Duff to Mackems?

[mrmojorisin75]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

such a shame for zog keegan wasn't playing 4-4-2 when he came in, reckon he'd have eventually found some form and confidence

 

now who knows what's going to happen?  personally i'd be amazed if keegan let the lad leave without seeing what he can get out of him...where are we going to get a better prospect of a similar age?

[madras]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

such a shame for zog keegan wasn't playing 4-4-2 when he came in, reckon he'd have eventually found some form and confidence

 

now who knows what's going to happen?  personally i'd be amazed if keegan let the lad leave without seeing what he can get out of him...where are we going to get a better prospect of a similar age?

i personally think the n'zogbia of old would be perfect for the left side in a midfield 3.

[mrmojorisin75]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

such a shame for zog keegan wasn't playing 4-4-2 when he came in, reckon he'd have eventually found some form and confidence

 

now who knows what's going to happen?  personally i'd be amazed if keegan let the lad leave without seeing what he can get out of him...where are we going to get a better prospect of a similar age?

i personally think the n'zogbia of old would be perfect for the left side in a midfield 3.

i don't, i could easily see him playing the martins role in the 'top three' if you like, working the channels, taking people on, having the engine to drop in and cover to make a five man midfield

 

he gets his head down too often for me and doesn't have a range of passing to sit in the midfield three

[steve_69]

I personally think that we'll see the N'Zogbia of old again if we sell Duff.

[TRon]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

Agreed that on the surface, Duff looked a good signing at the time, other than we already had someone on fire in that position. Moving on though, we need to do our homework properly on the next left winger to come in. I don't think we did that with Duff. We saw a big name and assumed everything would be fine.

[mrmojorisin75]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

Agreed that on the surface, Duff looked a good signing at the time, other than we already had someone on fire in that position. Moving on though, we need to do our homework properly on the next left winger to come in. I don't think we did that with Duff. We saw a big name and assumed everything would be fine.

 

think we need to be doing that for players in any position don't we?  not just left wing...!

 

but i know what you mean, was bought by roeder but it might as well have been souness eh?  "proper" player who is in fact shit...if it was souness we'd have paid 10m though

[TRon]

I think quite a few people expressed their concern that that is exactly what would happen.

so we cant strengthen the squad in case it upsets 1 player ?

 

What I said was that we have to make sure that we DO strengthen. It's detrimental buying a worse player and giving him the first team slot, especially if the player in possession of the shirt has been playing well which Zog had at the time.

at the time i wouldn't have said duff was a worse player. we had n'zogbia mainly left,milner right and little else. then we had the chance to get duff a quality international who can play on both sides. it hasn't worked out but at the time it was a no brainer. just maybe duff got his place due to n'zogbias attitude.

 

Agreed that on the surface, Duff looked a good signing at the time, other than we already had someone on fire in that position. Moving on though, we need to do our homework properly on the next left winger to come in. I don't think we did that with Duff. We saw a big name and assumed everything would be fine.

 

think we need to be doing that for players in any position don't we?  not just left wing...!

 

but i know what you mean, was bought by roeder but it might as well have been souness eh?  "proper" player who is in fact shit...if it was souness we'd have paid 10m though

 

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

[afar]

Agreed that on the surface, Duff looked a good signing at the time, other than we already had someone on fire in that position. Moving on though, we need to do our homework properly on the next left winger to come in. I don't think we did that with Duff. We saw a big name and assumed everything would be fine.

 

It's the classic mistake. You can see it throughout football. A big name player becomes available, your  team can make the deal, they think it's a bargain but ignore thier own needs. In football it can have a negative effect if you strengthen a position of strength.

 

In one of the first interviews I saw with Mourinho when he came to Chelsea, he went on about have a squad of 23 first teamers, no more and no less. And he was bang on. The ideal is an established quality player  plus a player of potential who is ready to step in in the event of injury or suspension, for each position.

The players should know the pecking order, to manage expectations, and when the potential player's form and ability overtake that of the established player then the manager needs to be ruthless in promoting the potential guy, getting rid of the established player and bringing in a new understudy.

 

We didn't need Duff, at the time, we had two established players in Milner and Zog, equally capable of playing regular first team football. Zog was demoted to the roll of understudy, some players will thrieve in the competition but most will take it as an insult and loose motivation. That's fine if the new player is an improvement, but Duff wasn't and all you have achieved is weakening your first team while demotivating the back up.

