The Kevin Keegan debate

[Guest TPIB]

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

 

 

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change.

 

If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating.  Its alot more than physical in my book.

 

err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ?

 

And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ?

 

 

 

I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well.

 

Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays.

 

Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on.

 

best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate.

 

What exactly has changed since then ?

 

 

 

Hardly any bugger on here'll know who they are man !! 

 

 

 

[madras]

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

 

 

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change.

 

If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating.  Its alot more than physical in my book.

 

err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ?

 

And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ?

 

 

 

I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well.

 

Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays.

 

Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on.

 

best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate.

 

What exactly has changed since then ?

 

 

pace,stamina,strength...little skill or tactics wise.

 

you may be surprised at me saying pace and strength but what i mean is to play as fast and strong after 80mins as players do now ...i dont think they'd do it.(naturally if they were playing now they'd have the fitness training etc) but that is the difference between now and then.

[Guest TPIB]

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

 

 

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change.

 

If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating.  Its alot more than physical in my book.

 

err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ?

 

And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ?

 

 

 

I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well.

 

Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays.

 

Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on.

 

best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate.

 

What exactly has changed since then ?

 

 

pace,stamina,strength...little skill or tactics wise.

 

you may be surprised at me saying pace and strength but what i mean is to play as fast and strong after 80mins as players do now ...i dont think they'd do it.(naturally if they were playing now they'd have the fitness training etc) but that is the difference between now and then.

 

I don't think the fitness would be such an issue, they used to play on pitches akin to ploughed fields, the pitches like bowling greens today would be like heaven for them

[madras]

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

 

 

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change.

 

If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating.  Its alot more than physical in my book.

 

err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ?

 

And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ?

 

 

 

I used Pallister and Bruce as an example, against the likes of Ferdinand and Vidic, as an example of the changes in the football, for the same team. Madras picked out possibly the 2 best defender inthe historyof world football. i dont think that that illustrated my point too well.

 

Absoltuley i agree that they were the best of there era, but im saying that maybe there styles of management wouldnt be as successfull now as it was then, can you definitively say it would? Im intimating that with all the chnges in footbal that i see there style of management, the same style which made, Dalglish, Souness even Howard Wilkinson successful , wont work nowadays.

 

Its a differing opinion, if you dont accept it or understand it (for the 15th time) just ignore it and move on.

 

best central defensive partnership I've ever seen play for a club in the UK was Roy McFarland and Colin Todd mate.

 

What exactly has changed since then ?

 

 

pace,stamina,strength...little skill or tactics wise.

 

you may be surprised at me saying pace and strength but what i mean is to play as fast and strong after 80mins as players do now ...i dont think they'd do it.(naturally if they were playing now they'd have the fitness training etc) but that is the difference between now and then.

 

I don't think the fitness would be such an issue, they used to play on pitches akin to ploughed fields, the pitches like bowling greens today would be like heaven for them

even on the early season good pitches most games got stretched due to lack of stamina after about 75mins

[Guest Knightrider]

And how does everyone feel today about the prospect of KK working some magic again?

[madras]

And how does everyone feel today about the prospect of KK working some magic again?

yeah Ok. I'm up for it I suppose.

[Guest Knightrider]

Btw I'm not physic I swear.

[James]

Btw I'm not physic I swear.

 

Not psychic even.

[Guest Knightrider]

Aye that as well.

[Incognito]

Yes.Newcastle is the place where Keegan becomes a "special one",he never let us down and blooding Alan to take over.It sounds perfect to me.Its a fairy tale asking to happen.

 

I still believe this!Cant wait for the adventure to begin!

[merlin]

the difference between football today and that of 20 years ago isn't technical or tactical but physical...todays game is quicker and stronger....managers can't really control outside of fitness regimes with the fitness coaches take care of.

 

 

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, i think the "containing mentality" used at alot of clubs is a prime example of the change in mentality in football. I think the current use of 433 throughout Europe is another example of change.

 

If you as well as others are saying that football hasnt changed then you're directly advoacting that managers of the past would be just as successful then as they are now, even with the minor changes that your're intimating.  Its alot more than physical in my book.

 

err.........yes. Exactly. You can't do more than be the best of your era. Are you advocating that Bill Shankly and Brian Clough wouldn't be the top managers if they were still around today in their prime ?

 

And in the playing sense, George Best wouldn't be an outstanding talent ?

 

 

 

I had this argument with someone on this site a couple of weeks ago - I agree that they WOULD have been just as successful today..

[Guest nufc_geordie]

It all comes down to the environment that a player (or manager) is brought up in. One thing they will always have is that natural ability. George Best would still have had the tricks he had back in the day, but that would have been combined with dieticians and a fitness trainer and in all honesty he probably would have been a better player now than he was then. Lets face it, centre halves couldn't catch him then and they were allowed to scythe you down!

