NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. Straw man argument.... Haha it gets better and better. Is it difficult having a 2 way conversation with yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 .com say Davids went, but says nowt about Kadar. Type the following into Google: Allardyce Kadar not on my radar Reet. Well Tozers in and the climb towards Europe starts with him. blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 We don't need to spend man, we've got Alan Smith the worlds best midfielder/striker/right winger. With him in our team we simply cannot fail. With signings like that it could take fat Sam £100 million to get us into the top 10. I thought that was Parky's original point. Not taking what Parky says completely literally, i wholeheartedly agree with the principle. I knew you would. But I was hoping for a deeper insight from you. There are still a few deluded souls who think we could get more out of our players but most recognise that, on the whole, the squad is where it ought to be in the prem. We need 2 defenders, 3 midfielders and 2 strikers of higher quality than anyone already at the club to be where Ashley said he wanted the club to be in the next few years. I think over the next 18 months, £100m (spent not net spend) isnt far off. Are you categorically saying that the current pefomrances of our individuals are the best we'll ever see of them? Scratch that, not even "best" but a true reflection of what they genreally capable of? No. He's saying that we need 2 defenders, 3 midfielders and 2 strikers of high quality if we are to seriously challenge the top clubs. And, despite what you think, we aren't going to do this by looking around for cheap young players and cheap foreigners and bargains. Mick will confirm this is how the club was run for decades prior to 1992. f*** it, we have £2000m pounds behind us, lets get the 11 best player we can get. That'll show real ambition. Dammit, i bit EDIT: my comment was in reference to his "deluded fans" bit, man, how long are you gonna be sniping my posts? I cant really be doing with your crap to be honest, you had a debate with me, you lost it, get over yourself man. I don't lose to anybody who hasn't got a clue Is that one of your "opinions" or "FACTS"? Fact. I decided it was futile to continue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I'm not sure we're bad enough at the minute to require a £100m facelift, but we definitely need a few inspirational buys in the mould of Robert and Bellamy. We could probably do with adding a top quality right winger to replace Solano, a creative midfielder to replace Emre (who must be off) and a quality striker to replace Michael Owen (he's never going to work out here) first and foremost. I genuinely think even just two of the three in those positions (RW/CM first and foremost) at something like £15M net spend for the pair, at this point in time, would see a fairly hefty improvement in our performances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. Straw man argument.... Haha it gets better and better. Is it difficult having a 2 way conversation with yourself. you don't understand very much do you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 We don't need to spend man, we've got Alan Smith the worlds best midfielder/striker/right winger. With him in our team we simply cannot fail. With signings like that it could take fat Sam £100 million to get us into the top 10. I thought that was Parky's original point. Not taking what Parky says completely literally, i wholeheartedly agree with the principle. I knew you would. But I was hoping for a deeper insight from you. There are still a few deluded souls who think we could get more out of our players but most recognise that, on the whole, the squad is where it ought to be in the prem. We need 2 defenders, 3 midfielders and 2 strikers of higher quality than anyone already at the club to be where Ashley said he wanted the club to be in the next few years. I think over the next 18 months, £100m (spent not net spend) isnt far off. Are you categorically saying that the current pefomrances of our individuals are the best we'll ever see of them? Scratch that, not even "best" but a true reflection of what they genreally capable of? No. He's saying that we need 2 defenders, 3 midfielders and 2 strikers of high quality if we are to seriously challenge the top clubs. And, despite what you think, we aren't going to do this by looking around for cheap young players and cheap foreigners and bargains. Mick will confirm this is how the club was run for decades prior to 1992. f*** it, we have £2000m pounds behind us, lets get the 11 best player we can get. That'll show real ambition. Dammit, i bit EDIT: my comment was in reference to his "deluded fans" bit, man, how long are you gonna be sniping my posts? I cant really be doing with your crap to be honest, you had a debate with me, you lost it, get over yourself man. I don't lose to anybody who hasn't got a clue Is that one of your "opinions" or "FACTS"? Fact. I decided it was futile to continue Shame, i could of helped you understand what a "Fact" was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Nowt to do with it. Robson wanted the job when he got it and was openly saying so in the media, if he'd been under contract anywhere else at the time Shepherd would have nothing to brag about from his time at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat bastard, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. Straw man argument.... Haha it gets better and better. Is it difficult having a 2 way conversation with yourself. you don't understand very much do you I tell you what, if you find me one person who has said that "plans bring automatic success" ill admit that what you're saying is 100% correct. If you cant, then how far and for how long can you actually stretch these "facts" before you finally see you are actually having an argument with your own imagination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Nowt to do with it. Robson wanted the job when he got it and was openly saying so in the media, if he'd been under contract anywhere else at the time Shepherd would have nothing to brag about from his