If not Sam, who then?

[Martin Lol]

And surely YOU are not naive enough to believe that Clough wouldn't have been a success in whatever era he managed..??

 

 

I'm afraid so. I'm firmly of the belief that managers like him, Shankly or Busby would never be a success in our time. I'll even stretch it so far as to say that players of that era wouldn't be a success in our time either. Sadly, this is something we'll never find an answer to. Which brings me to my point; comparing it is pointless.

 

It may be harder to compare players of yesteryear with those of today, but comparing managers is far easier.  95% of the manager's job is to convince the players at his disposal that they are better than they really are, to get them to gel as a team and to get them to play accordingly.  IMHO Clough, Shankly and Busby would easily have cut the mustard in the modern game.  SBR was a success throughout his managerial career starting at Ipswich and ending at Newcastle,  The point with successful managers of a bygone era is that success brought longevity which took them into following sporting eras.  Their success in those areas can be measured.

 

As for players, with modern day fitness levels I would rather have John Charles to Didier Drogba, Bobby Moore to John Terry, Duncan Edwards to Rio Ferdinand, Dave Mackay to Frank Lampard and George Best to Christiano Ronaldo in my team. Technical levels were high but not so obvious as they were hidden due to old heavy leather ball.

[Alberto2005]

HTT is one of the best posters on the board TBF.

[madras]

Well, I disgaree that football is a simple game, that's a cliche in my opinion as it's far from it. It's a very complex game. I get what you're saying though and to be honest I can't argue with much of it and nor will I. I'm at a loss myself as to what is going on and can't get my heard around it, which bothers me.

 

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons...

If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability.

Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!'

John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !'

No messing about with positional changes for BC..!!

 

To be fair, he was pissed at the time.

 

He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game.

it's not complicated the way man utd play.

 

Fergie would disagree.

pretty sure fergie would get the basics right and you're almost there

 

How anyone can think football is a simple game is beyond me, it's a complex sport involving many variables.

watch man utd and arsenal play...pass and move.give the man on the ball options and have your team drilled to be able to second guess what his team mates will do.

 

get in the players that do this best.

 

basic man utd blueprint.

 

 

for what it's worth i don't think ferguson is that tactically astute but better than everyone else  at the basics

[merlin]

And surely YOU are not naive enough to believe that Clough wouldn't have been a success in whatever era he managed..??

 

 

I'm afraid so. I'm firmly of the belief that managers like him, Shankly or Busby would never be a success in our time. I'll even stretch it so far as to say that players of that era wouldn't be a success in our time either. Sadly, this is something we'll never find an answer to. Which brings me to my point; comparing it is pointless.

 

It may be harder to compare players of yesteryear with those of today, but comparing managers is far easier.  95% of the manager's job is to convince the players at his disposal that they are better than they really are, to get them to gel as a team and to get them to play accordingly.  IMHO Clough, Shankly and Busby would easily have cut the mustard in the modern game.  SBR was a success throughout his managerial career starting at Ipswich and ending at Newcastle,  The point with successful managers of a bygone era is that success brought longevity which took them into following sporting eras.  Their success in those areas can be measured.

 

As for players, with modern day fitness levels I would rather have John Charles to Didier Drogba, Bobby Moore to John Terry, Duncan Edwards to Rio Ferdinand, Dave Mackay to Frank Lampard and George Best to Christiano Ronaldo in my team. Technical levels were high but not so obvious as they were hidden due to old heavy leather ball.

 

Quite right - players like Macdonald and Tony Green would have been worth many millions today..in your own case, people like Greaves and Martin Peters ; Tony Currie, KK, John Toshack - all of these would WALK into any modern Prem side and be a success..

Clough would have had some of today's players for breakfast, Revie had more dossiers than Allardyce, and Shanks was- well , Shanks..ALL of them would have been a HUGE challenge for the likes of Wenger and Mourinho - as Alex Ferguson what HE thinks ; I bet you'll find he agrees - he is the only one left who crossed swords with Clough, and Clough was on the way down then....