[healthyaddiction]

I liked this article so i thought i'd post it in here.

 

Good luck Kevin, the game has missed you

Brian Reade 19/01/2008

 

You'll be familiar with Kevin Keegan's charge sheet as it is being repeatedly read above a backing track of cackling laughter to certify why both he and the people of Newcastle are clinically insane.

 

He's a bottler who talks in riddles, hasn't watched a live game for three years, is committing the cardinal sin of returning to an old club, and his only qualification is he used to be a local hero in an era when men permed their heads and soaked their armpits in Brut.

 

The gags and the accusations of madness were to be expected, yet I've been taken aback by the ferocity of the cynicism from people who frequently lament how clubs are selling their soul to corporate monsters. A ferocity summed up by the esteemed writer who accused the Geordies of harbouring "empty and increasingly pathetic dreams."

 

So what's pathetic about wanting to see your team play in a passionate, entertaining way, led by a manager you love, trust and believe in? That's what drew me to football in the first place. That's what it used to be all about.

 

AdvertisementAh, they say, but football has changed dramatically in the 11 years Keegan has been away, as though he's a Japanese sniper emerging into sunlight after 63 years in the Burmese jungle. He's only 56 for Christ's sake, and been a genuine football man at the highest level for most of those years.

 

Does the fact that the Premier League has changed mean Keegan has suddenly become a bad judge of a player or lost his ability to motivate them?

 

Granted, the mind-boggling amounts of cash swilling around football has transformed the game, but certainly not for the better. Has Roman Abramovich's billions enhanced it? Has the American pincer movement on Anfield and Old Trafford improved it? No. Ask Kopites how they feel about their so-called saviours from across the pond now, or the thousands of Man United fans frozen out of Old Trafford because their wallets aren't thick enough.

 

Those who love the game should save their anger and cynicism for our friends in the north who ushered the Americans into Anfield and Old Trafford, instead of turning it on Mike Ashley for inviting Keegan back.

 

Who says ill-advised romantic gestures are worse for a club than the ill-advised sale of a club's soul to foreign businessmen who have no knowledge of football or love for the fans?

 

What's wrong with an owner attempting to give his supporters what they want?

 

Keegan's return may be an unmitigated disaster but who cares? Certainly not the only people who matter, the Newcastle fans. What right have outsiders to tell them they'd have been better off watching Sam Allardyce's brand of eye-bleedingly bad football fail?

 

Critics say he won't win them the Premier League so what's the point? But he doesn't need to. All he has to do is repeat what he did last time around by taking them back up to the division they belong in.

 

They're now in the top flight's third division with West Ham. If he gets them into the second with Aston Villa, playing exciting football, he'll be deemed a success. Into the first with Arsenal and his body will be interred in Newcastle Cathedral.

 

I wish him luck. Not because I was once a big Keegan fan but because I'm still a football fan.

 

One of many who can see that if our game is to survive as a sport for the masses, clubs need to bring in more men like him, whose sole intention is to make the people happy, and less foreign sharks whose only intention is to make the people emotionally and financially skint.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/01/19/good-luck-kevin-the-game-has-missed-you-89520-20290762/

[Guest nufc_geordie]

A very good piece of journalism. Not focussed on the fan, or Keegan himself, about the love of the game!

[Guest Spark]

Reade wrote a great article last week, too. Good man!

[Mr Logic]

Should have more journo's like him, just as he says we should have more men in the game like Keegan

[Doug]

The main ways the game has changed for someone coming back to work in it is that the net is now cast globally instead of locally when looking for talent.

also that talent is now looked after on the pitch as foul play is being eradicated to allow skillful players  to prevail over dirty players. (about time too)

Diet and fitness is probably improved but all these things can only be of benefit to a man like KK

Forget all the mischief about tactics being new. I,ve never heard such rubbish spouted about formations etc.

The pro game has always been about attacking and defending as a unit no matter how you like to quote weird formations.

Roy Mcfarland and Colin Todd would easily excel in any of todays sides also as a centre back pairing because they were good footballing defenders.

 

Doug.

[madras]

The main ways the game has changed for someone coming back to work in it is that the net is now cast globally instead of locally when looking for talent.

also that talent is now looked after on the pitch as foul play is being eradicated to allow skillful players  to prevail over dirty players. (about time too)

Diet and fitness is probably improved but all these things can only be of benefit to a man like KK

Forget all the mischief about tactics being new. I,ve never heard such rubbish spouted about formations etc.

The pro game has always been about attacking and defending as a unit no matter how you like to quote weird formations.