 

I think Chelsea had similiar problems with Sheva and Ballack, neither offered more than the current occupants of the role that they play, Lampard and Drogba. The only thing I think Chelsea achieved in bringing those two in, is breaking up that team spirit, which as well as all the money was the key to Chelsea's success.

 

We all have to remember that footballers are human beings, if you bring someone in, to replace another, you have to make sure that the replacement player is going to be an improvement on your current first choice. If you constantly bring in sub standard or similar ability levels players, the rest of the team will  pick up on this and think they are next for the chop, no matter how they perform.

 

Team spirit is a huge factor in football, NUFC is a prime example of that when we had success during KK's first spell, it was a core to the squad that we had a great team spirit. Ferguson places huge value in at at Manure, you can tell they all want to work for each other.

 

In a way it's easier to manage team spirit at the smaller clubs, because you are either replacing very substandard players, which is far easier to do than upgrading already good players. Or replacing good players who have left for bigger clubs. It's a different management skill set altogther for the bigger clubs. And I think that's why some managers can be really successful a small club but fail miserably when they make the step up (ala Allardyce).

 

 

[UV]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

It's the classic mistake. You can see it throughout football. A big name player becomes available, your  team can make the deal, they think it's a bargain but ignore thier own needs. In football it can have a negative effect if you strengthen a position of strength.

 

In one of the first interviews I saw with Mourinho when he came to Chelsea, he went on about have a squad of 23 first teamers, no more and no less. And he was bang on. The ideal is an established quality player  plus a player of potential who is ready to step in in the event of injury or suspension, for each position.

The players should know the pecking order, to manage expectations, and when the potential player's form and ability overtake that of the established player then the manager needs to be ruthless in promoting the potential guy, getting rid of the established player and bringing in a new understudy.

 

We didn't need Duff, at the time, we had two established players in Milner and Zog, equally capable of playing regular first team football. Zog was demoted to the roll of understudy, some players will thrieve in the competition but most will take it as an insult and loose motivation. That's fine if the new player is an improvement, but Duff wasn't and all you have achieved is weakening your first team while demotivating the back up.

 

I don't get your logic here really. First you agree with Mourinho that ideally you should have 2 players for each position capable of playing in the first team, but then you say a 20 year old who is still developing should be the first choice, and so I guess a younger player (who is capable of holding their own in the premiership) should have been brought in instead of Duff? Good luck finding that player, or did you mean we should have played Pattison more?

 

N'Zogbia was pushed to the fore ahead of his time because Luque turned out to be shit. There's no shame for him in being put back to notionally 2nd choice behind a more experienced player. A young player with the desire to improve himself will use it as a chance to learn and as a personal challenge to make the manager pick him. It gives them a reason to improve further, rather than being just able to sit back on their laurels and think they've made it. He'd still get plenty of substitute time (great for a young players confidence as the opposition is tiring) and games when the 1st choice player was injured or rested. In the end he got plenty of games in the 06-07 season, and did nothing to suggest he should have been made 1st choice ahead of Duff.

 

We had potentially 50-60 games that season. That's far too many for a 20 year old to be playing 90 minutes in. Without the benefit of hindsight, for £5m Duff was as good a signing as you'll get (the same setup at Spurs that everyone is now so jealous of certainly thought so).

[TRon]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

 

It wasn't just Duff, in fact I was referring to other players as well, one of which you mentioned, such as Luque. If you think our homework was done there maybe you can fill us in on the details of that one. Or Steve Carr for that matter.

 

As for Duff, do you think he just suddenly started playing shit once he crossed the M1?

[colinmk]

Before Duff joined us I thought he was looking pretty shite. I certainly didn't anticipate quite how high his level of shiteness had reached though.

[Baggio]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

It's the classic mistake. You can see it throughout football. A big name player becomes available, your  team can make the deal, they think it's a bargain but ignore thier own needs. In football it can have a negative effect if you strengthen a position of strength.

 

In one of the first interviews I saw with Mourinho when he came to Chelsea, he went on about have a squad of 23 first teamers, no more and no less. And he was bang on. The ideal is an established quality player  plus a player of potential who is ready to step in in the event of injury or suspension, for each position.

The players should know the pecking order, to manage expectations, and when the potential player's form and ability overtake that of the established player then the manager needs to be ruthless in promoting the potential guy, getting rid of the established player and bringing in a new understudy.

