David Ginola

[JH]

Also seemed very bitter against KK in that programme on Sky Sports when he said he wanted to go to Barcelona, Keegan said stay because he was building something special here, Ginola agreed, and 4 months later, Keegan left.

 

He didn't move onto a much bigger club because the man he trusted asked him to stay and wait - then he goes and leaves on him? I'd be just as bitter.

[Dokko]

Also seemed very bitter against KK in that programme on Sky Sports when he said he wanted to go to Barcelona, Keegan said stay because he was building something special here, Ginola agreed, and 4 months later, Keegan left.

 

sounds like our messiah.

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Love your biggest problem with KD was a 'reported' story as opposed to fact

 

A few people knew this pointless thread would end up in a pointless arguement on nothing, suppose we didnt disappoint  

 

All i know is we went from about 6th in Jan to 2nd under KD mainly WITHOUT Ginola losing only away to Soton & Liverpool in the final 15 league games. Ginola scored just 1 domestic goal that season, Robbie Elliott scored 7 from March onwards. Personally i think he was right to ignore Ginola.

 

The point is that he ignored him from the start. The 'reported' part are the words of John Beresford, the physio and Ginola himself. It's in the Bez files somewhere on .com

 

 

but aye, either way, luck or not, it went tits up.

[Disco]

Dalglish was always going to fail in one way or another as he could've never bettered KK in the fans eyes not that that is any excuse to the way we changed so rapidly. When he came in IIRC he kept pretty much the same time and we went on to finish second again, that should've been a pointer that not much needed changing, instead he changed far too much instead of buying a couple of decent defenders which at the time was probably all we needed to stay where we were. There were times in 97/98 we had Barnes up top by himself, criminal.

[Disco]

I dont see how Dalglish was unlucky. He dismantled a side, rather than adding to it. He might have had his own methods, but the best managers can work with what they have, and build from it, and he didn't.

 

He lost a 20+ goal a season striker the same(?) day he sold Ferdinand causing Tomasson who had a bright start in pre season to completely change his game on the eve of a season to fill in for him. Some may say luck was a factor

 

Yeh, losing a 20+ goal a season striker is unlucky. Selling one wasn't. Selling a player that then went on to win the PFA player of the year isn't unlucky. Bringing in Rush, Barnes, and Pearce isnt unlucky. The only position he improved was goalkeeper. That's half the story too. We didn't turn from into an attacking team, into a defensive team. We turned from an attacking team into one that couldn't attack or defend.

 

Ferdinand suffered horribly from injuries in his time with Spuds, just after the move, he barely played, he'll certainly not go down in history as one of Spud's all time greats, getting 6 million quid for hiom at his age was great business. Ginola had no interest at all in playing for Dalglish, that was clear, the two just didn't get along, he had to sell him, Ginola did win the player of the year at Spuds, but still didn't turn that team into contenders.

 

As for the Rush, Barnes, Pearce thing that always gets thrown about here. We needed to replace the players that had gone or were injured, these were stop gap signings nothing more. Rush didn't cost us a lot, and I could understand the logic in bringing him in, someone KD knew and someone who could maybe fill a hole while we wait for Shearer to return. It didn't work out, but we hadn't spent much. Pearce was still a decent left back even at his age, but above all he was a leader that the defence needed, he did not do too bad in his time with us. Barnes was actually one of our better players that year, anyone who suggests that was a bad signing is way off base, he played well and scored some very important goals.

 

I'm not suggesting that KD's failure was purely down to bad luck, there were still some problems of course, as someone else said, he really didn't address the backline, some of his signings were very poor G'uivarch, Andersson, Des Hamilton, etc but he also had some notable successes in the market with Solano , Speed, Hamman and Given. I just think he should have been given more time to get it right, perhaps he would have still failed but shephard was way too quick on the trigger and the crowd were too impatient to, certainly his succesor was no upgrade that's for sure.

 

Speed was toss until SBR took over.

[afar]

the football played under Dogliesh was atrocious....horribly boring and negative from what I remember.

 

It was, but at the same time we were clearly in the process of transistion, the crowd and directors were too impatient with that, a lot felt we didn't need to transistion, or to have such a big overhaul, there's deffinately some merit in that but the team was aging and we needed changes.

A more gradual process of transistion may have served Dalglish better but he was always in for a tough task, he had to follow an iconic manager who holds a special place in the hearts of the fans and who's team play which such niave attacking verve and he was expected to improve upon that. Manure had a bright young team, Wenger was just starting to transform Arsenal, this was the way the game was changing at the time, perhaps KD was guilty of trying to move too fast to try to keep in touch, it obviously didn't work.

