The Kevin Keegan thread

[Robster]

I see his point tbh. When people go on about Keegan winning nothing, they point to the Division One title.

In 15 years time or so when it's established that Chris Hughton wasn't a good manager, I doubt people will go, "Ah yes, but he did win the Championship".

Thats a different statement. Otter is referring to the claim "KK won nowt"

[OzzieMandias]

Is this the "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" thread?

[Dave]

I like how one or two people having a different opinion on the Caulkin article (as opposed to the 10+ saying it's spot on) is evidence of it not going down well here btw.

[Guest Brummiemag]

We just failed to win the league title in 95/96, but what a glorious failure it was.  Its well remembered and not just by newcastle fans.

 

Enjoy the memories, because we wont see anything like it again

 

 

[UV]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

 

 

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do.

 

That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear.

Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear...

 

The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious.

 

Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

 

I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all.

 

Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you.

 

Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely.

 

There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly.

 

For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

 

3 different Keegan teams with 3 different clubs trounced the opposition in the league they were in the season after he started managing them.

But he only came 2nd with us & couldn't win the premiership with Man City either.

What a loser.

[Kyzer Sosay]

Glad there was no pressure on him when he first took over as manager of Newcastle United 

[madras]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

 

 

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do.

 

That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear.

Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear...

 

The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious.

 

Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

 

I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all.

 

Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you.

 

Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely.

 

There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly.

 

For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

 

3 different Keegan teams with 3 different clubs trounced the opposition in the league they were in the season after he started managing them.

But he only came 2nd with us & couldn't win the premiership with Man City either.

What a loser.

i'm not sure if at fulham and citeh he could massivly outspend the oppo. certainly wan't the case in his first few seasons here.

[Robster]

i'm not sure if at fulham and citeh he could massivly outspend the oppo. certainly wan't the case in his first few seasons here.

I remember Derby were the big spenders in his first season. They were red hot favourites to go up that year

[ewerk]

However, I will be sincerely pissed off if Keegan effectively puts us into administration. Although you cannot really blame the fella, as it is perfectly within his rights to contest money that is essentially his.

 

Do you honestly believe that it will put us into administration?

[ewerk]

i'm not sure if at fulham and citeh he could massivly outspend the oppo. certainly wan't the case in his first few seasons here.

I remember Derby were the big spenders in his first season. They were red hot favourites to go up that year

 

Derby?

[Robster]

i'm not sure if at fulham and citeh he could massivly outspend the oppo. certainly wan't the case in his first few seasons here.

I remember Derby were the big spenders in his first season. They were red hot favourites to go up that year

 

Derby?

Yeah. I am sure they spent a (relative) shed load on people like Martin Kruhl, Marco Gabbiadini, Tommy Johnson and some others.

[ewerk]

i'm not sure if at fulham and citeh he could massivly outspend the oppo. certainly wan't the case in his first few seasons here.

I remember Derby were the big spenders in his first season. They were red hot favourites to go up that year

 

Derby?

Yeah. I am sure they spent a (relative) shed load on people like Martin Kruhl, Marco Gabbiadini, Tommy Johnson and some others.

 

Sorry, I took you up wrong there.

[Cronky]

We just failed to win the league title in 95/96, but what a glorious failure it was.  Its well remembered and not just by newcastle fans.

 

Enjoy the memories, because we wont see anything like it again

 

 

 

Glorious, was it? I'd say agonising and humiliating, and we still bear the scars. Our nerve failed us when the prize was well within our grasp. If Man U's late charge for the title had ended in failure, that could maybe have been called glorious.

 

 

[Dave]

We just failed to win the league title in 95/96, but what a glorious failure it was. Its well remembered and not just by newcastle fans.

 

Enjoy the memories, because we wont see anything like it again

 

 

 

Glorious, was it? I'd say agonising and humiliating, and we still bear the scars. Our nerve failed us when the prize was well within our grasp. If Man U's late charge for the title had ended in failure, that could maybe have been called glorious.

 

 

 

Why? Their nerve would have failed them when the prize was well within their grasp.

 

Truly ridiculous.

[TRon]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

 

 

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do.

 

That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear.

Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear...

 

The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious.

 

Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

 

I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all.

 

Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you.

 

Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely.

 

There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly.

 

For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

 

Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one.

[Cronky]

On a general point, when I say that Keegan isn't a winner, that's not a reference to the fact that he hasn't won a major trophy. I'm talking about his mentality, which is more that of a glory hunter, and therefore rather flaky.