time at the club. More bullshit. He preferred managing a club like Ipswich to Newcastle [the team he supports] for years. If that doesn't tell you something, you're blind. You could equally say that Martin Edwards would have nothing to brag about if he hadn't appointed Alex Ferguson. What sort of crap is that ? Do you seriously think every chairman appoints a manager by some sort of default ? haha, thats funny. The lengths some people will go to to avoid giving any credit for anything, never ceases to amaze me. Plenty of other chairman could have appointed Bobby Robson, including Newcastle while he was manager of Ipswich, as I said. Please explain why they didn't ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Theres that top 4 stat again!! Ha ha, i noticed you stopped posting after i pointed out the fallacies of this stat in the other post. In fact, you proved the fallacies of the stat for me. Classic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. Straw man argument.... Haha it gets better and better. Is it difficult having a 2 way conversation with yourself. you don't understand very much do you I tell you what, if you find me one person who has said that "plans bring automatic success" ill admit that what you're saying is 100% correct. If you cant, then how far and for how long can you actually stretch these "facts" before you finally see you are actually having an argument with your own imagination. Well, in that case, stop harping on about "plans" then and accept that it is a matter of us finding the new Alex Ferguson [and backing him with serious money] before anyone else then. Which I'm sure will be easy, and grossly incompetent on our part if someone else finds him first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Theres that top 4 stat again!! Ha ha, i noticed you stopped posting after i pointed out the fallacies of this stat in the other post. In fact, you proved the fallacies of the stat for me. Classic. Well. You said you would prove it wasn't true, then admitted you couldn't. Now you're attempting it again ? Are you pissed ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. Straw man argument.... Haha it gets better and better. Is it difficult having a 2 way conversation with yourself. you don't understand very much do you I tell you what, if you find me one person who has said that "plans bring automatic success" ill admit that what you're saying is 100% correct. If you cant, then how far and for how long can you actually stretch these "facts" before you finally see you are actually having an argument with your own imagination. Well, in that case, stop harping on about "plans" then and accept that it is a matter of us finding the new Alex Ferguson [and backing him with serious money] before anyone else then. Which I'm sure will be easy, and grossly incompetent on our part if someone else finds him first. Haha, "harping on". Rich, very rich. Again, i mentioned it once as part of a bigger argument. Again, see what you wanna see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Nowt to do with it. Robson wanted the job when he got it and was openly saying so in the media, if he'd been under contract anywhere else at the time Shepherd would have nothing to brag about from his time at the club. More bullshit. He preferred managing a club like Ipswich to Newcastle [the team he supports] for years. If that doesn't tell you something, you're blind. You could equally say that Martin Edwards would have nothing to brag about if he hadn't appointed Alex Ferguson. What sort of crap is that ? Do you seriously think every chairman appoints a manager by some sort of default ? haha, thats funny. The lengths some people will go to to avoid giving any credit for anything, never ceases to amaze me. Plenty of other chairman could have appointed Bobby Robson, including Newcastle while he was manager of Ipswich, as I said. Please explain why they didn't ? I've never said ANYTHING about Robson and his view of the job prior to the time he wanted it and got it. Thing is, Edwards appointed him and stuck with him all the way. I give him all credit for that, Same with John Hall, did well him. I'd give Shepherd credit for Robson too, if his other 5 managerial appointments hadn't been unmitigated disasters despite all the money he threw at them. As they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day, which is a better ratio than you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Theres that top 4 stat again!! Ha ha, i noticed you stopped posting after i pointed out the fallacies of this stat in the other post. In fact, you proved the fallacies of the stat for me. Classic. Well. You said you would prove it wasn't true, then admitted you couldn't. Now you're attempting it again ? Are you pissed ? Haha, classic, you're really falling on your arse here. Again find me where i said i would prove it wasnt true. This was last night man. How could you "forget"?? I actually said i would put some perspective on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Nowt to do with it. Robson wanted the job when he got it and was openly saying so in the media, if he'd been under contract anywhere else at the time Shepherd would have nothing to brag about from his time at the club. More bullshit. He preferred managing a club like Ipswich to Newcastle [the team he supports] for years. If that doesn't tell you something, you're blind. You could equally say that Martin Edwards would have nothing to brag about if he hadn't appointed Alex Ferguson. What sort of crap is that ? Do you seriously think every chairman appoints a manager by some sort of default ? haha, thats funny. The lengths some people will go to to avoid giving any credit for anything, never ceases to amaze me. Plenty of other chairman could have appointed Bobby Robson, including Newcastle while he was manager of Ipswich, as I said. Please explain why they didn't ? I've never said ANYTHING about Robson and his view of the job prior to the time he wanted it and got it. Thing is, Edwards appointed him and stuck with him all the way. I give him all credit for that, Same with John Hall, did well him. I'd give Shepherd credit for Robson too, if his other 5 managerial appointments