 

We didn't need Duff, at the time, we had two established players in Milner and Zog, equally capable of playing regular first team football. Zog was demoted to the roll of understudy, some players will thrieve in the competition but most will take it as an insult and loose motivation. That's fine if the new player is an improvement, but Duff wasn't and all you have achieved is weakening your first team while demotivating the back up.

 

I don't get your logic here really. First you agree with Mourinho that ideally you should have 2 players for each position capable of playing in the first team, but then you say a 20 year old who is still developing should be the first choice, and so I guess a younger player (who is capable of holding their own in the premiership) should have been brought in instead of Duff? Good luck finding that player, or did you mean we should have played Pattison more?

 

N'Zogbia was pushed to the fore ahead of his time because Luque turned out to be shit. There's no shame for him in being put back to notionally 2nd choice behind a more experienced player. A young player with the desire to improve himself will use it as a chance to learn and as a personal challenge to make the manager pick him. It gives them a reason to improve further, rather than being just able to sit back on their laurels and think they've made it. He'd still get plenty of substitute time (great for a young players confidence as the opposition is tiring) and games when the 1st choice player was injured or rested. In the end he got plenty of games in the 06-07 season, and did nothing to suggest he should have been made 1st choice ahead of Duff.

 

We had potentially 50-60 games that season. That's far too many for a 20 year old to be playing 90 minutes in. Without the benefit of hindsight, for £5m Duff was as good a signing as you'll get (the same setup at Spurs that everyone is now so jealous of certainly thought so).

 

Who was Spurs young left winger at the time?

[UV]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

 

It wasn't just Duff, in fact I was referring to other players as well, one of which you mentioned, such as Luque. If you think our homework was done there maybe you can fill us in on the details of that one. Or Steve Carr for that matter.

 

As for Duff, do you think he just suddenly started playing s*** once he crossed the M1?

 

I can't answer your question, as I don't know what the homework involves.

 

Does it involve looking into crystal balls which tell you when a player is going to get a serious knee injury?

[UV]

Who was Spurs young left winger at the time?

 

What's your point? Mine was simply that Spurs thought Duff was worth (over) £5m.

[TRon]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

 

It wasn't just Duff, in fact I was referring to other players as well, one of which you mentioned, such as Luque. If you think our homework was done there maybe you can fill us in on the details of that one. Or Steve Carr for that matter.

 

As for Duff, do you think he just suddenly started playing s*** once he crossed the M1?

 

I can't answer your question, as I don't know what the homework involves.

 

Does it involve looking into crystal balls which tell you when a player is going to get a serious knee injury?

 

No it involves calling Luque's agent asking how much he wants and agreeing to the first daft figure which is demanded.

[Baggio]

Who was Spurs young left winger at the time?

 

What's your point? Mine was simply that Spurs thought Duff was worth (over) £5m.

 

You said it was the same situation as Spurs which it wasn't, Spurs didn't have a young player like N'Zogbia as first choice who had just put in an excellent season, they had Edgar Davids playing out on the wing and were desperate for a first choice winger.

 

We needed other positions filling but instead we had to scrabble around signing youth players on loan from Man Utd, a Man City striker who most thought was shite and Ollie Bernard who wasn't good enough for Rangers reserves, just because we had blown a large portion of our budget on a big name player.

[Alberto2005]

Back on bitch.

[UV]

Who was Spurs young left winger at the time?

 

What's your point? Mine was simply that Spurs thought Duff was worth (over) £5m.

 

You said it was the same situation as Spurs which it wasn't, Spurs didn't have a young player like N'Zogbia as first choice who had just put in an excellent season, they had Edgar Davids playing out on the wing and were desperate for a first choice winger.

 

We needed other positions filling but instead we had to scrabble around signing youth players on loan from Man Utd, a Man City striker who most thought was s**** and Ollie Bernard who wasn't good enough for Rangers reserves, just because we had blown a large portion of our budget on a big name player.

 

The "same setup" I was referring to was the Chairman/DOF setup who are buying up all the players in the world, nothing to do with their need for the player. It was a throw away comment meant to backup the fact that the amount we paid was a good price.

 

Personally I thought it was a very important position to fill at the time (rather than buy a bunch of cheap defenders as most other people wanted).

 

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

 

It wasn't just Duff, in fact I was referring to other players as well, one of which you mentioned, such as Luque. If you think our homework was done there maybe you can fill us in on the details of that one. Or Steve Carr for that matter.

 

As for Duff, do you think he just suddenly started playing s*** once he crossed the M1?

