with Parker but you brought him into the discussion for some reason.

[Howaythelads]

spot on, Gejon. and parker was used as an attacking midfielder/box-to-box when he was more obviously a defensive midfielder so he wasn't really played in his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Interested in how you know this for sure. I can see how you can judge Parker as a midfielder since he's played his entire career there but you can't say you've seen a great deal of Smith as a striker, can you?

[Cajun]

I am confident we have had more good games out of Parker than we will Smith.

[Howaythelads]

I do have a point tbh. Parker was also often played in a position that didn't suit him (ok the correct part of the pitch but the whole set up with Emre simply didn't work and brought the worst out in both of them).

 

Parker and Smith are both average players with a lot of desire and aggression. Both don't really excel in any area of the position they play, both will probably end a season with twice as many bookings as goals or assists.

 

I couldn't disagree more, Jon. Parker was used in his strongest position at this club. He had every chance, he just wasn't good enough and dragged everybody down with him.

 

By the way, what I've said about Smith is that I think he has the attributes to be a decent striker if he's used consistently in that role and given a run. At the same time we do need some creativity in the team for any of the strikers to do the business, so I'm not rushing into judgements about Smith. You haven't said it here, but your emphasis on Smith being average seems to point to the possibility you think I've said he's better than that. I haven't and I just want to be clear about that.  I've also said I may be proven wrong if he gets that run and doesn't do the business. I'm not sure what people see so peculiar about my position on this.

 

I hope people aren't going to start making stuff up again...

 

I have to disagree about Parker being used in his strongest position, most of the time it seemed like he and Emre would not have a set position so they would swap roles during the match which never worked. The rest of the time Emre was being played in a holding role which really didn't suit him and the partnership failed.

 

I expect some of the kids will slag me for saying it, but I think I was probably the first on here to start shouting about the Parker/Emre partnership being shite (and was I soundly slated for it), so you aren't telling me anything here that I don't already know, Jon. My opinion though is that Emre, despite his liimitations, is a better player than Parker and always was. Parker and his inability to release the ball early and his general poor passing ability was always the major problem, despite the stats people telling us all how good his passing was.

[Baggio]

No you haven't, you've said you think Smith is a better player than Parker and then went on about how he was signed by Souness. Parker and Smith are both grafters with little footballing ability yet you think one is great and the other was shit.

[NE5]

Don't get what?

 

Alan Smith doesn't have any more ability than Parker imo, both are very similar just one plays (or should) a little further forward.

 

See what I mean.

 

Personally, I think Alan Smith is much more valuable to the club than Parker, but Parker is a product of the manager who "would rid the club of the cancer and lets stick by him because thats what Alex Ferguson did and look at him now" brigade.

 

Of which you were one, if I remember correctly.

 

I hope you aren't defending Kieron Dyer, like Matthew is, having had 8 years to prove his worth to the club  mackems.gif

 

Same old NE5, going down the "if I remember correctly" and "I hope you aren't" without any REAL substance in the post. I don't think Smith is any more valuable than Parker, we sold Parker and replaced him with a better player (imo) but a bigger liability in Barton and we could have gotten a better player than Smith for that £6m.

 

I do think Smith is more valuable than Parker, isn't that the substance you are looking for ? We maybe could have got a better player for 6m than Smith, but we got Smith !!!!!  We could have got better players than Boumsong and Luque for 17m quid too, but it seems the vast majority of people - including you - frothed at the mouth with excitement at having brought these overpriced crap foreigners to the club, just because they were foreigners that you've watched on youtube.

 

Not only that, but you backed the manager who bought them both to do an Alex Ferguson just because he got rid of the "cancer". I see you don't comment on that with any sort of substance  mackems.gif

 

Souness was far from my first choice but I will admit I did look for the positives like I do with everything and SBR had lost the dressing room towards the end of his time here. Its the same as Roeder, far away from being my choice but I looked for the positives and hoped he would do well.

 

I am sure you won't find many comments about Luque from me although I do admit I probably was quite excited about us signing this relatively unknown but highly rated player. As for Boumsong it was the same thing, didn't know all that much about him but he was getting in the France squad, had a lot of pace, seemed an intelligent lad and I had high hopes. Shame neither worked out but I think you will struggle to find any comments from me claiming to know all about them when we signed them.