[Guest firetotheworks]

The point doesnt stand. Yes, we were in transition, but one we didnt need to. And the 'aging' players were replaced with Pearce, Rush, and Barnes. As far as I'm concerned Dalglish has no excuses, taking luck out of the equation he still did everything in the wrong way imo. Overhaul isn't needed for a team that almost won the title. The blind can see there's obviously players in that squad to keep, the match winners basically. They were the one's he sold. Luck, my arse come to think of it.

[Guest Roger Kint]

The point doesnt stand. Yes, we were in transition, but one we didnt need to. And the 'aging' players were replaced with Pearce, Rush, and Barnes. As far as I'm concerned Dalglish has no excuses, taking luck out of the equation he still did everything in the wrong way imo. Overhaul isn't needed for a team that almost won the title. The blind can see there's obviously players in that squad to keep, the match winners basically. They were the one's he sold. Luck, my arse come to think of it.

 

No they were replaced with Tomasson, Pistone, Ketsbaia & Given, while Rush, Barnes, Pearce were squad fillers due to us having no reserves. We dont know whos decision the sales were other than Ginola who needed to go, for all we know its what KK was told he would need to do when he splashed £15m on Shearer.

 

Saly KD or anyone else didnt have hindsight to use as an arguement, but they at least know all the facts we dont

[Guest firetotheworks]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead. Basically, everything he did has counter arguments, but as far as I'm concerned I hated what he was doing at the time, thought it would go to shit, it did, and I still hate it as a consequence.

[Skeletor]

Ginola was part of a great side, but the fact was that the side was NOT built for long-term success.

 

Ginola was 28 when he arrived at SJP, and by the time he was sold, he was over 30 as was Sir Les.

Beardsley was 36. Dalglish was right to want to rebuild the side and he was very unlucky with the injury to Shearer at Everton in pre-season 97-98. We can all speculate, but I would bet that Tomasson would have been great alongside Big Al - he was NOT a target man, and because the club were a PLC by this time, Sir Les had to go to balance the books, which proved a disaster after Shearer's injury.

 

Dalglish re-started the Reserves and Juniors and recruited players like Hamman. Given and Solano - yes, there were failures as well, but I still reckon it would have worked out if Shearer had not been injured.

 

The media hated KD because he was non-committal with them and they had had it easy with KK, but the players DID like Dalglish - even a top NE journalist told me that, although he personally didn't get on with Kenny. He was fired 2 games into the 98/99 season after we hadn't even lost a match, and the so-called 'Sexy Football' of his successor got off to the worst possible start when we got hammered at home by Liverpool......

 

Ginola was a cracking winger at his best - I remember him tormenting Boro to distraction at SJP early in 95/96 ; that great strike at Liverpool to put us 2-1 in front in April 96 ; that thunderbolt strike at SJP which was our second in the 5-0 over Man U, and an amazing shot into Arsenal's top corner early in a game at SJP which left Seaman grasping at thin air.....great memories, but whilst he was right in some of his comments, he was wrong to blame KD totally for what happened - the club had changed, SJH had gone, and it wasn't going to be easy for any manager.

 

There is a long way to go before anything LIKE these times return to SJP - if they EVER do, although the current financial problems in football may just help in the long run because of the great support NUFC attract.

You have hit the nail on the head here. Circumstances were to blame for KDs situation here but hindsight is a great thing. If Shearer hadnt got injured. If we hadnt agreed to sell Ferdinand, etc etc etc.

 

The facts remain that Dalglish was very unluicky. I doubt any club would have passsed up the oppoertunity to sell a 31 year old striker for 6 million pound. I also thought Tino had gone right off the boil as well and to almost get back what we paid for him was good business.

 

Dalglish bought some great players who were to serve us so well over the years such as Speed, Given and Nobby but I felt that he, as well as Keegan, failed to address the most critical part of the team in buying a couple of quality defenders which would have taken us to the next level.

 

I remember Keegan admitting the year he left the club that the only out and out defender we had at the club was Darren Peacock., You dont win titles or cups with that.

 

Keegan's biggest mistake was buying Tino. We didnt need him. Batty was a good buy but we needed a strong defender for the money spent on Tino. If either KK or KD had bought a qyuality defender or two, we would have won the league in 95 and 96 by a landslide,

 

We needed another striker. If Ferdinand had got injured we were left with Paul Kitson...and we saw what a disaster that scenario was the previous season.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead.

 

I am missing the point?