[jep]

It may be harder to compare players of yesteryear with those of today, but comparing managers is far easier.  95% of the manager's job is to convince the players at his disposal that they are better than they really are, to get them to gel as a team and to get them to play accordingly.  IMHO Clough, Shankly and Busby would easily have cut the mustard in the modern game.  SBR was a success throughout his managerial career starting at Ipswich and ending at Newcastle,  The point with successful managers of a bygone era is that success brought longevity which took them into following sporting eras.  Their success in those areas can be measured.

 

As for players, with modern day fitness levels I would rather have John Charles to Didier Drogba, Bobby Moore to John Terry, Duncan Edwards to Rio Ferdinand, Dave Mackay to Frank Lampard and George Best to Christiano Ronaldo in my team. Technical levels were high but not so obvious as they were hidden due to old heavy leather ball.

 

 

I'm obviously not questioning the man-management abilities of those mentioned, not at all. In that respect, I doubt there's few in the modern game who come even close. But the game itself has evolved, and more so the last 10 years than before, is what I think anyway. You can get quite far by playing it simple, but tactics play such a huge part in it, and the tactics being used by the managers previously mentioned would've been torn apart by the likes of Wenger and Mourinho. There's always a counter to any given tactical factor, and the very best managers of today all have something in common; they exploit the weaknesses and counter the other teams tactics. Which is why they are so successful.

 

Anyway, it's a sidetrack really. I'm obviously at the deep end here, seeing as I've never actually had an opportunity to see the teams of Clough, Shankly et al. And I'm not saying they were no good. There's just alot more to it now than motivation and brow-beating players.

 

And I still maintain it's too hard to compare, even for managers. Not to mention fruitless, seeing as we'll never have an answer to it anyway.

[merlin]

It may be harder to compare players of yesteryear with those of today, but comparing managers is far easier.  95% of the manager's job is to convince the players at his disposal that they are better than they really are, to get them to gel as a team and to get them to play accordingly.  IMHO Clough, Shankly and Busby would easily have cut the mustard in the modern game.  SBR was a success throughout his managerial career starting at Ipswich and ending at Newcastle,  The point with successful managers of a bygone era is that success brought longevity which took them into following sporting eras.  Their success in those areas can be measured.

 

As for players, with modern day fitness levels I would rather have John Charles to Didier Drogba, Bobby Moore to John Terry, Duncan Edwards to Rio Ferdinand, Dave Mackay to Frank Lampard and George Best to Christiano Ronaldo in my team. Technical levels were high but not so obvious as they were hidden due to old heavy leather ball.

 

 

I'm obviously not questioning the man-management abilities of those mentioned, not at all. In that respect, I doubt there's few in the modern game who come even close. But the game itself has evolved, and more so the last 10 years than before, is what I think anyway. You can get quite far by playing it simple, but tactics play such a huge part in it, and the tactics being used by the managers previously mentioned would've been torn apart by the likes of Wenger and Mourinho. There's always a counter to any given tactical factor, and the very best managers of today all have something in common; they exploit the weaknesses and counter the other teams tactics. Which is why they are so successful.

 

Anyway, it's a sidetrack really. I'm obviously at the deep end here, seeing as I've never actually had an opportunity to see the teams of Clough, Shankly et al. And I'm not saying they were no good. There's just alot more to it now than motivation and brow-beating players.

 

And I still maintain it's too hard to compare, even for managers. Not to mention fruitless, seeing as we'll never have an answer to it anyway.

 

I see the point you are trying to make, but I still disagree - Clough, Shankly and Revie etc were NOT just about standing up in the Dressing Room and screaming at players in an attempt to motivate them  - in fact, they hardly EVER resorted to those sort of tactics, and I think you'll find that it was Man U players of fairly recent vintage who termed a rocket from Alex Ferguson 'The Hairdryer Treatment', and I'm sure you don;t consider Ferguson to be inferior to Mourinho & Wenger.....

 

I DID have the good fortune(although as a NUFC fan it wasn't always pretty!)to see these guys' teams in action, and I can assure you that they DID use different approaches to different games - Leeds-Liverpool games were always tight affairs, even though L/Pool used to try to steamroller teams at Anfield ; they realised that Leeds were too clever for that, and had to use a more measured approach , esp at Elland Road - Clough's teams were always built from the back(think Colin Todd & Roy McFarland at Derby), but always had wingers who could be withdrawn into midfield to shore it up when necessary.

 

Motivation was important, but it wasn't the only tool in their box - as you say, though, we'll never be able to prove the theory - sadly...