 

That said it probably would have been easier for me not to give an honest answer, claim I was always against the players and manager mentioned then accuse people of editing my posts if you found anything I may have said positive about them

 

I quite like the last bit ........ I've said it before, my posts have been edited on toontastic before, as have others, as has my avatar ... so YOU can't say with any conviction whatsoever they didn't edit that post in question, however much you might like to. But I know they did, having made hundreds of posts saying the opposite, why would I say that ?

 

Anyway. Nice to see you admit you backed Souness - however slightly  I admit that I was prepared to give Roeder time because there was merits in giving him a go. I admit I have wanted Allardyce strongly, I've said it enough. I admit that earlier in Dyers career I had big hopes for his potential and backed him, or hoped he would be a good player, but he lost his way and you have got to say now the club is better off without him, he was never going to succeed at Newcastle.

 

And he's a horrible, cocky little bastard, far worse than Freddie Shepherd 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

I am confident we have had more good games out of Parker than we will Smith.

 

Depends on whether or not FS uses Smith consistently in his strongest position and whether or not he can put a team together that can create something for any of the strikers. If he continues with square pegs in round holes and with using unfit players just because he signed them, then any striker will struggle.

[johnnypd]

spot on, Gejon. and parker was used as an attacking midfielder/box-to-box when he was more obviously a defensive midfielder so he wasn't really played in his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Ok Johnny, you have your view. Nice to see people can disagree like adults.  The point really is that all managers have their own ideas, but Parker played in midfield [where he is best] and Smith has played mostly in midfield [when he should be playing up front].

I've got a question for you though. Do you think Smith is a better forward than Ameobi, and if so, do you think it justifies now showing Ameobi the door with Smith in the club ?

 

around the same level overall but very different players. ameobi is better in the box and presents more of a goal threat, but smith is a lot better outside of the box, does more work, has a crisper touch, better passer of the ball and so on. it probably makes more sense having smith as one of our striking quartet, that way we have two support strikers who can link and drop deep(Smith, Viduka) and two goalscorers on the shoulder or in the box (Martins, Owen). so i'd consider Smith a 4th choice striker and ameobi replacement, nothing better, and a poor signing considering the fee and wages. the thing about his supposed versatility i don't buy as i think he's crap in midfield.

[NE5]

No you haven't, you've said you think Smith is a better player than Parker and then went on about how he was signed by Souness. Parker and Smith are both grafters with little footballing ability yet you think one is great and the other was shit.

 

Do you still want to call people by their first names, Matthew ?

 

You've gone strangely quiet since it was done to you, I hope you aren't moping

 

 

[NE5]

spot on, Gejon. and parker was used as an attacking midfielder/box-to-box when he was more obviously a defensive midfielder so he wasn't really played in his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Ok Johnny, you have your view. Nice to see people can disagree like adults.  The point really is that all managers have their own ideas, but Parker played in midfield [where he is best] and Smith has played mostly in midfield [when he should be playing up front].

I've got a question for you though. Do you think Smith is a better forward than Ameobi, and if so, do you think it justifies now showing Ameobi the door with Smith in the club ?

 

around the same level overall but very different players. ameobi is better in the box and presents more of a goal threat, but smith is a lot better outside of the box, does more work, has a crisper touch, better passer of the ball and so on. it probably makes more sense having smith as one of our striking quartet, that way we have two support strikers who can link and drop deep(Smith, Viduka) and two goalscorers on the shoulder or in the box (Martins, Owen). so i'd consider Smith a 4th choice striker and ameobi replacement , nothing better, and a poor signing considering the fee and wages. the thing about his supposed versatility i don't buy as i think he's crap in midfield.

 

Well, at least you are happy that Smith is better than Ameobi, so its improved the squad. You'll have to accept that in your view its an overpriced replacement, but this is not the first time its happened in football and won't be the last. It could be worse though, we could have bought a Spanish flea for 9.5m quid to replace the player who galvanised our whole attack and was sold for less than half of that.

 

Such is life eh.

 

I think Tina Arsprilla was a waste of money too BTW. Hell of a lot of money to pay for one brilliant game.

 

 

[Baggio]

I'm on my phone steve, thats why.

[Howaythelads]

O0his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Ok Johnny, you have your view. Nice to see people can disagree like adults.  The point really is that all managers have their own ideas, but Parker played in midfield [where he is best] and Smith has played mostly in midfield [when he should be playing up front].

I've got a question for you though. Do you think Smith is a better forward than Ameobi, and if so, do you think it justifies now showing Ameobi the door with Smith in the club ?

