Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. it is. theres no need for him to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. Surely it wouldn't take much effort to say, "My hip's a bit sore gaffa, I doubt I'll make it". Decision for the backroom staff / manager. Also, it was more of a general comment on how we are in this position because we started the season with Shola being the only striker who can play with his back to goal (albeit not very well) with a dodgy hip. It's the fuckwits in charge to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif did you see the man city game? did you see how well we did after ameobi went off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif did you see the man city game? did you see how well we did after ameobi went off? Whose fault is that? Not fucking Shola's. The lad's completely fucked but if the manager thinks he can do a job and Shola will think he'll be letting the side down otherwise, then he's going to play. The problem here is not Shola Ameobi but the brain-dead twat purporting to be the manager of NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif did you see the man city game? did you see how well we did after ameobi went off? Whose fault is that? Not fucking Shola's. The lad's completely fucked but if the manager thinks he can do a job and Shola will think he'll be letting the side down otherwise, then he's going to play. The problem here is not Shola Ameobi but the brain-dead twat purporting to be the manager of NUFC. as someone said earlier, all he has to say is "im injured, you know i am, stop playing me" the stupid tosser has said himself he is risking his future by playing on while this badly injured so why doesnt he just accept it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anders Rye Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It surprises me every time how much Roeder really hates Luque. To play an unfit Ameobi instead is a disgrace! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It surprises me every time how much Roeder really hates Luque. To play an unfit Ameobi instead is a disgrace! He is putting his personal feeling over the well being of the team, that to me creates a conflict of interest and is a strong ground as ever for sacking! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif did you see the man city game? did you see how well we did after ameobi went off? Whose fault is that? Not fucking Shola's. The lad's completely fucked but if the manager thinks he can do a job and Shola will think he'll be letting the side down otherwise, then he's going to play. The problem here is not Shola Ameobi but the brain-dead twat purporting to be the manager of NUFC. as someone said earlier, all he has to say is "im injured, you know i am, stop playing me" the stupid tosser has said himself he is risking his future by playing on while this badly injured so why doesnt he just accept it? Because he wants to play for Newcastle and help us when we're up to our eyes in shit like we are at the moment? I can't believe a player is trying to help us through a striker crisis by playing through the pain barrier and getting criticized for it. He doesn't write his own name on the teamsheet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Some of you lot will take any excuse to have a go at certain players, it's a bit sad that you're so bitter and twisted about it really. blueno.gif did you see the man city game? did you see how well we did after ameobi went off? Whose fault is that? Not fucking Shola's. The lad's completely fucked but if the manager thinks he can do a job and Shola will think he'll be letting the side down otherwise, then he's going to play. The problem here is not Shola Ameobi but the brain-dead twat purporting to be the manager of NUFC. as someone said earlier, all he has to say is "im injured, you know i am, stop playing me" the stupid tosser has said himself he is risking his future by playing on while this badly injured so why doesnt he just accept it? If it was almost anyone else, Parker, or Given, or Shearer, or Lee Clark maybe? you'd be saying what a hero he was to risk his own health for the sake of the club, and you know you would. In fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago that we were playing an obviously unfit Steve Harper and no-one gave him any abuse, did they!?! Yet Shola, love him or loath him, has put the club before his own health, for two years, yes that's two fucking years!! and what does he get? constant abuse and ridicule!! Some people are so one-eyed about him that they've seriously lost touch with reallity!! Oh and by the way, here's a question for you: How often do you stand-up to your boss? How often do you tell them "No, I'm not doing that."? Not very often, I'll bet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyboy Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Difference is that Shola is a tosser wether he's fit or not. The reason why he is pushing himself to play is because of Roeder, he keeps saying what a good player Shola is, how Martins was brought in to complement Shola, how important Shola is to the team etc etc etc. Problem is, Shola actually believes this shite and thinks he's 10 times better than what he really is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 here we go, we dont have a striker "crisis". we have at least 6 players who can play up front, i know they arent the best but they are all fit. i wouldnt say anyone was a hero for playing with an injury, especially if its as bad as they all claim and the player does fuck all when he plays (ie man