[Martin Lol]

It may be harder to compare players of yesteryear with those of today, but comparing managers is far easier.  95% of the manager's job is to convince the players at his disposal that they are better than they really are, to get them to gel as a team and to get them to play accordingly.  IMHO Clough, Shankly and Busby would easily have cut the mustard in the modern game.  SBR was a success throughout his managerial career starting at Ipswich and ending at Newcastle,  The point with successful managers of a bygone era is that success brought longevity which took them into following sporting eras.  Their success in those areas can be measured.

 

As for players, with modern day fitness levels I would rather have John Charles to Didier Drogba, Bobby Moore to John Terry, Duncan Edwards to Rio Ferdinand, Dave Mackay to Frank Lampard and George Best to Christiano Ronaldo in my team. Technical levels were high but not so obvious as they were hidden due to old heavy leather ball.

 

 

I'm obviously not questioning the man-management abilities of those mentioned, not at all. In that respect, I doubt there's few in the modern game who come even close. But the game itself has evolved, and more so the last 10 years than before, is what I think anyway. You can get quite far by playing it simple, but tactics play such a huge part in it, and the tactics being used by the managers previously mentioned would've been torn apart by the likes of Wenger and Mourinho. There's always a counter to any given tactical factor, and the very best managers of today all have something in common; they exploit the weaknesses and counter the other teams tactics. Which is why they are so successful.

 

Anyway, it's a sidetrack really. I'm obviously at the deep end here, seeing as I've never actually had an opportunity to see the teams of Clough, Shankly et al. And I'm not saying they were no good. There's just alot more to it now than motivation and brow-beating players.

 

And I still maintain it's too hard to compare, even for managers. Not to mention fruitless, seeing as we'll never have an answer to it anyway.

 

I see the point you are trying to make, but I still disagree - Clough, Shankly and Revie etc were NOT just about standing up in the Dressing Room and screaming at players in an attempt to motivate them  - in fact, they hardly EVER resorted to those sort of tactics, and I think you'll find that it was Man U players of fairly recent vintage who termed a rocket from Alex Ferguson 'The Hairdryer Treatment', and I'm sure you don;t consider Ferguson to be inferior to Mourinho & Wenger.....

 

I DID have the good fortune(although as a NUFC fan it wasn't always pretty!)to see these guys' teams in action, and I can assure you that they DID use different approaches to different games - Leeds-Liverpool games were always tight affairs, even though L/Pool used to try to steamroller teams at Anfield ; they realised that Leeds were too clever for that, and had to use a more measured approach , esp at Elland Road - Clough's teams were always built from the back(think Colin Todd & Roy McFarland at Derby), but always had wingers who could be withdrawn into midfield to shore it up when necessary.

 

Motivation was important, but it wasn't the only tool in their box - as you say, though, we'll never be able to prove the theory - sadly...

 

I wasn't suggesting that they were just extremely talented motivators, Shankly, Busby, Clough and Revie were all very astute tacticians also.  I recall going up to Elland Road when Leeds were in their prime under Revie.  Leeds lined up as they normally did but at the kick off Mick Jones went deep leaving Clarke up front on his own, Terry Cooper played LW and Eddie Gray played LB.  The movement of the Leeds players was superb, the Spurs defenders didn't know who they were meant to be marking (nothing new there!) and we were 3-0 down inside 15 minutes.  As John Pratt came over to take a throw in my mate shouted "Get yourselves sorted out Prattie".  He looked over and shouted back "None of 'em are where they're meant to be and its like there's about 20 of the f*ckers on the pitch".

 

Spurs got themselves sorted out at halftime but by then it was too late.  Tactically, they had been done in the first 15 minutes.

[NSG]

Get a proven manager in such as Scolari who plays attractive, entertaining football and then give him the time and resources to deliver a year on year improvement

 

So much wrong for a short post

 

Care to elaborate?

[Guest Knightrider]

Well, I disgaree that football is a simple game, that's a cliche in my opinion as it's far from it. It's a very complex game. I get what you're saying though and to be honest I can't argue with much of it and nor will I. I'm at a loss myself as to what is going on and can't get my heard around it, which bothers me.

 

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons...

If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability.

Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!'

John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !'