 

around the same level overall but very different players. ameobi is better in the box and presents more of a goal threat, but smith is a lot better outside of the box, does more work, has a crisper touch, better passer of the ball and so on. it probably makes more sense having smith as one of our striking quartet, that way we have two support strikers who can link and drop deep(Smith, Viduka) and two goalscorers on the shoulder or in the box (Martins, Owen). so i'd consider Smith a 4th choice striker and ameobi replacement, nothing better, and a poor signing considering the fee and wages. the thing about his supposed versatility i don't buy as i think he's crap in midfield.

 

 

And this is the proper criteria when gauging his level of performance. A good post.

[Parky]

In defence of Smith I think he also arrived with baggage ie his tendency to over do it etc..And the myth that cause he wasn't needed at ManU he was somehow finished as a player which is hardly fair as he was suddenly competing with world class players in both his positions at the club. No shame there imo. Once Hargreaves and Tevez came in it was near impossible for him to get a game. Smith like Owen I'd rather not judge too heavily till the end of the season.

[johnnypd]

spot on, Gejon. and parker was used as an attacking midfielder/box-to-box when he was more obviously a defensive midfielder so he wasn't really played in his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Ok Johnny, you have your view. Nice to see people can disagree like adults.  The point really is that all managers have their own ideas, but Parker played in midfield [where he is best] and Smith has played mostly in midfield [when he should be playing up front].

I've got a question for you though. Do you think Smith is a better forward than Ameobi, and if so, do you think it justifies now showing Ameobi the door with Smith in the club ?

 

around the same level overall but very different players. ameobi is better in the box and presents more of a goal threat, but smith is a lot better outside of the box, does more work, has a crisper touch, better passer of the ball and so on. it probably makes more sense having smith as one of our striking quartet, that way we have two support strikers who can link and drop deep(Smith, Viduka) and two goalscorers on the shoulder or in the box (Martins, Owen). so i'd consider Smith a 4th choice striker and ameobi replacement , nothing better, and a poor signing considering the fee and wages. the thing about his supposed versatility i don't buy as i think he's crap in midfield.

 

Well, at least you are happy that Smith is better than Ameobi, so its improved the squad. You'll have to accept that in your view its an overpriced replacement, but this is not the first time its happened in football and won't be the last. It could be worse though, we could have bought a Spanish flea for 9.5m quid to replace the player who galvanised our whole attack and was sold for less than half of that.

 

Such is life eh.

 

I think Tina Arsprilla was a waste of money too BTW. Hell of a lot of money to pay for one brilliant game.

 

using £6m almost anywhere else in the squad would improve it too, considering we needed to replace solano and dyer. and even though he just signed, you'd still have to look at him as someone we could and should improve on. so a poor signing. hopefully we'll buy players with pace and creativity in january/next summer to make up for what we're missing at the moment  - tho i wouldn't bet on it.

[Howaythelads]

In defence of Smith I think he also arrived with baggage ie his tendency to over do it etc..And the myth that cause he wasn't needed at ManU he was somehow finished as a player which is hardly fair as he was suddenly competing with world class players in both his positions at the club. No shame there imo. Once Hargreaves and Tevez came in it was near impossible for him to get a game. Smith like Owen I'd rather not judge too heavily till the end of the season.

 

I don't think Smith has any baggage, Parky. He's a player who gives 100% and that's it.  I think by some people he's been lumped into the same category as Bowyer in terms of them seeing him as some kind of trouble maker and general scumbag. I can't think why 'cos he's done nowt wrong, but there you go. Barton has more baggage than Smith.

 

[johnnypd]

In defence of Smith I think he also arrived with baggage ie his tendency to over do it etc..And the myth that cause he wasn't needed at ManU he was somehow finished as a player which is hardly fair as he was suddenly competing with world class players in both his positions at the club. No shame there imo. Once Hargreaves and Tevez came in it was near impossible for him to get a game. Smith like Owen I'd rather not judge too heavily till the end of the season.

 

I don't think Smith has any baggage, Parky. He's a player who gives 100% and that's it.  I think by some people he's been lumped into the same category as Bowyer in terms of them seeing him as some kind of trouble maker and general scumbag. I can't think why 'cos he's done nowt wrong, but there you go. Barton has more baggage than Smith.

 

not sure people think of smith as a trouble maker at all, iirc he doesn't even drink. he's more someone whose aggressive, determined style of play leads to him picking up silly yellows and reds. 6 yellow cards so far this season and we've just got into november.