Roy Mcfarland and Colin Todd would easily excel in any of todays sides also as a centre back pairing because they were good footballing defenders.

 

Doug.

he's been out for 3 years man for fucks sake,not 30,the net was cast globally in the dark age of 2005 aswell.

[Doug]

How as he been out of it? He will have watched games during the last 3 years being a football man just like the rest of us.

You are preaching to the converted with me.

 

Doug

[wacko]

I don't know what to make of it, myself. Wouldn't want Keegan anywhere near my club as manager, but Geordies are such an odd bunch of fans. You've got next to no patience with managers who try to build up from the back and start from keeping it tight, and I get the impression you'd much rather win 5-4 one week and lose 5-4 the next all season than sneak all 38 games 1-0.

 

I think Ramos might have fit the bill, but who else is there other than Keegan? Wenger? Rijkaard?

[johnnypd]

I don't know what to make of it, myself. Wouldn't want Keegan anywhere near my club as manager, but Geordies are such an odd bunch of fans. You've got next to no patience with managers who try to build up from the back and start from keeping it tight, and I get the impression you'd much rather win 5-4 one week and lose 5-4 the next all season than sneak all 38 games 1-0.

 

I think Ramos might have fit the bill, but who else is there other than Keegan? Wenger? Rijkaard?

 

i think you've been reading too many shite articles about us in the media.

[NE5]

I liked this article so i thought i'd post it in here.

 

Good luck Kevin, the game has missed you

Brian Reade 19/01/2008

 

You'll be familiar with Kevin Keegan's charge sheet as it is being repeatedly read above a backing track of cackling laughter to certify why both he and the people of Newcastle are clinically insane.

 

He's a bottler who talks in riddles, hasn't watched a live game for three years, is committing the cardinal sin of returning to an old club, and his only qualification is he used to be a local hero in an era when men permed their heads and soaked their armpits in Brut.

 

The gags and the accusations of madness were to be expected, yet I've been taken aback by the ferocity of the cynicism from people who frequently lament how clubs are selling their soul to corporate monsters. A ferocity summed up by the esteemed writer who accused the Geordies of harbouring "empty and increasingly pathetic dreams."

 

So what's pathetic about wanting to see your team play in a passionate, entertaining way, led by a manager you love, trust and believe in? That's what drew me to football in the first place. That's what it used to be all about.

 

AdvertisementAh, they say, but football has changed dramatically in the 11 years Keegan has been away, as though he's a Japanese sniper emerging into sunlight after 63 years in the Burmese jungle. He's only 56 for Christ's sake, and been a genuine football man at the highest level for most of those years.

 

Does the fact that the Premier League has changed mean Keegan has suddenly become a bad judge of a player or lost his ability to motivate them?

 

Granted, the mind-boggling amounts of cash swilling around football has transformed the game, but certainly not for the better. Has Roman Abramovich's billions enhanced it? Has the American pincer movement on Anfield and Old Trafford improved it? No. Ask Kopites how they feel about their so-called saviours from across the pond now, or the thousands of Man United fans frozen out of Old Trafford because their wallets aren't thick enough.

 

Those who love the game should save their anger and cynicism for our friends in the north who ushered the Americans into Anfield and Old Trafford, instead of turning it on Mike Ashley for inviting Keegan back.

 

Who says ill-advised romantic gestures are worse for a club than the ill-advised sale of a club's soul to foreign businessmen who have no knowledge of football or love for the fans?

 

What's wrong with an owner attempting to give his supporters what they want?

 

Keegan's return may be an unmitigated disaster but who cares? Certainly not the only people who matter, the Newcastle fans. What right have outsiders to tell them they'd have been better off watching Sam Allardyce's brand of eye-bleedingly bad football fail?

 

Critics say he won't win them the Premier League so what's the point? But he doesn't need to. All he has to do is repeat what he did last time around by taking them back up to the division they belong in.

 

They're now in the top flight's third division with West Ham. If he gets them into the second with Aston Villa, playing exciting football, he'll be deemed a success. Into the first with Arsenal and his body will be interred in Newcastle Cathedral.

 

I wish him luck. Not because I was once a big Keegan fan but because I'm still a football fan.

 

One of many who can see that if our game is to survive as a sport for the masses, clubs need to bring in more men like him, whose sole intention is to make the people happy, and less foreign sharks whose only intention is to make the people emotionally and financially skint.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/01/19/good-luck-kevin-the-game-has-missed-you-89520-20290762/

 

Brian Reade has always been one of the best journos around, but I missed this one the first time.

 

Well said.

[madras]

I don't know what to make of it, myself. Wouldn't want Keegan anywhere near my club as manager, but Geordies are such an odd bunch of fans. You've got next to no patience with managers who try to build up from the back and start from keeping it tight, and I get the impression you'd much rather win 5-4 one week and lose 5-4 the next all season than sneak all 38 games 1-0.

