Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Watching/listening to his interviews and seeing him on the touchline, it appears he's changed somewhat. The sparkle in the eye is importantly still there and so is the enthusiasm and passion naturally, but this is a calmer, more relaxed and steelier Kevin Keegan we are seeing, or I am anyway (maybe reading into things?). Compare this to the 100mph KK back in the 90s and some of the things he said... As soon as we got promoted he said: "We are after Man Utd's title, why not?" "Relegation? We are aiming for the top" And so on and so on over the years. That kind of talk, big talk, was common place. KK back then was turbo charged, everything he said was big, loud and read more like a mission statement than anything else. Today, I see a very different man and do you know what? I think this could be a good thing and a good sign. I think he's had a lot of introspection time and will have thought long and hard about the game and himself in the years he took off after Man City and while I'm sure the big ambition resides in KK still, I think a dose of realism and thought will just as likely dominate his thinking too nowadays, which will hopefully see a more rounded way of managing the club and its aspirations. People forget or may not know just how hands on and bullish he was back then, he dominated everything at NUFC and had a hand in everything, often both hands. It worked because that's what the club needed, it needed dragged up and quickly. Now it needs steered more than anything and if KK can put us back on course and then become this mega ambitious and turbo charged crazy man like he first (or second) was (if he likes), we could be in for some great times ahead. Anyway I have to say, I'm liking what I'm hearing from him. For someone who has been out of the game for so long and away from Toon for even longer, he certainly seems to have a firm and clear grasp of what's needed and what's not and is speaking with lots of common sense and intelligence. I love the man and am absolutely delighted he's back, but that didn't stop me having concerns, big concerns. Talk is cheap of course, but for me anyway, when KK says this or that, I back him and I trust him to follow out what he says or intends to do and if not fully succeed (football is a fickle game) this gives me great heart. I mean this is a man who, well, where would we be without his services back in the 90s? God knows, it doesn't bear thinking about. When he returned I think we could have all been forgiving for thinking the good times are around the corner, the entertainers are on the way back and that things will be the same as they were the last time round in time. Well I don't think it will and I'm glad about that because that was a one off and will never happen to this club again, the meteoric rise, the record breaking seasons, deals, players, the buzz, the football and everything else that went with it. If KK tried to replicate that he'd fall flat on his face and it would fail spectacularly in my opinion. No, I think he's going to take a different approach which I don't know about you is exciting in itself or should be because I for one can't predict what will happen or how this will end and nor do I want to. Me, I'm just gonna sit back and go with the flow. Hopefully it will be just as exhilarating as the last time even if for different reasons. I'm still fucking buzzing me about KK. Fuck the football or results what's left of the season. Win, lose or draw, I'm happy because I believe and trust KK with my club, especially long term and with the kind of money I'm sure will be handed to him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical liability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical liability. Who will bite first? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 He's the first manager since Robson that I trust. When he says things, I actually believe them and trust him to do right by the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical dunderhead. Which manager isn't a chequebook manager these days. Or rather which clubs' fortunes aren't decided by what they spend on players? In short if that is to be the case, we won't be any different to 99% of clubs then as that's the way football is. Parky wasn't far off with his £100m to kick us on thread. It cost Chelsea £200m or so to jump from 4th to 1st. We have a bigger climb to undertake... Anyway I think lots of money and the right environment and people around you can make up for any short falls, as Fergie proves time and time again, Wenger too. Where KK falls down tactically he makes up in other ways. Martin Jol with a bit of money, feel good factor and the right people around him (including players) was a tactical dunderhead and he took Spurs to a position we would kill for with or without KK so it isn't a big deal this lack of tactical acumen. At least KK will spend money well, unlike that man over at the SOL you wanted here not so long back... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical liability. Who will bite first? Cheque please! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamesyJazz Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical liability. Who will bite first? Cheque please! Manchester United topped the Premier League spending table on £51m, closely followed by Liverpool on £50m. Tottenham Hotspur spent a cool £40m to finish third, with Manchester City (£37m) fourth and newly promoted Sunderland (£35m) fifth. Net transfer spending - when sales of players were also taken into account - by Premier League clubs increased to around £270m in summer 2007, up from £190m a year ago. Of the money spent by Premier League sides, nearly £110m went to Football League clubs, while £265m was spent outside of England. All managers are 'cheque book' orientated nowadays and are all judged on results/progress,a touch of stating the bleedin obvious imho. Tactically,well yes he was and is no defensive mastermind but compared to the dross tactics that SA deployed I'd rather take KKs style of play over the vast majority of managers we've suffered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slippery Sam Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Keegan is a cheque book manager and any progress will be measured entirely upon how much Ashley gives him to spend. He is a tactical liability. After Keegan saved us from relegation, the stats showed we had scored plenty of goals yet conceded far too many. