Steve McClaren

[Heake]

Personally, I`m not happy with this, but I`m prepared to accentuate the pluses to at least give me a fighting chance of being optimistic for next season.

 

I think the main plus is his relationship with Carr, which should, assuming there really IS money to spend & we don't get cheap & lose scouted players for the sake of nominal amounts, allow us the opportunity of preparing a decent squad.

 

The litmus test will be on 1st September when the window is shut & we are 3-4 games into the season.

 

However, I have grave reservations about Charnleys ability to get bodies "over the line" & it remains to be seen whether Mikes speech about letting the purse strings loosen  was one of substance or just the usual Cack.

 

I think the bottom line is that, assuming the brief for a new manager was to have to work within the current buying / selling structure, then McLaren was probably the most suitable candidate. As much as Viera would have been an exciting prospect, he would have been subject to the same frustrations Keegan encountered & would have probably walked by Xmass.

 

 

[The College Dropout]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I do think we need a player with target man capabilities. You look at Arsenal with Giroud, Chelsea Costa, City with Bony/Dzeko before him, Lewandowski at Bayern, Harry Kane doesn't provide flick-ons but the ball sticks to him like glue. You can fire the ball chest height to Aguero from 20 yards and it will stick.

 

Our problem is we love a true long-ball. But there's been plenty of times the lack of hold up play has restricted us. A Newcastle team has to be somewhat direct (in the SAF sense not Big Sam). Move it forward quickly.

[TRon]

Wide players who can put in a decent delivery are every bit as important as a target man. We haven't had one for years. Janmaat's probably the best and he's a full back.

[ads]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

 

 

[Wilson]

I look forward to dossing around local pubs on matchday for the foreseeable.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

[Guest firetotheworks]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren.

 

It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

[mozy]

I don't particularly want McClaren, but he is the best British coach around. Some of the childish hate on here is frightening. His CV is excellent. 

 

I'd agree with this.

 

I don't. and why on earth must a coach be British anyway?

 

as for the bold, it is not excellent by a long way. he's an uninspirinig coach that has zero charisma, of whom i can see players getting completely bored with, has zero plan B, he won a league cup with Boro, at a time when nobody but bolton, Leicester and the likes took it seriously and fluked his way to a UEFA cup final, before getting absolutely murdered in it. he failed at Derby, Forest, Wolfsburg and the 2nd time at Twente, he won the league in Holland which is the Dutch equivalent of the SPL.

 

I didn't say he had to be british, I just said he's the best.

 

The rest of your post is horrendous, you can't write off a cup win simply saying no-one else took it seriously. If it was that easy then more teams would have tried to win it. He failed at Wolfsburg and Forest but only had half a season in charge of each. He has a win % over 50 in both Twente spells and had a fantastic spell in charge at Derby.

 

I don't particularly want McClaren but he gets an unfairly rough deal due to the England debacle, and his managerial talent level deserves to be managing in the Premier League.

[TRon]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren. It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

 

I would have thought that is the job of the manager to organise his team and being buddies with Carr there really is no excuse for not getting the right personnel through the door.Ashley has publicly said that he's going to spend big this time, so if between the 3 of them - or 4 if you include lickspittle Charnley - if they can't put a workable squad together, what's the point?

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren. It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

 

I would have thought that is the job of the manager to organise his team and being buddies with Carr there really is no excuse for not getting the right personnel through the door.Ashley has publicly said that he's going to spend big this time, so if between the 3 of them - or 4 if you include lickspittle Charnley - if they can't put a workable squad together, what's the point?

 

 

 

We're already at that stage and have been for quite some time now.

[Noodles]

He's just gunna be another in a huge line of mediocre British managers we've had since Bobby. Time to change the fucking record.

[Ketsbaia]

I'm not enthralled with McClaren but I think too many people are going off the other end with his appointment.

 

I mean yes, Ashley is a twat and this club will keep going nowhere under his ownership, but McClaren is better than Carver, Pardew, Hughton, Shearer and Kinnear - every manager since Keegan '08. At least it's someone the players might respect. We could've done better but, by god, I was worried we'd do worse.

[EthiGeordie]

Poor guy dont get a  chance before he start.

[ads]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

He is.

[Mole_Toonfan]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

 

Not in the dominant Shearer and Drogba sense, but his role his hold the ball up and be a "target" and lay the ball off to those around him.

 

So from a very loose point of view he is, still though i do agree with the general notion that a target man doesn't mean the football has to be complete and utter dishwater and negative as fuck.

[TRon]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren. It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

 

I would have thought that is the job of the manager to organise his team and being buddies with Carr there really is no excuse for not getting the right personnel through the door.Ashley has publicly said that he's going to spend big this time, so if between the 3 of them - or 4 if you include lickspittle Charnley - if they can't put a workable squad together, what's the point?

 

 

 

We're already at that stage and have been for quite some time now.

 

But previously the pro-Pardew brigade could argue that he wasn't able to implement his own brand of football because he had no say in the transfer policy. Now at least Carr and McClaren should be on the same page so assuming Ashley loosens the purse strings even a little bit, then there's no excuse for not getting the right players for the positions required. If we need a big defender we should be signing a big defender.

[ponsaelius]

He'll be great at getting us to 11th every season, which is all that matters

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Thing is, a neutral appointment's no good really. We needed someone who would demonstrate a genuine change of approach.

[Parsley]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren. It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

 

I would have thought that is the job of the manager to organise his team and being buddies with Carr there really is no excuse for not getting the right personnel through the door.Ashley has publicly said that he's going to spend big this time, so if between the 3 of them - or 4 if you include lickspittle Charnley - if they can't put a workable squad together, what's the point?