hadn't been unmitigated disasters despite all the money he threw at them. As they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day, which is a better ratio than you I don't consider two FA Cup Finals to be "unmitigated disasters", 90 clubs would have swapped positions for us on those days, nor a 7th position in the league. BTW, this has been said before, but Sir John Hall wasn't responsible for appointing Keegan, that was down to Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd, those 3 exercised the judgement, and he got lucky. Don't suppose you will take any notice of this though, as it doesn't suit your "opinion". As fredbob is involved in this thread, maybe one of these "unmitigated disasters" may have been successful if we had gave them time and had "stability". I've actually asked him if he agrees that we should have done this, and won't directly respond, with names, and give some weight to his own theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Ok mate, heres a bone for you. In future attack opinions of mine when i have actually said it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Starting? They've been spending big for years man. The mackems have spent as much as Portsmouth this year so don't tell me it guarantees success. .............. how long before people like you realise that the last board had the right idea after all ....... A few years of bargain buys perhaps Without Bobby Robson begging for the job , Shepherds tenure could have seen the biggest fall from grace since Peter Risdale said "howabout some fish for the reception?" Bullshit He could have became manager of Newcastle anytime from the mid 1960's but wasn't interested while it had shite directors and only became interested when it had ambitious ones. Nowt to do with it. Robson wanted the job when he got it and was openly saying so in the media, if he'd been under contract anywhere else at the time Shepherd would have nothing to brag about from his time at the club. More bullshit. He preferred managing a club like Ipswich to Newcastle [the team he supports] for years. If that doesn't tell you something, you're blind. You could equally say that Martin Edwards would have nothing to brag about if he hadn't appointed Alex Ferguson. What sort of crap is that ? Do you seriously think every chairman appoints a manager by some sort of default ? haha, thats funny. The lengths some people will go to to avoid giving any credit for anything, never ceases to amaze me. Plenty of other chairman could have appointed Bobby Robson, including Newcastle while he was manager of Ipswich, as I said. Please explain why they didn't ? I've never said ANYTHING about Robson and his view of the job prior to the time he wanted it and got it. Thing is, Edwards appointed him and stuck with him all the way. I give him all credit for that, Same with John Hall, did well him. I'd give Shepherd credit for Robson too, if his other 5 managerial appointments hadn't been unmitigated disasters despite all the money he threw at them. As they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day, which is a better ratio than you I don't consider two FA Cup Finals to be "unmitigated disasters", 90 clubs would have swapped positions for us on those days, nor a 7th position in the league. BTW, this has been said before, but Sir John Hall wasn't responsible for appointing Keegan, that was down to Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd, those 3 exercised the judgement, and he got lucky. Don't suppose you will take any notice of this though, as it doesn't suit your "opinion". I'd say they were in terms of building on existing success. Went backwards with each of those 5, and you must agree, since none of your highlights from the time has us as the fifth best team in the country, which was delivered otherwise, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Theres that top 4 stat again!! Ha ha, i noticed you stopped posting after i pointed out the fallacies of this stat in the other post. In fact, you proved the fallacies of the stat for me. Classic. Well. You said you would prove it wasn't true, then admitted you couldn't. Now you're attempting it again ? Are you pissed ? Haha, classic, you're really falling on your arse here. Again find me where i said i would prove it wasnt true. This was last night man. How could you "forget"?? I actually said i would put some perspective on it. Ok then, here you go http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=48368.msg1136817#msg1136817 "If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. i'm gonna try not get dragged into this again,but, i was just pointing something out, doing that sort of stuff very definitely makes you look mental and very definitely makes YOU look like the one with the agenda i'm not disagreeing with you on the first part, credit where credit's due and regarding it being my problem, ironic, considering you've taken it on yourself to be the one true voice in defense of one man, it would seem that you continually make people 'ignoring the facts', your problem to sum up pretty much my last year of posting, it seems you have a policy towards people that suggests if they've done something right they cant do much wrong, and its so out of sync with reality that you end up fighting with everyone on here, anyway i still think you're good craic, keep up the good work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. i'm gonna try not get dragged into this again,but, i was just pointing something out, doing that sort of stuff very definitely makes you look mental and very definitely makes YOU look like the one with the agenda i'm not disagreeing with you on the first part, credit where credit's due and regarding it being my problem, ironic, considering you've taken it on yourself to be the one true voice in defense of one man, it would seem that you continually make people 'ignoring the facts', your problem to sum up pretty much my last year of posting, it seems you have a policy towards people that suggests if they've done something right they cant do much wrong, and its so out of sync with reality that you end up fighting with everyone on here, anyway i still think you're good craic, keep up the good