 

He obviously had to sell them while they were worth money(we sold £18m worth by 31 July) , wonder who pushed that idea through? These 'aging players' were Beardsly & Ginola(necessary sales) and Ferdinand who was good business in all honesty. At what point were Ginola(poor season) and Beardsley(36) doing a decent job?

[Disco]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead. Basically, everything he did has counter arguments, but as far as I'm concerned I hated what he was doing at the time, thought it would go to shit, it did, and I still hate it as a consequence.

 

Exactly my sentiments as well.

[Disco]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead.

 

I am missing the point?

 

He obviously had to sell them while they were worth money(we sold £18m worth by 31 July) , wonder who pushed that idea through? These 'aging players' were Beardsly & Ginola(necessary sales) and Ferdinand who was good business in all honesty. At what point were Ginola(poor season) and Beardsley(36) doing a decent job?

 

Was Barnes better than Beardsley? Was Rush needed at all? Did Lee Clark need selling at all?

 

I'm sure we couldv'e managed without the 450k raised by selling Pedro.

 

Selling Asprilla in Jan only made a bad situation worse n all.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead.

 

I am missing the point?

 

He obviously had to sell them while they were worth money(we sold £18m worth by 31 July) , wonder who pushed that idea through? These 'aging players' were Beardsly & Ginola(necessary sales) and Ferdinand who was good business in all honesty. At what point were Ginola(poor season) and Beardsley(36) doing a decent job?

 

Beardsley was getting on, we all knew that, but peripherally he was fine. Ginola wasn't in form, but was getting better, and then just plummeted when KD arrived. Even ignoring that, and going with your 'good business' point. It means nothing if it isnt invested in players who will improve the team. Funnily enough, any player wouldn't have been an improvement on Ginola the following season. But KD wasn't even close to having a better replacement, in every area except GK.

[Disco]

Mar 1997 Bjarni Gudjonsson FWD IA Akranes £250,000

Jun 1997 Temuri Ketsbaia MID AEK Athens Free

Jul 1997  Jon Dahl Tomasson FWD Heerenveen  £2,500,000

Jul 1997 Alessandro Pistone DEF Inter Milan £4,500,000

Aug 1997 John Barnes MID Liverpool Free

Aug 1997  Ian Rush FWD Leeds United Free

Nov 1997  Paul Dalglish FWD Liverpool Free

Jan 1998  David Terrier DEF Unattached (West Ham)  Free

Jan 1998  Andreas Andersson FWD AC Milan £3,000,000

Jun 1998 George Georgiadis MID Panathanaikos £500,000

Jun 1998 Stephane Guivarc'h FWD Auxerre £3,500,000

Jul 1998  Carl Serrant DEF Oldham £500,000

Jul 1998  Garry Brady MID Tottenham £650,000

Jul 1998 Laurent Charvet DEF Cannes £750,000

 

Thats a hell of a lot of shit he bought there.

 

To which Gary Speed who he payed £5.5m for and was poor under KD and Dabizas (£2.5m) who i like for sentimental reasons could easily be added.

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

The one player I will stick up for in that is Tomasson like. Pre-season he was killer, and played an alien role to him after Shearer got injured.

[Disco]

The one player I will stick up for in that is Tomasson like. Pre-season he was killer, and played an alien role to him after Shearer got injured.

 

But who's fault is that. I really liked JDT too, he was a good player, as he proved on leaving us, but it is the manager who tells people where to play not the player. If Dalglish rated him why did he sell him the following summer when Shearer was back for him to play alongside?

[polpolpol]

To understand what happened it is necessary to look at what was going on outside of Newcastle United at the time. The time this thread refers to is contiguous with the final modernisation of the Premier League. Keegan's team had the last chance at winning the Premier League's in its initial period when it was still a frontier economy. By the time Dalglish took over the new paradigms  money/professionalism/internationalisation had rendered our – shall we say – 'morale' based approach to team building obsolete. As much as anything, Newcastle's old stagers were overtaken the future.

 

Keegan has always had a conservatism in his approach to the game, and as Dalglish's short tenure was characterised by swapping like for like rather than moving forward, and I agree with most of the above criticism on this count. But the problem at that point was that Newcastle had already missed their chance.

 

Bobby Robson was Newcastle's attempt to modernise – our 5 Year plan if you will - but his over-investment in an economy of velocity would eventually be the cause of its own collapse.  The structural problem with the club is that we have never been modern. Each manger since Keegan (partially exempting Bobby) has been handicapped by some streak of paleo-footballing prejudice which has barred the way to  reconciliation with the contemporary. Sadly, in the period when even second-rate teams like Spurs or Liverpool have made this transition, we have fallen behind.