[Baggio]

I don't know anyone who thinks Smith is a trouble maker off the pitch, that's just the excuse his fan boys use as they can't except the fact other people think he's shite.

[Guest Pie]

I am confident we have had more good games out of Parker than we will Smith.

Had more out of Parker than we have Milner tbh. Not that that makes any of the the trio good enough. Out of the 3 I'd have Smith every time. Far mor eintelligent footballer than the oher 2. Keeps hi shape way way way more more effectively.

[NE5]

I'm on my phone steve, thats why.

 

who's the lucky boy

[NE5]

spot on, Gejon. and parker was used as an attacking midfielder/box-to-box when he was more obviously a defensive midfielder so he wasn't really played in his proper position a lot of the time. i seem to remember under souness when he played as DM his stock was a lot higher. still a mediocre player, just like Smith. if anything parker is a better midfielder than smith is a striker, battling qualities will at least make some impact in certain midfield roles, up front they are a lot less value.

 

Ok Johnny, you have your view. Nice to see people can disagree like adults.  The point really is that all managers have their own ideas, but Parker played in midfield [where he is best] and Smith has played mostly in midfield [when he should be playing up front].

I've got a question for you though. Do you think Smith is a better forward than Ameobi, and if so, do you think it justifies now showing Ameobi the door with Smith in the club ?

 

around the same level overall but very different players. ameobi is better in the box and presents more of a goal threat, but smith is a lot better outside of the box, does more work, has a crisper touch, better passer of the ball and so on. it probably makes more sense having smith as one of our striking quartet, that way we have two support strikers who can link and drop deep(Smith, Viduka) and two goalscorers on the shoulder or in the box (Martins, Owen). so i'd consider Smith a 4th choice striker and ameobi replacement , nothing better, and a poor signing considering the fee and wages. the thing about his supposed versatility i don't buy as i think he's crap in midfield.

 

Well, at least you are happy that Smith is better than Ameobi, so its improved the squad. You'll have to accept that in your view its an overpriced replacement, but this is not the first time its happened in football and won't be the last. It could be worse though, we could have bought a Spanish flea for 9.5m quid to replace the player who galvanised our whole attack and was sold for less than half of that.

 

Such is life eh.

 

I think Tina Arsprilla was a waste of money too BTW. Hell of a lot of money to pay for one brilliant game.

 

using £6m almost anywhere else in the squad would improve it too , considering we needed to replace solano and dyer. and even though he just signed, you'd still have to look at him as someone we could and should improve on. so a poor signing. hopefully we'll buy players with pace and creativity in january/next summer to make up for what we're missing at the moment  - tho i wouldn't bet on it.

 

not necessarily. How much have we spent trying to replace Craig Bellamy ? Do you think we have replaced him ? I don't, personally.

Not with a player capable of doing a similar job anyway. True we have bought Martins and Owen, but they are different, and our attack is far from being balanced and consistently good in terms of performance and results on the pitch, in comparison to when Bellamy and Shearer played together.

 

I absolutely agree we need to replace Solano AND Dyer. Why do you think the club let them both go and didn't do it, adequately ?

Who do you think made the decision not to do this, and why ?

 

 

 

[Baggio]

You're the lucky boy, Steve. Your mum's got some wagon wheels in for her special little soldier on Saturday. mackems.gif

[Syrette]

[NE5]

You're the lucky boy, Steve. Your mum's got some wagon wheels in for her special little soldier on Saturday. mackems.gif

 

another childish comment, Matthew.

 

For someone who is about 28 or older, you don't seem to be very aware of the history of the club.

 

Oh, I realise you don't want to discuss things with me though do you, you'd rather discuss things with all the others of your own age who think NUFC have always been a big club that won trophies galore until that nasty horrible man Freddie Shepherd came in and called you stupid for paying 40 quid for a shirt and ended all our years of glory.

 

mackems.gif

 

Even moreso because he wouldn't appoint a Director of Football  mackems.gif

 

 

[NE5]

 

[ChezGiven]

Smith like Owen I'd rather not judge too heavily till the end of the season.

 

Excellent point mate, Owen has knocked a couple of sitters in for us but has generally done fuck all else. We all expect him to improve with fitness and 'hopefully' if the manager pulls it together and finds a rythmn and style that is suited to his needs and the players abilities. I think we should afford Smith some slack as he has been played all over the pitch but has managed put in one or two decent shifts.

 

Not looking great so far for the money but i want to give him and Sam some more time.