Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A bloke at work has been talking about an article someone wrote not too long back which said Shearer was past his best when he came here and if we'd invested the money in defence, we'd have won the league. Not found anything on Google about it, anyone have a link for it? He can't remember who wrote it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bloke at work has been talking about an article someone wrote not too long back which said Shearer was past his best when he came here and if we'd invested the money in defence, we'd have won the league. Not found anything on Google about it, anyone have a link for it? He can't remember who wrote it.

Partly true - Shearer certainly WASN'T past his best when he arrived in July 1996 as he was only 25 at the time...he had had a bad injury(cruciate)whilst a Blackburn, but it was the injury he suffered at Everton pre-season in 1997 which did for his pace although he was still a formidable striker and target man.

We WERE lacking a bit in defence which probably cost us the 95-96 PL title but it was loss of nerve as much as anything else and loss of concentration in 2 vital games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught a bit of the programme.

 

Apparently Jack Walker offered him the manager's job to try and get him to stay. At 25 years old ... what the hell?

 

The guy was a hell of a striker. The way he hit the ball man. Yikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bloke at work has been talking about an article someone wrote not too long back which said Shearer was past his best when he came here and if we'd invested the money in defence, we'd have won the league. Not found anything on Google about it, anyone have a link for it? He can't remember who wrote it.

 

immediately after euro 96. :lol:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

 

Aye, the press always bang on about our defence but the stats show we were decent in defence.  We just seemed to give goals away at key moments but that was our approach to games.  Try and win every single game.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

 

I've never heard anyone blame Ferdinand and Lee before. Is this a commonly held view?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

 

I've never heard anyone blame Ferdinand and Lee before. Is this a commonly held view?

 

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when he first signed it was unreal that we went and got him, loves the bloke ever since and really thought he was destined to manage us long term.

 

Some of his goals were ridiculous. Everton volley from Shola knock down, Villa  from the right were fantastic, he really did score every type of goal but lost a lot after that big injury that kept him out for an age, lost a lot of pace and movement but still scored goals

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Nothing to do with all those 1-0 (Cantona) results? Well, that's me told like I wasn't there.

We were naive but Man U simply knew how to get results which we never did, pity we never won it and certainly don't hold any player accountable, if anything fergies mind games won it

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

 

I've never heard anyone blame Ferdinand and Lee before. Is this a commonly held view?

 

No.

 

I agree with the point re Ferdinand, and know many others who went home and away every week back then who agree too.

He lost it at the worst possible time - a moment of composure from him v Man Utd at home for example, and we'd have made it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit about investing in defence is right, mind. But you'd have to be heartless to not want to bring the world's best striker home where he belonged.

 

It's a load of drivel though, as we had the second best defence in the league that season despite what the press tell you.

 

We lost the league because Ferdinand's arse fell out, and also Lee stopped scoring for about 3 months too. If we'd have had Shearer for that run-in we would have won it, due to him being a lot tougher mentally than Sir Les. So I can totally understand why Keegan decided to bring him in.

 

I've never heard anyone blame Ferdinand and Lee before. Is this a commonly held view?

 

No.

 

I agree with the point re Ferdinand, and know many others who went home and away every week back then who agree too.

He lost it at the worst possible time - a moment of composure from him v Man Utd at home for example, and we'd have made it.

 

Batty in, Clarke out - that was as much a reason as any for results dipping that season.  Clarkey played it forward whenever possible, whereas Batty was all about keeping possession and so didnt look for the forward pass as often, or as quickly.  The team was better at attacking quickly, Sir Les especially, and so just didnt do as well after that switch.

Not sure whether Shearer would have done any better than Les in that run in as it was, but I reckon he'd have argued for getting the ball forward more quickly as a basic tactic

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: OK, this is my opinion. Everybody's arses went, unfamiliar territory, pressure from the media, they all say this, and it rings true. I'll hold my hands up and say I thought we'd win it, even after MU spawned their 1-0 (Cantona) up here - and we battered them -  and even after I'd-love-it-Gate. It didn't happen in the end, but I was proud that we had such a go at it. I still am and I love all of those guys. Man, top of the league almost to the end, best team in the league, brilliant.

 

This is the Shearer thread though, he was refuckingmarkably good. People can criticise his punditry and I won't care, he's got a lifetime pass for me. What did you want to do as a kid? Centre forward for NUFC scoring shitloads of goals, you say? There's the man you wanted to be. My hero.

 

:lol: I'm never going to grow up, am I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Batty in, Clarke out - that was as much a reason as any for results dipping that season.  Clarkey played it forward whenever possible, whereas Batty was all about keeping possession and so didnt look for the forward pass as often, or as quickly.  The team was better at attacking quickly, Sir Les especially, and so just didnt do as well after that switch.

Not sure whether Shearer would have done any better than Les in that run in as it was, but I reckon he'd have argued for getting the ball forward more quickly as a basic tactic

I've always thought this. Clarke's contribution to our fluidity was over looked imo. He'd get the ball deep and look for Lee or Beardsley, we missed this when Batty came in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...