[OzzieMandias]

I don't think it was any great surprise that we gradually lost all of Keegan's flair players after Dalglish took over, but to suggest that his battle plan was always to bring in the likes of Barnes and Rush is nonsense. Apart from the Premiership, we had our first Champions League campaign coming up. It wasn't Dalglish's fault that we had to sell players to pay for Shearer and it wasn't his fault that Shearer copped a pre-season injury. Rush was signed on the last day it was possible to bring someone in and get them registered for the CL. I remember it being a gut-wrenching disappointment, but I'm sure if Dalglish had had any money to spend we would have got someone better.

 

I blame the board more than I blame KD. He wasn't backed that summer. The next summer, he got around £15 million to spend and then was sacked just a few games into the season. Madness.

[madras]

Ugh man, you're missing the point about the aging players thing. The point being that if instead of getting rush, barnes, and Pearce as 'squad fillers', just keep the ones that are aging, and are already doing a decent job, winding down or not, and get other younger players instead. Basically, everything he did has counter arguments, but as far as I'm concerned I hated what he was doing at the time, thought it would go to s***, it did, and I still hate it as a consequence.

 

Exactly my sentiments as well.

barnes and rush came in due to long term injuries to shearer and asprilla.

 

ferdinand before he left was regularly out with a back injury (check how many games he played for spurs the season he signed),albert was getting very inury prone as was howey, ginola wanted out and played like it, beardsley had been there on sentiment alone for more than 6months. the team/squad needed an overhaul and in speed,hamman,solano,tomasson it started. (yes he bought some cack, so did his predecessor).

 

money needed bringing in and we had less to spend,added with the injuries to shearer and asprilla it was never going to be pretty. i wonder if keegan saw what needed changing( injuries notwithstanding),knew he wouldn't get the money he wanted and just couldn't be arsed to carry it through ?

[Mick]

Why didn't it actually work for Dalglish? Too much too soon typething?

 

At the time I felt that Dalglih didn't want Keegan to share in any praise if we were to win anything, I haven't changed my mind.

[Mick]

no it doesn't.

 

He also brought in his son, Bjarni Gudjonsson, Brian Penis, Ralf Keidel,David Terrier, Andreas Andersson, Paul Robinson, Lionel Perez, Stephane Guivarc'h, Carl Serrant & Garry Brady.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Beardsley was getting on, we all knew that, but peripherally he was fine. Ginola wasn't in form, but was getting better, and then just plummeted when KD arrived. Even ignoring that, and going with your 'good business' point. It means nothing if it isnt invested in players who will improve the team. Funnily enough, any player wouldn't have been an improvement on Ginola the following season. But KD wasn't even close to having a better replacement, in every area except GK.

 

You arent seriously assuming Ginola would have been anything like the same player he was for Spurs 12 months AFTER we sold him when he won PFA Player had he stayed are you? Ginola the following season was NOT the same Ginola we had, or would have had, no amount of blindly glossing over the fact will change it.

 

Regardless of whatever many mistakes KD made, he was right to sell Ginola imo

[Guest firetotheworks]

Beardsley was getting on, we all knew that, but peripherally he was fine. Ginola wasn't in form, but was getting better, and then just plummeted when KD arrived. Even ignoring that, and going with your 'good business' point. It means nothing if it isnt invested in players who will improve the team. Funnily enough, any player wouldn't have been an improvement on Ginola the following season. But KD wasn't even close to having a better replacement, in every area except GK.

 

You arent seriously assuming Ginola would have been anything like the same player he was for Spurs 12 months AFTER we sold him when he won PFA Player had he stayed are you? Ginola the following season was NOT the same Ginola we had, or would have had, no amount of blindly glossing over the fact will change it.

 

Regardless of whatever many mistakes KD made, he was right to sell Ginola imo

 

A PFA Player of the Year Award begs to differ.

[hakka]

Beardsley was getting on, we all knew that, but peripherally he was fine. Ginola wasn't in form, but was getting better, and then just plummeted when KD arrived. Even ignoring that, and going with your 'good business' point. It means nothing if it isnt invested in players who will improve the team. Funnily enough, any player wouldn't have been an improvement on Ginola the following season. But KD wasn't even close to having a better replacement, in every area except GK.

 

You arent seriously assuming Ginola would have been anything like the same player he was for Spurs 12 months AFTER we sold him when he won PFA Player had he stayed are you? Ginola the following season was NOT the same Ginola we had, or would have had, no amount of blindly glossing over the fact will change it.

Regardless of whatever many mistakes KD made, he was right to sell Ginola imo

 

Just not true.  Ginola was a great player and would have continued to do very well for us.  He should not have been sold.