No messing about with positional changes for BC..!!

 

To be fair, he was pissed at the time.

 

He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game.

it's not complicated the way man utd play.

 

Fergie would disagree.

pretty sure fergie would get the basics right and you're almost there

 

How anyone can think football is a simple game is beyond me, it's a complex sport involving many variables.

watch man utd and arsenal play...pass and move.give the man on the ball options and have your team drilled to be able to second guess what his team mates will do.

 

get in the players that do this best.

 

basic man utd blueprint.

 

 

for what it's worth i don't think ferguson is that tactically astute but better than everyone else  at the basics

 

I used to think that about Fergie but you don't build new teams that go on to succeed as regularly as he does without having a good grasp of tactics. He's a prime example of an old school manager adapting to a new game and his sides have shown that from their basic 4-4-2 of the early 90s to their many systems and formations today.

 

Yes Man Utd's core principles are basic, but there is nothing basic about their game. If it were that easy every team going would play good football. They don't because it's the hardest game to play and the hardest to succeed with.

[madras]

Well, I disgaree that football is a simple game, that's a cliche in my opinion as it's far from it. It's a very complex game. I get what you're saying though and to be honest I can't argue with much of it and nor will I. I'm at a loss myself as to what is going on and can't get my heard around it, which bothers me.

 

So you think you are a better judge than one Brian Clough then do you !?? Because, as I keep telling you, that is EXACTLY what Clough said football was - a simple game made complicated by Buffoons...

If you get the players playing in a system they are comfortable with , AND to their strengths, they will do the business PROVIDED they have a modicum of ability.

Clough did not take 20 games to make an impact at Derby and everywhere he went he took John McGovern with him ..one day, a NE journalist, Doug Weatherall, asked Clough why he always signed McGovern, as none of the Press guys could see anything in him - Clough replied ' that's why YOU are a journalist, and I am a MANAGER, Doug..!!'

John Robertson, now coach to O'Neill at Villa, never got on well with Clough, but he would run through a brick wall for him because Clough let him PLAY TO HIS STRENGTHS as a left-winger...do you think Cloughie would have played N'Zogbia at LB, because I don't....I once saw him bollocking a player in training because the guy was a striker and he was taking corners - Clough said ' I didn't pay 1m for you to mess around taking corners, I paid it so you could score goals- GET IN THE MIDDLE !'

No messing about with positional changes for BC..!!

 

To be fair, he was pissed at the time.

 

He was a great manager but football in his day compared to today is a whole new ball game.

it's not complicated the way man utd play.

 

Fergie would disagree.

pretty sure fergie would get the basics right and you're almost there

 

How anyone can think football is a simple game is beyond me, it's a complex sport involving many variables.

watch man utd and arsenal play...pass and move.give the man on the ball options and have your team drilled to be able to second guess what his team mates will do.

 

get in the players that do this best.

 

basic man utd blueprint.

 

 

for what it's worth i don't think ferguson is that tactically astute but better than everyone else  at the basics

 

I used to think that about Fergie but you don't build new teams that go on to succeed as regularly as he does without having a good grasp of tactics. He's a prime example of an old school manager adapting to a new game and his sides have shown that from their basic 4-4-2 of the early 90s to their many systems and formations today.

 

Yes Man Utd's core principles are basic, but there is nothing basic about their game. If it were that easy every team going would play good football. They don't because it's the hardest game to play and the hardest to succeed with.

it doesn't matter really about their formations as they are fluid (in the pass and move style).

 

would the man utd plan work if they couldn't get the best players to execute it?.

 

they can execute while others can't because

a) they have and keep getting the best players to do it

 

b) a manager who drills in a work ethic aswell as basic skills

 

we'll never agree on this

 

[jep]

I see the point you are trying to make, but I still disagree - Clough, Shankly and Revie etc were NOT just about standing up in the Dressing Room and screaming at players in an attempt to motivate them  - in fact, they hardly EVER resorted to those sort of tactics, and I think you'll find that it was Man U players of fairly recent vintage who termed a rocket from Alex Ferguson 'The Hairdryer Treatment', and I'm sure you don;t consider Ferguson to be inferior to Mourinho & Wenger.....