city) a goalkeeper being unfit is totally different from an outfield player being unfit, as they rarely leave their box. yes, shola has put his health second, but why!? dont give me all that "he's a geordie, he wants to play because he loves the club" bollocks. if a player is injured, they should acknowledge that and not carry on playing. we are now a team who changes their whole game plan to play to the strengths of a badly injured player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Yet Shola, love him or loath him, has put the club before his own health, for two years, yes that's two fucking years!! That doesn't make him a hero, a good player or a loyal servant to the club, it makes him an utter fucking idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. it is. theres no need for him to play. So, Shola's picking the team now is he? Shola's the one who decided he didn't need an operation in the summer? Shola's the one who didn't sign a striker who can play with his back to goal while spunking money on a left-winger we didn't need in the last transfer window is he? Clueless, even for you tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. it is. theres no need for him to play. So, Shola's picking the team now is he? Shola's the one who decided he didn't need an operation in the summer? Shola's the one who didn't sign a striker who can play with his back to goal while spunking money on a left-winger we didn't need in the last transfer window is he? Clueless, even for you tbh why does everyone think he is being forced to play? if he cant improve the team with his presence, then he should say "im injured, i cant play" then he wouldnt get picked. it works for babayaro, who isnt injured half as bad as shola, so why cant shola say it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. it is. theres no need for him to play. So, Shola's picking the team now is he? Shola's the one who decided he didn't need an operation in the summer? Shola's the one who didn't sign a striker who can play with his back to goal while spunking money on a left-winger we didn't need in the last transfer window is he? Clueless, even for you tbh why does everyone think he is being forced to play? if he cant improve the team with his presence, then he should say "im injured, i cant play" then he wouldnt get picked. it works for babayaro, who isnt injured half as bad as shola, so why cant shola say it? I haven't said that have I? Regardless, the person picking the team, along with the medical staff, should be making the decisions on this. Shola's actually going above and beyond the call of duty imo and he must be being asked to play. Incidentally, given he could barely move against man City, do you think Roeder was right leaving him on for nearly an hour, or is that Shola's responsibility too? I'm pleased you mention Babayaro though as his commitment is nonexistent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Not Shola's fault tbh. it is. theres no need for him to play. So, Shola's picking the team now is he? Shola's the one who decided he didn't need an operation in the summer? Shola's the one who didn't sign a striker who can play with his back to goal while spunking money on a left-winger we didn't need in the last transfer window is he? Clueless, even for you tbh why does everyone think he is being forced to play? if he cant improve the team with his presence, then he should say "im injured, i cant play" then he wouldnt get picked. it works for babayaro, who isnt injured half as bad as shola, so why cant shola say it? I haven't said that have I? Regardless, the person picking the team, along with the medical staff, should be making the decisions on this. Shola's actually going above and beyond the call of duty imo and he must be being asked to play. Incidentally, given he could barely move against man City, do you think Roeder was right leaving him on for nearly an hour, or is that Shola's responsibility too? I'm pleased you mention Babayaro though as his commitment is nonexistent. Players usually want to play (unless they're spineless treatment table lurkers). As he faces a lengthy lay off, Shola will want to play given the chance. You can't expect him to say no, he wants to play football. But if he's injured he shouldn't be given the chance imo, simple as that. Sod what Shola wants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChickenKiev Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 shola getting injured is the best thing that could have happened to us, imo. now let's move on, get Luque on and let's start scoring some fu**ing GOALS!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 if shola is declaring himself fit, then its his fault if he plays and he is shit. fair enough, roeder shouldnt be picking him but if he says he is fit, then roeder has every right to play him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 you missed the best quote about him saying that Chelsea wouldnt survive without Drogba, & Arsenal without THIERRY HENRY. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulivye Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 shola getting injured is the best thing that could have happened to us, imo. now let's move on, get Luque on and let's start scoring some fu**ing GOALS!!! i tend to agree with this. what's the difference if we play someone, like shola, who CAN'T play, up front, versus someone, like luque, who WON'T play, at least not very hard, up front? the difference will be finishing--advantage luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If Shola plays this week, after his performance against Man City and in what is going to be a 4-5-1 formation (or effectively 4-5-0), i honestly don't think i would be able to describe the feeling. Anger, disappointment, confusion, un-surprisement. He was absolutely woeful last week. Terrible - infact, he was playing like an average sort of player who was at 50%. Oh wait... We've got Rossi, Luque, Sibierski, Martins, Milner, Dyer all fit and ready play upfront rather than Shola this weekend. It's going to be a 4-5-1 - so just play Sibierski! That's what i would do. He's the targetman when Shola's not around, so just play him. We'll have very little in the attacking third as it stands, don't make it worse by playing a cripple. It's primarily Roeder's fault if Shola plays, but realistically - Shola isn't thick and he knows that he played badly against Man City, and the team improved when he went off. I can understand that he's a Geordie and he wants to help, but he'd be a lot more help on the sidelines and he should know that really, and he should hold his hands up and admit it. If he doesn't know it, he's pretty thick tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eyeball_tickler Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If Shola plays this week, after his performance against Man City and in what is going to be a 4-5-1 formation (or effectively 4-5-0), i honestly don't think i would be able to describe the feeling. Anger, disappointment, confusion, un-surprisement. He was absolutely woeful last week. Terrible - infact, he was playing like an average sort of player who was at 50%. Oh wait... We've got Rossi, Luque, Sibierski, Martins, Milner, Dyer all fit and ready play upfront rather than Shola this weekend. It's going to be a 4-5-1 - so just play Sibierski! That's what i would do. He's the targetman when Shola's not around, so just play him. We'll have very little in the attacking third as it stands, don't make it worse by playing a cripple. It's primarily Roeder's fault if Shola plays, but realistically - Shola isn't thick and he knows that he played badly against Man City, and the team improved when he went off. I can understand that he's a Geordie and he wants to help, but he'd be a lot more help on the sidelines and he should know that really, and he should hold his hands up and admit it. If he doesn't know it, he's pretty thick tbh. add duff to that list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Forget about fkn luque though, he has no interst in playing for us and would be about as effective as Shola. Forgeting for a moment the obvious fact that you have no clue what any of our players are interested in, why on earth would a Footballer not want to play Football? I mean really, how silly... Luque has never hidden or pretended he can't play and has always looked eager to get onto the field. Obviously what you really call not being interested is in fact not racing about the back four in an attempt to look useful.. The stupidest part of all this is that if Roeder had given Luque a good run in the first team recently we could not possibly be any lower then we are down the table now (almost definitely higher as even a lethargic Luque can pop a couple of 30 yarders in out of nothing, as he showed against Liverpool) and nobody on this forum or anywhere else would be in any doubt wether he was worth playing or not, because we'd all have seen for ourselves either way. Same goes for the next few games really, we have no chance against Arsenal with our current strike force, something even you admit. Yet you would rather keep the status quo, which may I remind you is losing just about every game possible, rather then changing things and seeing what happens. Another thing that I find quite amusing is the fact that people like you on one hand call Roeder insane for his decisions such as playing Ameobi when obviously badley injured and then on the other hand use the fact that he won't play Luque as some kind of evidence of how crap he is. As if Roeder is utterly clueless at judging players and picking teams and should be sacked.. er.. but he must be spot on about Luque , amazing. Anyway rant over, now for a more on topic rant. Is Roeder blind or insane? Ameobi looked absolutely useless against Man City, litterally useless, why on earth does he think that he'll be any more effective against Arsenal? We have quite a few players far better equipped then Ameobi currently is to play up front. If he hates Luque so much then there's still Rossi, Sibierski and Dyer who could play there and be a million times better then Shola with his current problems. I honestly can't grasp the reasoning behind this decision, its completely baffling and there's no doubt in my mind that Roeder has surpassed even Souness when it comes to poor decision making. At least Souness's bad decisions were based on something, usually his own ego, but this is something else.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TampaToon Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 luque's problem is what happens when he gets on the pitch. unless he's breast-fed an opportunity he seems to play with half a heart....his effort and work-rate on the field at times has been insulting to the fans. i don't care what his beef is with the club, the fans (for the most part) are behind any player on the pitch in a black-and-white top, and if he's not interested in playing for the manager, he should work his butt off for the fans. nobody's against seeing him do well at newcastle, people are just put off by the effort he's shown, particularly in domestic matches. 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