I think Ramos might have fit the bill, but who else is there other than Keegan? Wenger? Rijkaard?

first part...like who allardyce ? roeder ? souness ?

 

second part....don't fall for the media hype.

 

 

do you think you would feel uneasy getting some points but playing crap all the time and knowing your luck was going to run out.

 

 

how much had houllier won when he got sacked ?

 

liverpool fans ...such an odd bunch,every season think they'll win the league when in reality we've come closer since they last won it.

[JH]

I liked this article so i thought i'd post it in here.

 

Good luck Kevin, the game has missed you

Brian Reade 19/01/2008

 

You'll be familiar with Kevin Keegan's charge sheet as it is being repeatedly read above a backing track of cackling laughter to certify why both he and the people of Newcastle are clinically insane.

 

He's a bottler who talks in riddles, hasn't watched a live game for three years, is committing the cardinal sin of returning to an old club, and his only qualification is he used to be a local hero in an era when men permed their heads and soaked their armpits in Brut.

 

The gags and the accusations of madness were to be expected, yet I've been taken aback by the ferocity of the cynicism from people who frequently lament how clubs are selling their soul to corporate monsters. A ferocity summed up by the esteemed writer who accused the Geordies of harbouring "empty and increasingly pathetic dreams."

 

So what's pathetic about wanting to see your team play in a passionate, entertaining way, led by a manager you love, trust and believe in? That's what drew me to football in the first place. That's what it used to be all about.

 

AdvertisementAh, they say, but football has changed dramatically in the 11 years Keegan has been away, as though he's a Japanese sniper emerging into sunlight after 63 years in the Burmese jungle. He's only 56 for Christ's sake, and been a genuine football man at the highest level for most of those years.

 

Does the fact that the Premier League has changed mean Keegan has suddenly become a bad judge of a player or lost his ability to motivate them?

 

Granted, the mind-boggling amounts of cash swilling around football has transformed the game, but certainly not for the better. Has Roman Abramovich's billions enhanced it? Has the American pincer movement on Anfield and Old Trafford improved it? No. Ask Kopites how they feel about their so-called saviours from across the pond now, or the thousands of Man United fans frozen out of Old Trafford because their wallets aren't thick enough.

 

Those who love the game should save their anger and cynicism for our friends in the north who ushered the Americans into Anfield and Old Trafford, instead of turning it on Mike Ashley for inviting Keegan back.

 

Who says ill-advised romantic gestures are worse for a club than the ill-advised sale of a club's soul to foreign businessmen who have no knowledge of football or love for the fans?

 

What's wrong with an owner attempting to give his supporters what they want?

 

Keegan's return may be an unmitigated disaster but who cares? Certainly not the only people who matter, the Newcastle fans. What right have outsiders to tell them they'd have been better off watching Sam Allardyce's brand of eye-bleedingly bad football fail?

 

Critics say he won't win them the Premier League so what's the point? But he doesn't need to. All he has to do is repeat what he did last time around by taking them back up to the division they belong in.

 

They're now in the top flight's third division with West Ham. If he gets them into the second with Aston Villa, playing exciting football, he'll be deemed a success. Into the first with Arsenal and his body will be interred in Newcastle Cathedral.

 

I wish him luck. Not because I was once a big Keegan fan but because I'm still a football fan.

 

One of many who can see that if our game is to survive as a sport for the masses, clubs need to bring in more men like him, whose sole intention is to make the people happy, and less foreign sharks whose only intention is to make the people emotionally and financially skint.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/01/19/good-luck-kevin-the-game-has-missed-you-89520-20290762/

 

Brian Reade has always been one of the best journos around, but I missed this one the first time.

 

Well said.

 

I agree. Well read article, looking at the KK saga in a better light for once. Something which is very rare with National journalists.

[wacko]

I don't know what to make of it, myself. Wouldn't want Keegan anywhere near my club as manager, but Geordies are such an odd bunch of fans. You've got next to no patience with managers who try to build up from the back and start from keeping it tight, and I get the impression you'd much rather win 5-4 one week and lose 5-4 the next all season than sneak all 38 games 1-0.

 

I think Ramos might have fit the bill, but who else is there other than Keegan? Wenger? Rijkaard?

 

i think you've been reading too many shite articles about us in the media.

Not really. I mostly just read this board. I'm talking from the perspective of a Liverpool fan here. You DO have little patience with managers relative to us and you do demand attacking football relative to us. Liverpool fans in the main won't judge a player or manager before his second season; you lot are often baying for blood after a few months. In fairness, Shepherd did have a habit of signing shite managers, though.