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see what was needed. However, after the Southend game (the first game of the promotion season) my father asked what the match had been like. The football on display had been great, I told him 'we were playing it right from the back'. I will never forget those comments I made. Therefore, to say he is a tactical liability is quite wrong in my opinion. And a 'cheque book manager'? For him to have turned his nose up at the prospect of signing better players is just preposterous. But, as usual, I guess you knew that but were, as usual, just whinging and moaning to try and get a bite. Well done, you got me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 For someone who was so defensively slack (not that I subscribe to that view, like) we've never had a better defensive record than we had under KK. Under 40 goals conceded in every season, just a couple less than Man Utd conceded when we finished 2nd that season and less goals conceded than Blackburn when they won the league, a team regarded as defensively strong. Indeed Arsenal under Wenger have won the league conceding more. Another myth about that team, era and KK as manager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Btw the year we won promotion, Derby spent more than us as did Wolves two teams that finished nowhere near us. The year we finished 3rd we were in mid-table of spending and the year we finished 2nd, we were 4th biggest spenders I think. Could be wrong like but it's another myth that we spent shit loads more than others or were this moneybags club. Blackburn didn't get that and nor did Man Utd who broke the transfer record to sign Cole from us on their way to the title. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 After Keegan saved us from relegation, the stats showed we had scored plenty of goals yet conceded far too many. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see what was needed. Conceded 2 more than Man United 'that' season, and scored 7 less. We had the 3rd best attack and 5th best defence. What we needed was bottle/experience to win those crucial games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 We never lost the league because of tactics or because we had a shite defence, we lost the league to an outstanding team who went on an amazing run. We had ours at the start of the season which took us ahead of the pack, Man Utd had theirs at the end which made them come out on top. Simple as that. Yes we could have done this and that in this or that match and maybe a few matches were crucial but form wise, we were neck and neck with Man Utd all the way (hence the race, which it literally was) but at the opposite ends of the campaign. We started off like a train, they finished like one having started slowly, which is how we finished the campaign, just like they started it. If one match did kick us in the stones, it was a home match which we lost by a single goal having created enough chances to hammer the opposition who were for 90% of the match defending for their lives. That 1-0 defeat to Man Utd and Eric Cantona. Hardly a defensive or tactical collapse... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Players lost form at vital parts. Ginola after Arsenal, Rob Lee didn't really fire like he had, Sir Les wasn't hitting the back of the net as frequently and Gillespie's injury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slippery Sam Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 After Keegan saved us from relegation, the stats showed we had scored plenty of goals yet conceded far too many. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see what was needed. Conceded 2 more than Man United 'that' season, and scored 7 less. We had the 3rd best attack and 5th best defence. What we needed was bottle/experience to win those crucial games. Erm, 1991-1992. Scored 66 goals (on a par with 1st Ipswich, 2nd boro, 3rd Derby) conceeded 84!!!! As I said, it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out was was needed. Oh, and Man U were in the 1st division at the time, I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Players lost form at vital parts. Ginola after Arsenal, Rob Lee didn't really fire like he had, Sir Les wasn't hitting the back of the net as frequently and Gillespie's injury. The team slowed down towards the final 3rd of the season, collectively and individually and looking back, perhaps it was bound to. From near relegation to the title in 4 seasons with a largely inexperienced team and manager against a mighty foe in Man Utd who had already experienced life at the top? It's a mini-success that we pushed them so hard and an achievement in itself. Hasn't happened since has it and never will again. Say what you like about that team, it was a successful one in all but silverware which I know is what rubber stamps it all, yet I wouldn't swap those 5 years for any one trophy. They were great and so was that team, trophy or no trophy. We'll not see the like again at this club league or no league again. Those truly were the halcyon days. Marvelous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 After Keegan saved us from relegation, the stats showed we had scored plenty of goals yet conceded far too many. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see what was needed. Conceded 2 more than Man United 'that' season, and scored 7 less. We had the 3rd best attack and 5th best defence. What we needed was bottle/experience to win those crucial games. Erm, 1991-1992. Scored 66 goals (on a par with 1st Ipswich, 2nd boro, 3rd Derby) conceeded 84!!!! As I said, it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out was was needed. Oh, and Man U were in the 1st division at the time, I believe. Yep i know that. His post didnt talk exclusively about the one season after the relegation fight tho. 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