Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When we lost to Liverpool at Anfield earlier in the season, Joe Cole, who was present in the Sky Sports studio, said something along the lines of this - If Liverpool win today, that will take them into 6th, 4 points ahead of Newcastle, which would probably confirm that they (Liverpool) belong to the top 6 group and Newcastle not quite there yet.

 

Ooops. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I know what Pardew says every day in training..

 

"Don't mess about lads. Hit zone 14."

 

'14....14....14....FOURTEEEEEEEEEN'

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9fNvtMyW7cE/SVtRDvvzGKI/AAAAAAAAAVA/d6Dwh1sFLB8/s400/Monica7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

 

There will be no 'bigger picture' if a manager can't pick up any points, irrelevant of whether they're playing like Brasil.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

 

There will be no 'bigger picture' if a manager can't pick up any points, irrelevant of whether they're playing like Brasil.

 

 

 

Thanks Captain Obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

I'm not sure if I've understood you right but for me it's all about winning something first and foremost (we haven't won a domestic trophy in nearly 60 years). We would then all be in a position to say whether we would prefer George Graham style football and winning trophies ahead of playing well like under Keegan and not winning a trophy. Obviously there's a massive area in between the two styles and Barcelona epitomise how you can win by playing attractive football.

 

Simple truth is hardly any fans are in a position to say what they would prefer as very few have experienced winning  a cup. All we've ever had is playing well and not winning anything or playing poorly and not winning anything.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

 

Given the choice, I'd rather win 1-0 than lose 4-3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

 

Given the choice, I'd rather win 1-0 than lose 4-3.

 

You can't be a TRUE Geordie then. :huff:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest bimpy474

Reading a bit of RAWK it is interesting to observe that the fans are slowly but surely becoming quite critical of KK even though the football they play is actually quite good most of the time; they just lack the cutting edge up front. Which is the exact opposite of where we are at: we have a cutting edge but the football we play is hardly exciting. Which led me to wonder: unless a manager can provide good results with attractive football, there is always going to be criticism, but what is worse: getting the results but not the attractive football right, or serving up a spectacle that ultimately fails to deliver the results? Personally, I think I can bare effective, non spectacular football that gets results for a good while, but ultimately I also want to see progress in the on the pitch performances in order to continue to fully support the manager. Thoughts?

 

Looking at the bigger picture playing well is more important. You can progress from there, while non- performances for a sustained period of time indicate major failings that are more difficult to address. IMO.

 

Given the choice, I'd rather win 1-0 than lose 4-3.

 

Sod that, the prices they are these days, i want to see as many goals as possible...:D

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...