 

I can't answer your question, as I don't know what the homework involves.

 

Does it involve looking into crystal balls which tell you when a player is going to get a serious knee injury?

 

No it involves calling Luque's agent asking how much he wants and agreeing to the first daft figure which is demanded.

 

So this is now just about player wages then, not about whether or not we should sign them?

[NE5]

I'd like to think we'd be doing our homework with a new regime in place, we certainly weren't previously. Time will tell.

 

I'm interested in this "homework" and what it is exactly, please give a bit more detail about what more the club should have done that would have stopped us buying Duff.

 

 

 

It wasn't just Duff, in fact I was referring to other players as well, one of which you mentioned, such as Luque. If you think our homework was done there maybe you can fill us in on the details of that one. Or Steve Carr for that matter.

 

As for Duff, do you think he just suddenly started playing s*** once he crossed the M1?

 

I can't answer your question, as I don't know what the homework involves.

 

Does it involve looking into crystal balls which tell you when a player is going to get a serious knee injury?

 

love these hindsight viewpoints, just love them

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

At the time the twin purchase, which admittedly did chew up our transfer kitty, of Martins and Duff was a good move. It was either that or blow the Summers' funds on defenders solely. The choice was there: strengthen the defence, or likewise the attacking outfield - something which hadn't been properly accomplished in the wake of Robert & Bellamy's respective departures. Dyer's durability issues remained an everpresent, Luque was on the verge of being a flop - ie. unsuited to English football, questionable on & off-field application - and Owen's playing future was tenious ie. coming off a foot fracture, and with the knee injury the purchase of Martins turned out to be a pretty decent insurance policy that year. Roeder chose correctly, however he was too restrictive as to what he had planned with regards to the left-wing situation.

 

We were in desperate need of pace & creativity in the final 1/3, and Duff had shown on numerous occasions - ie. at international level, against good opposition - that he could play in front of & across the defensive line as an advanced creative/forward. As an attacking tandem, Keane & Duff with their movement & ability to play in either outside channel, they were an effective partnership and i hoped that Duff would be utilised in a similar manner. Looking at it from this perspective i thought Duff was a good signing, and i still do. That sort of usage certainly wouldn't have resulted in the stagnated development, and the birth of an unhappy player in the form of N'Zogbia. With that said i'm not jumping onto the 'he was s****, we never should have bought him' bandwagon.

 

A stream of injuries, lack of confidence & form, and an unsuccessful opportunity to impress under Keegan. The former two he suffered with in copious amounts. The latter he wasn't able to grab. These all came into play.

 

Our buying record - ie. advanced forwards, especially widemen.... mid-late 20's age bracket - over the last decade or so holds up pretty well. With that in mind Duff was worth a shot, just as Overmars was for Arsenal. And we're talking about a footballer who likewise switched clubs with question marks hanging over his shoulders, durability-wise especially. Would the player in question rediscover his best form, the form shown before he picked up a major knee injury.

 

These types of buys are classic cases in point - they're gamble purchases. Some pan out, some don't.

[Skirge]

Never wanted him in the first place and lets face it he has done fk all in his time here, get what we can back and get shot...

[TRon]

 

 

So this is now just about player wages then, not about whether or not we should sign them?

 

It's about doing your "homework" and having some idea of what a player is worth. Luque is on record as saying he didn't want to come so he asked for daft wages and nearly fell off his chair when Freddie said yes without any hesitation.

 

That's something I would hope we don't see again, don't know about you.

[OzzieMandias]

I love this "it was a good decision at the time" horseshit.

 

If it was a bad decision it was a bad decision.

 

 

[UV]

So this is now just about player wages then, not about whether or not we should sign them?

 

It's about doing your "homework" and having some idea of what a player is worth. Luque is on record as saying he didn't want to come so he asked for daft wages and nearly fell off his chair when Freddie said yes without any hesitation.

 

That's something I would hope we don't see again, don't know about you.

 

He also said:

 

I'm very happy. I am looking forward to playing with Alan Shearer.

I'm excited. It's a great place to play. I'm looking forward to playing in front of the Newcastle fans.

 

So which quotes do you believe? Those of a new starter sucking up to the fans, or those of a bitter ex-employee trying to justify poor form and a pay cut. Or neither?

[UV]

I love this "it was a good decision at the time" horseshit.

 

If it was a bad decision it was a bad decision.

 

 

 

Was my decision to buy a lottery ticket in a roll over week a good one or a bad one?