 

 

 

We're already at that stage and have been for quite some time now.

 

But previously the pro-Pardew brigade could argue that he wasn't able to implement his own brand of football because he had no say in the transfer policy. Now at least Carr and McClaren should be on the same page so assuming Ashley loosens the purse strings even a little bit, then there's no excuse for not getting the right players for the positions required. If we need a big defender we should be signing a big defender.

There's certainly a case for arguing that, had we had a manager on a similar wave length to Carr in terms of rating players in the first place (ie instead of Pardew), the likes of Yanga-Mbiwa, Marveaux, Santon - maybe even Ben Arfa - would still be playing for the club. Or, at the very least, sold on for a profit rather than a loss.

 

It's very tempting to write McClaren off as a jobs-for-the-boys type of appointment, but his connections with Carr really should work in the club's favour going forward.

[The College Dropout]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

 

He is. He's in the team so that they can get the ball forward quickly and bring others into play.

[The College Dropout]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

 

Not in the dominant Shearer and Drogba sense, but his role his hold the ball up and be a "target" and lay the ball off to those around him.

 

So from a very loose point of view he is, still though i do agree with the general notion that a target man doesn't mean the football has to be complete and utter dishwater and negative as f***.

 

Loose POV?

Hold up the ball. Bring others into play. A target to build around = definition of a target man lol.

 

 

[Mole_Toonfan]

We've played like we had one, and we did have one until 2010. Personally I'd rather not have a target man, or play like we have one.

 

I'm not against having a target man, you don't need to play negative football with one by any means.

 

For instance, I'd count both Giroud and Negredo as target man and Arsenal nor Valencia play 'direct' by any means.

Giroud isn't a target man

 

Not in the dominant Shearer and Drogba sense, but his role his hold the ball up and be a "target" and lay the ball off to those around him.

 

So from a very loose point of view he is, still though i do agree with the general notion that a target man doesn't mean the football has to be complete and utter dishwater and negative as f***.

 

Loose POV?

Hold up the ball. Bring others into play. A target to build around = definition of a target man lol.

 

Don't get into semantics, i know you love it but it's boring. You know what i meant exactly.

[Guest antz1uk]

I don't particularly want McClaren, but he is the best British coach around. Some of the childish hate on here is frightening. His CV is excellent. 

 

I'd agree with this.

 

I don't. and why on earth must a coach be British anyway?

 

as for the bold, it is not excellent by a long way. he's an uninspirinig coach that has zero charisma, of whom i can see players getting completely bored with, has zero plan B, he won a league cup with Boro, at a time when nobody but bolton, Leicester and the likes took it seriously and fluked his way to a UEFA cup final, before getting absolutely murdered in it. he failed at Derby, Forest, Wolfsburg and the 2nd time at Twente, he won the league in Holland which is the Dutch equivalent of the SPL.

 

I didn't say he had to be british, I just said he's the best.

 

The rest of your post is horrendous, you can't write off a cup win simply saying no-one else took it seriously. If it was that easy then more teams would have tried to win it. He failed at Wolfsburg and Forest but only had half a season in charge of each. He has a win % over 50 in both Twente spells and had a fantastic spell in charge at Derby.

 

I don't particularly want McClaren but he gets an unfairly rough deal due to the England debacle, and his managerial talent level deserves to be managing in the Premier League.

 

As did pardew here but he was still an abomination of a manager, mcclaren is exactly the same, a couple of good spells in a career with more clubs than nick faldo

[The College Dropout]

It doesn't have to be negative, but it has been and it almost certainly will be. Using top teams as examples doesn't really stick when you're talking about an NUFC led by Ashley, managed by McClaren. It's fantasy to think that it would be anything other than more of the same Big Sam/Pulis style, because even if McClaren had the best intentions of using the long ball 'going direct' or as an option among ones where we play nice football, rather than a main plan, we don't and won't have the players at the back to make it anything other than a regular panicked choice, with no good football being played (Williamson etc), nor the player(s) up front to make it look effective when they do (Carroll)

 

I would have thought that is the job of the manager to organise his team and being buddies with Carr there really is no excuse for not getting the right personnel through the door.Ashley has publicly said that he's going to spend big this time, so if between the 3 of them - or 4 if you include lickspittle Charnley - if they can't put a workable squad together, what's the point?

 

 

 

We're already at that stage and have been for quite some time now.

 

But previously the pro-Pardew brigade could argue that he wasn't able to implement his own brand of football because he had no say in the transfer policy. Now at least Carr and McClaren should be on the same page so assuming Ashley loosens the purse strings even a little bit, then there's no excuse for not getting the right players for the positions required. If we need a big defender we should be signing a big defender.

There's certainly a case for arguing that, had we had a manager on a similar wave length to Carr in terms of rating players in the first place (ie instead of Pardew), the likes of Yanga-Mbiwa, Marveaux, Santon - maybe even Ben Arfa - would still be playing for the club. Or, at the very least, sold on for a profit rather than a loss.

 

It's very tempting to write McClaren off as a jobs-for-the-boys type of appointment, but his connections with Carr really should work in the club's favour going forward.

2 out of those 4 where sold for non-football reasons.

 

Our club would still be rotten with MYM & Marveaux man

[B-more Mag]

Carr's sort of put himself on the line with this. Not really, because I'm sure Ashley and Charnley won't touch him even if this goes south. But, hypothetically, he's put himself on the line with this.