 

Sometimes a mediocre manager can fluke a win, and sometimes a good manager can get unlucky and just come up short. Keegan's failure is down to more than bad luck IMO.

 

We only came close to winning something (major) once under Keegan. I don't recall us doing anything in the cups - not even getting to a quarter-final. It was certainly the only season when we came close to winning the league. And the flaws in the Keegan make-up were exposed. It was what Fergie called squeaky-bottom time, when a team has to grind out a result under pressure. All Keegan had in his armoury was the cavalry charge, and when things get tough, that's not enough.

[Cronky]

We just failed to win the league title in 95/96, but what a glorious failure it was.  Its well remembered and not just by newcastle fans.

 

Enjoy the memories, because we wont see anything like it again

 

 

 

Glorious, was it? I'd say agonising and humiliating, and we still bear the scars. Our nerve failed us when the prize was well within our grasp. If Man U's late charge for the title had ended in failure, that could maybe have been called glorious.

 

 

 

Why? Their nerve would have failed them when the prize was well within their grasp.

 

Truly ridiculous.

 

You've not answered the main point, Dave, but I'll still bite.

 

Man U had spent the first half of that season, blooding their youngsters. It was the 'you don't win anything with kids' season. Despite that, and a twelve point deficit, they came through. Now if they'd just failed - and that's what should have happened - that would have been a totally different sort of failure to ours.

 

 

[cp40]

its simple to me, would i rather watch Attacking, postive entertaining football and finish 1, 3, 6 2 2 in the league.

 

or watch shit, defensive negative football, and finish mid table, or lower.

 

now i really have to think about that.

[johnnypd]

keegan isn't a top calibre manager, but to suggest that he's a mediocre manager who managed to fluke a few wins is ridiculous. he's a very good manager with some flaws that stop from him ever reaching the heights of a Wenger or Ferguson. And those flaws mean he's not going to win the major competitions which is quite different from the kind of flaws that Souness or Roeder or Kinnear had which are more likely to take you down. So it really depends on what you mean by "things get tough" - relegation battle or uefa cup scrap? he'll be fine. But the fact he was good enough to even be in a position to challenge for the league means he was a bloody good manager, even if he failed to attain that target. better than the likes of Hughes or Curbishley or Bruce but not at the level of a Benitez. Comparable to someone like O'Neill really.

[Robster]

On a general point, when I say that Keegan isn't a winner, that's not a reference to the fact that he hasn't won a major trophy. I'm talking about his mentality, which is more that of a glory hunter, and therefore rather flaky.

Then he is a shite glory hunter if he came to NUFC when they were on the verge of relegation to Division 3.

[M4]

its simple to me, would i rather watch Attacking, postive entertaining football and finish 1, 3, 6 2 2 in the league.

 

or watch shit, defensive negative football, and finish mid table, or lower.

 

now i really have to think about that.

 

Ugh, ridiculous post as ever. As if it's only ever so clear cut. You're also basically saying you wouldn't swap any of the games of 95-96 in which we played well but failed to win for a 1-0 defensive lockdown. Because winning a trophy is just "one day" in the history of club, right?

 

Ps: We only finished 2nd once under Keegan.

[Dave]

On a general point, when I say that Keegan isn't a winner, that's not a reference to the fact that he hasn't won a major trophy. I'm talking about his mentality, which is more that of a glory hunter, and therefore rather flaky.

Then he is a shite glory hunter if he came to NUFC when they were on the verge of relegation to Division 3.

 

[Cronky]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

 

 

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do.

 

That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear.

Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear...

 

The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious.

 

Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

 

I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all.

 

Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you.

 

Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely.

 

There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly.

 

For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

 

Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one.

 

Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting.

 

I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you.

 

I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title)

 

What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals.

 

I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains.

[Thespence]

Negelet on defence is a bit of myth. Paid a world record fee for a right back, Howey got in the England squad, Bez got near the England squad, Vension got in the England & we signed one England's premier midfield enforcers who didn't cross the halfway line. Of course we & players from that time look back now & seemed everyone but Pav & Batty was bolting forward. I cant remember many goals scored against us when we caught cold because everyone we in the oppo's half. In fact our goal against record was good iirc without looking at the tables.

 

[madras]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

 

 

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do.

 

That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear.

Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear...

 

The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious.

 

Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

 

I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all.

 

Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you.

 

Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely.

 

There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly.

 

For me, Keegan fails on both counts.

 

Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one.

 

Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting.

 

I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you.

 

I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title)

 

What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals.

 

I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains.

was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal  2 seasons later ?