Guest Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. Then he scored 30+ under Bobby in his first year as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It was Speed's goal threat midfield that we missed sorely as we all know that Butt is hardly Gerrard esque when it comes to plundering goals from midfield. Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. 20+? I thought he hit 14 under Gullit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. 20+? I thought he hit 14 under Gullit 21 in 40 appearances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It was Speed's goal threat midfield that we missed sorely as we all know that Butt is hardly Gerrard esque when it comes to plundering goals from midfield. Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Shearer was also most effective for us in his first season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. 20+? I thought he hit 14 under Gullit 21 in 40 appearances. ah right, must have just been league games Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Arsenal (h) 1998-99 He was like Gerrard in that game The goal he scored that day was superb. Remember a free-kick from that season (Coventry maybe?) where Shearer ran over the free-kick, Hamann thumped the hardest free-kick I've ever seen which just bounced off the keepers chest, into the onrunning Shearer's path to tap-in. Actually that 20+ goal season was under Gullit, but was predominantly Keegan/Dalglish's side. 20+? I thought he hit 14 under Gullit 21 in 40 appearances. ah right, must have just been league games Stay off the drink man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It's after 10AM on a Tuesday mate, i'm allowed some fun once in a while Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It was Speed's goal threat midfield that we missed sorely as we all know that Butt is hardly Gerrard esque when it comes to plundering goals from midfield. Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Shearer was also most effective for us in his first season. That will always come down to personal opinion but I always thought him and Ferdinand didn't really click that well, but they were both devastating strikers in their own right so it didn't really matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It was Speed's goal threat midfield that we missed sorely as we all know that Butt is hardly Gerrard esque when it comes to plundering goals from midfield. Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Shearer was also most effective for us in his first season. That will always come down to personal opinion but I always thought him and Ferdinand didn't really click that well, but they were both devastating strikers in their own right so it didn't really matter. I agree. Everyone talks about them being a wonderful partnership, but I don't think they were. Two fantastic strikers playing together which meant goals would always come as they had fantastic providers. But as a partnership Beardsley and Cole were far superior. Although the Shearer we signed was pretty much at the peak of his powers, he still had his pace and movement and he had learned a lot as well so was becoming a more all rounded striker who used his experience as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Shearer was never as good after 96-97, never came close in fact. The Shearer of that season was absolutely world class as a goalscorer and footballer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job. He probably did when you look at our lack of striking options. Tomasson never stood a chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Shearer was never as good after 96-97, never came close in fact. The Shearer of that season was absolutely world class as a goalscorer and footballer. On the moneh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Shearer was never as good after 96-97, never came close in fact. The Shearer of that season was absolutely world class as a goalscorer and footballer. I must admit I thought that Shearer was going downhill as well but we had two magic seasons under Robson where he looked rejuvenated. Which brings us back to the point about the makeup of the team being crucial, not just the individual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job. He probably did when you look at our lack of striking options. Tomasson never stood a chance. Tomasson wasn't really a forward though was he? He was a goal scoring midfielder who ended up losing his way after being pushed up front. I really liked the look of him when we signed him as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 JDT still plays with fear when lines up against a British team must be the flashbacks of his time with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 It was Speed's goal threat midfield that we missed sorely as we all know that Butt is hardly Gerrard esque when it comes to plundering goals from midfield. Wasn't the argument at the time though, that with Robert, Ambrose, Viana, Dyer, Jenas & Bowyer, we needed someone in the "holding role". Speed was still more of a goal threat than all but Robert from that list even when he left though. Dyer had his moments I guess. He was hardly prolific when he left though, and nor was he for Bolton for a couple of seasons. He was slowing down, and at almost 35 it's not hard to see why you'd want to think about replacing him with someone younger (but mature enough for the responsibility of the role) when you're a team attempting to get into the top 4. <snip> A lot of hindsight and a certain amount of rewriting of history going on in the last couple of pages. Like Robson himself, just because the replacement didn't work out doesn't mean the decision to get rid was wrong. Snipped the stats to shorten the quote pyramid. Yes, he wasn't so much of a goal threat and had slowed down a lot, but he offered more than most. He was powerful in the air and, although he got forward less and less, knew his way around the penalty area and certainly offered a threat when he was going forward. He ultimately needed replacing and I was very happy for a competitor for his place to come in, but the idea to actually get rid of him was nonsensical imo. He was a very experienced head combined with still being a decent player, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting more and more involved in the coaching aspect given what he's done since he left. He would have been vital in the continued development of the so called brat pack, there's a hell of a lot the likes of Bowyer, Dyer and Jenas could and would have learnt from him; at the very least he was a top pro who kept himself in shape and worked very hard. He would have continued to be a big asset for the club even if not playing as much. If you are going to have Alan Shearer in your side it can work, but you have to have players around him who will compensate for his lack of pace. Robson did this with Bellamy, Dyer and Robert, and Keegan also before that. Dalglish's teams especially stick in my mind as built on solid players with no flair, and in those type of teams Shearer could look impotent. He still scored around 20 goals in the one full season under Dalglish. Well as you know, my memory is trashed from that far back, but I recall Dalglish did well while Keegan's players were still around, but once he brought in his own grafter type players we became less and less potent as an attacking force. Who were the midfielders in that season, any idea? We definitely did become less potent as an attacking force. But that year Shearer had his injury and was very poor in the league when he came back, we'd lost Ferdinand, Asprilla, Bearsdley (who was at the end anyway) and an unhappy Ginola. Although in his time for us Dalglish bought us some very good players. What factored against Dalglish was simply that he was the opposite of Keegan. Dalglish didn't buy bad players I agree, but those players didn't make a good team, there wasn't any flair or attacking instinct there and for that he has to take the blame. Fans aren't daft and they didn't start chanting "Attack, attack...attack, attack, attack!" beacuse they suddenly all had collective brain farts. The most effective Shearer I saw was in SBR's team paired with Bellamy along with players like Robert, Dyer and Solano. Who bought Nobby? Well I never denied Dalglish bought some good players did I? Shearer was also most effective for us in his first season. That will always come down to personal opinion but I always thought him and Ferdinand didn't really click that well, but they were both devastating strikers in their own right so it didn't really matter. I agree. Everyone talks about them being a wonderful partnership, but I don't think they were. Two fantastic strikers playing together which meant goals would always come as they had fantastic providers. But as a partnership Beardsley and Cole were far superior. Although the Shearer we signed was pretty much at the peak of his powers, he still had his pace and movement and he had learned a lot as well so was becoming a more all rounded striker who used his experience as well. Bellamy formed the best partnership with Shearer here by some distance, complemented each other brilliantly. Whilst not in the same class the way that Shearer adapted his game to suit his strengths and minimise exposure of his limitations after that injury was nothing short of fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. Who knows what Dalglish would have done, but the fact is he didn't make the best of the resources he had available to him. The ultra defensive formations were overkill and that's what cost him his job. He probably did when you look at our lack of striking options. Tomasson never stood a chance. Tomasson wasn't really a forward though was he? He was a goal scoring midfielder who ended up losing his way after being pushed up front. I really liked the look of him when we signed him as well. That was my point about him not standing a chance. The burden of responsibility was all on him, when it wasn't even his natural position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HatchBach Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Slightly off topic but does anybody know when and where the special NUFC shirts to be worn today will be auctioned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Slightly off topic but does anybody know when and where the special NUFC shirts to be worn today will be auctioned? Think it's this Thursday and on the Ipswich website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Maybe controversial but I think had we stuck with Dalglish we'd have been back in the top 6 regular within a year or so. Being sacked after a 0-0 draw with Charlton where we battered them, and a 1-1 draw at Chelsea was crazy...although that was Shepherd for you. You share my opinion on this - the players liked Dalglish but he was hated by the media because he was suspicious of them, with good reason.. He DID buy some excellent players but the problems were off the field. As I have said before, the way the Gillespie sale to Boro collapsed(due, reputedly, to comments by Fletcher to the Press)caused a furious row between Dalglish & Fletcher and it was this which was the reason for his untimely departure. I reckon he would have got the club into a Top 5/6 position again within a couple of years - he was very unlucky that Shearer got injured at Everton before 97-98...those who whinged about 'dour football' were probably like the fans who did the same when Lee took over as manager, yet within 6 months, the team was scoring goals for fun and reached the LC Final & FA Cup quarters, with the fans singing 'Gordon Lee's B & W Army'..... The team Dalglish inherited was beginning to show weaknesses by the summer of 97 with Ginola disenchanted, Gillespie never the same after that wonderful tackle by Neville(P)at Man U, and weaknesses in defence/midfield. He also had to re-start the Reserves/Juniors, disbanded by KK, so it was a bigger job than it looked. Shepherd did as he was told and fired him two games into the season after we had not lost and drawn at Chelsea - we have never really recovered from this apart from the 3 good seasons with SBR and we still haven't won anything ; I am willing to bet that we WOULD have picked up a trophy had Dalglish been allowed to stay another 3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 What was the general reaction when Dalglish got sacked? Was only a little'un like, but i distinctly remember pictures of several angry fans following the FA Cup final defeat. 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