 

I DID have the good fortune(although as a NUFC fan it wasn't always pretty!)to see these guys' teams in action, and I can assure you that they DID use different approaches to different games - Leeds-Liverpool games were always tight affairs, even though L/Pool used to try to steamroller teams at Anfield ; they realised that Leeds were too clever for that, and had to use a more measured approach , esp at Elland Road - Clough's teams were always built from the back(think Colin Todd & Roy McFarland at Derby), but always had wingers who could be withdrawn into midfield to shore it up when necessary.

 

Motivation was important, but it wasn't the only tool in their box - as you say, though, we'll never be able to prove the theory - sadly...

 

 

I don't consider Ferguson inferior to any manager, really. But he's undeniably of a different type than both Wenger and Mourinho. And one of the reasons why he does so well with what I'd consider the old school of management, is because he's been around for so long, and he's had continuity at Manchester United. Sir Bobby Robson is another manager I'd categorize as an old school manager, but I'm thinking he's evolved quite alot since he first got into management, not to mention that he went the continental way by going to Spain and Holland - something current english managers really should be looking to do. I'd keep an eye on Coleman for the future..

 

But, back to the point, you're obviously in more familiar territory than me here, so I'm gonna hold my hands up this time

 

It really is sad, though. I'd really love to see managers and players (especially) from that era have a crack in modern day football. In that respect I wish I'd been born some decades earlier, just to have been able to see them for myself.

[Slim]

Im in full support of big sam but with all this stupid talk of sacking him who do you really think would come to us and who do you want.

 

 

Also if we get your manager and the team was in the same position next season would you sack him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If any one says Shearer or Jol DIE!

[Guest Brewcastle]

OK. I'm ready to die:

 

Shearer or Jol.....

[Liam Liam Liam O]

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=48121.0

 

[Slim]

Yeah cheers

 

I am still yet to see a manager better than sam who would come here in this topic

[Guest Brewcastle]

To be honest.

I believe it's a number of managers "out there" who could do better than Sam if they got the chance to manage in a club as NUFC. Even some quite unknown could do better with the squad Sam have in his command.

The Norwegian Trond Sollied, is an ambassadour for the attacking football. But yes, I understand his CV isn't impressive enough.

The CV isn't that important for me. I want somebody with ambitions and who want to create entertaining football while reaching their goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trond_Sollied

(Mark the last line in the Wikipedia-presentation)

 

[captainhaircut]

I really don't understand the Jol hatred. Decent man manager by all accounts, did a decent job at Spurs and is available.

 

Above all, what I really admire about Jol is how simple he keeps. He plays 4-4-2 with genuine width, big man/ little man combo up top and a holder/ box to box midfield. Football really is a simple game. These managers who think they are tactical genuis' piss me off. Obviously I'm not too naive to believe that tactics are useless but with the position we're in and the players we have, playing a simple 4-4-2 game would do us plenty of good.

[EthiGeordie]

  I prefer to stick with Sam compare to Jol.

[chicago_shearer]

Yet another manager would be a giant disaster in terms of this club's international reputation and future, and I can't realistically see us attracting a serious, accomplished candidate.  I don't rate Jol, and I can't see anyone having patience with a foreign unknown.  There is no job security and no short or medium term chance of success.  It is one of the true poisoned chalices of the European game.

 

So I will say Shearer, assisted by Speed.  For two reasons.  1) He can't be worse than Coleman or Southgate, and they haven't done too badly.  Good managers have to start somewhere.  2) His legend status should ensure that he lasts more than 20 games before the booing starts.  Then maybe our sub-par players will finally get the fans' anger instead of the manager, and we will have a manager with the authority to make the big decisions.  Basically, we need someone unsackable, to give him time.  And unless he got us relegated, Shearer would be.

 

[Ericz]

There's alot of things in the club that needs to be changed. Unfortunately, Sam does not top that list.

 

I will say what does:

 

1. Attitude and Mentality of the immature fans

 

Please grow up! (and be more civilised at times?)

 

 

 

Regards,

Ericz

[madras]

There's alot of things in the club that needs to be changed. Unfortunately, Sam does not top that list.

 

I will say what does:

 

1. Attitude and Mentality of the immature fans

 

Please grow up! (and be more civilised at times?)

 

 

 

Regards,

Ericz

(put up with whatever is dished up in front of you)