work not "defending" anyone, only pointing out misrepresentations and a correct perspective. Anyway, time for some shut eye Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. Theres that top 4 stat again!! Ha ha, i noticed you stopped posting after i pointed out the fallacies of this stat in the other post. In fact, you proved the fallacies of the stat for me. Classic. Well. You said you would prove it wasn't true, then admitted you couldn't. Now you're attempting it again ? Are you pissed ? Haha, classic, you're really falling on your arse here. Again find me where i said i would prove it wasnt true. This was last night man. How could you "forget"?? I actually said i would put some perspective on it. Ok then, here you go http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=48368.msg1136817#msg1136817 "If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?" "blow your top 4 stat out the water" doesnt mean "disprove your stat" It means that i would be able to put enough perspective on the stat in order to render it pretty useless. Glad you went to all that effort beuase it just shows how badly you read things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Are Barton, Geremi, Duff and Smith the sort of midfield that gets the best out of slow immobile attackers? Take your time. Considering three of those were brought in by Allardyce (and they weren't exactly cheap), do you think trusting him with more money will see him change targets to something more exotic? General question, not really owt to do with the thread as such. I know you've advocated giving him time. Would of been my secondpoint to Chez! Dave, i'm not sure, thats the biggest question facing the club (as i said after City ). Fruitbat, my point was that the midfielders we have dont have the attributes to match the attributes of our strikers. Both departments are lacking and neither can make up for the inadequacies of the other. So, yes, i think the players are just about playing to their potential which is why we arent any higher up the league. Blame last summer if you want. I tend not to over analyse things so forgive me for not understanding this, but why exactly do we have the wrong kind of strikers for our midfield? We've got tall ones, short one's, fat one's, skinny one's, strong one's and weak one's. Is it the midfield that's wrong? What attributes do the midfield lack when playing at potential. Duff in Blackburn form is an excellent provider and occasssional scorer. As are Milner, Smith and Zoggy on Villa, Leeds and previous form. Butt, Geremi, and Faye are solid as a rock on Man U, Chelsea and current form, while Barton always looked a classy* box to box player at Man City. Sounds like British Rail excuse like the wrong kind of snow on the track. *EDIT: Of course by classy I mean in a working class scumbag, thugish charver, blood and guts way. Not sure if you actually seriously asking me or not.... Viduka and Owen are immobile and slow, Martins is unpredictable. The midfield has no pace or creativity. You can have one or the other but both at the same time means neither makes up for the inadequacies of the other. If the midfield had class and pace, they would pull defenders out of position, allowing the strikers to find space. If the attack had more class and a lot of pace, a hardworking midfield would be able to support them. The lack of mobility up front (and the spatial spackaness of Martins) places greater emphasis on creativity behind them. So you dont think there would be a single manager in the world who could put us in a better position with the squad we have at present? 9 players currently on the books have been brought to the club by Allardyce, with the deals sanctioned by Mort/Ashley. If the vast majority of them aren't good enough, who are you going to blame. Before you reply, consider the transfer fees involved and the competition we had to sign most of them ........ Still. I'm sure that you appear to be happy with the season so far. The books are balanced, and we have a long term "plan". Shame every other club also has a long term "plan", part of which will be to have a better "plan" than our "plan". mate you shouldnt keep putting plan in inverted commas like that, it makes you look mental, planning in business is always beneficial, doesn't matter who's in charge Well, I think people who infer that "plans" bring automatic success in football, are pretty stupid. It makes you look like you are saying the only teams who have "plans" are those who win the league, FA Cup and League Cup. Clearly bollocks, as you clearly had a flawed "plan" for not winning one of these trophies. Thats one hell of a lot of teams without a "plan" by the way. ok, and what about what i actually said? it's quite clear to me that if you qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 over the course of a decade, you must have some sort of "plan" which is a better "plan" than most of your rivals "plans". I realise you won't agree this because you have some sort of silly agenda with the fat b******, but hey, thats your prerogative. Ignore the facts as long as you like, its your problem. i'm gonna try not get dragged into this again,but, i was just pointing something out, doing that sort of stuff very definitely makes you look mental and very definitely makes YOU look like the one with the agenda i'm not disagreeing with you on the first part, credit where credit's due and regarding it being my problem, ironic, considering you've taken it on yourself to be the one true voice in defense of one man, it would seem that you continually make people 'ignoring the facts', your problem to sum up pretty much my last year of posting, it seems you have a policy towards people that suggests if they've done something right they cant do much wrong, and its so out of sync with reality that you end up fighting with everyone on here, anyway i still think you're good craic, keep up the good work not "defending" anyone, only pointing out misrepresentations and a correct perspective. Anyway, time for some shut eye Night night sleeping beauty, good to see you go when the going gets tough. Good business sense, get out while you can etc... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now