Local Hero?

[alpal78]

If what is important is for the club to have a spine (which I agree), then I don't think we've lost anything by selling Carroll for 35M. Our spine is pretty much still in tact, Carroll was an important player but no more important than Colo and Enrique and certainly less important than Tiote.

 

Some (Wullie included) were fretting about the sale of Carroll (until now) because he is a local lad.

 

To quote Wullie (so that I am not accused of misrepresenting his views again)

 

No we came off badly because we lost a Geordie striker with the potential to be the fulcrum of our side for the next ten years. We can't replace that because unfortunately the likes of Carroll come round once or twice in a generation, if you're lucky.

 

That was the origins of the debate and the reason for this new thread/poll

[NewJerseyMag]

Having some local lads gives a team character, but is not essential to success.

 

The only thing essential to success these days is money.

 

Wait, are we not owned by one of the richest men in the UK?

 

Yay ............. it could only happen to us.

[ElDiablo]

Of course not.

[Punk77]

If what is important is for the club to have a spine (which I agree), then I don't think we've lost anything by selling Carroll for 35M. Our spine is pretty much still in tact, Carroll was an important player but no more important than Colo and Enrique and certainly less important than Tiote.

 

Some (Wullie included) were fretting about the sale of Carroll (until now) because he is a local lad.

 

Spot on! The sale hurts more since he's local. But that does not mean that he cannot be replaced.  As long as Pardew picks up some hot prospects this summer, I think the mood in the group will be stronger than ever. Then we have depth in the squad, and is able to push for Europe.

[Guest BooBoo]

I always find it a bit odd how so very few of Man Utd's legends are local lads. Even Scholes is from Oldham.

[Thespence]

I always find it a bit odd how so very few of Man Utd's legends are local lads. Even Scholes is from Oldham.

 

Christ.

 

I classed Howey as local for us even though he is Mackem.

[Guest BooBoo]

Nah, local is brought up in city or close nearabouts as a supporter of the club. Howey was always a mackem.

 

[Thespence]

Nah, local is brought up in city or close nearabouts as a supporter of the club. Howey was always a mackem.

 

 

Howey is not a geordie but he local ffs. Just like lads from Greater Manchester are local to Manchester.

[Guest BooBoo]

If you say so.

[Mr Logic]

I think the spine of the team is THE factor, and wether that spine contains locals or not is neither here nor there. According to Wullie's logic I should be questioning why I support NUFC because I prefer watching HBA perform to Shola. (Admittedly none of us have had much chance to watch HBA perform, I've personally had plenty opportunity to watch Shola underperform.)

 

I personally believe the reason there was some squad unrest following the sale of Carroll was precisely because of the idea of a spine though, he was viewed as a core element of the team, this 'group of lads'. Don't think it mattered to Enrique or Barton that he was a Geordie.

[80]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny  

 

Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area)

 

Ya I see your point on the confusion, but to me it makes no difference, both are not prerequisites to be successful.

 

I think the latter certainly is. Man City have shown that you can't just throw money at 11 of the best players and expect them to win.

 

There is a 'spine' to every team, like Wullie says. You need money to make a team great and successful, but Chelsea have Lampard and Terry at their centre, Man United had Giggs and Scholes, Arsenal have Fabregas, Liverpool with Gerrard and Carragher (a few years ago).

 

You can't have success without a team.

 

Yes but this 'spine' can be anyone regardless of whether the player is local born or came through the local academy or foreign players who had no association with the club before they signed. The key is that these players must be willing to give their all to the club. I would say our spine now are players like Colo, Enrique, Tiote, Barton and perhaps Nolan, all of them bought (some quite expensive) and none of them which would qualify as 'locals' (even using the broad definition)

 

Nobody would argue against having a spine for a club to be successful, that would be silly and was not the original argument. It was whether we need 'local' players (through birth or academy) which has now somewhat morphed into having a 'spine'.

 

It's only morphed because you started off misrepresenting your opposition. I voted yes, because you need players who are as local as Rob Lee and Nobby Solano.

 

Perhaps the best way of phrasing this is that you need players who've 'developed' at your club, and by this I don't even necessarily mean in terms of technical skill but, as I said in the other thread, players who've earned experience that can't be obtained elsewhere because they got it here. Players who have been socialised - not just participants in a team but members of a tribe. Maybe they've learnt from prior adversity and know what this particular club needs to avoid that in the future, maybe they've developed a relationship with the people of this locality and want to reward the affection they've been offered, or don't want to let other incoming players exist as wasters and make that affection dissolve. Or perhaps played a first-hand role in the development of a 'resurgency' narrative which is of huge psychological importance in generating the determination to overcome teams they otherwise could succumb to.

 

It's also true that some players are more tribal than others. See Craig Bellamy, who's virtually a one man army in himself, or Kevin Nolan, who seems to be a professional founder and mentor of packs.

 

It's also important to define what 'local' or 'good' players are supposed to be useful for. Personally, I accept a bunch of good players can win a game, maybe even a season very occasionally, but they won't win an era and define an institution beyond their physical peak, that's the point.

 

To quote Wullie (so that I am not accused of misrepresenting his views again)

 

No we came off badly because we lost a Geordie striker with the potential to be the fulcrum of our side for the next ten years. We can't replace that because unfortunately the likes of Carroll come round once or twice in a generation, if you're lucky.

 

That was the origins of the debate and the reason for this new thread/poll

 

Regarding this by the way, you've misconstrued him because you don't rate Carroll. Whether he's Geordie or not is irrelevant to whether he comes around once or twice in a generation, the latter is true just in terms of raw ability, present and potential. The fact he was possibly the spiritual fulcrum of the team, given he was so well liked and rated by his teammates and players like Enrique may now think this club is a dead duck like it used to be back in the 1980s just compounds the issue.

[alpal78]

 

Yes but this 'spine' can be anyone regardless of whether the player is local born or came through the local academy or foreign players who had no association with the club before they signed. The key is that these players must be willing to give their all to the club. I would say our spine now are players like Colo, Enrique, Tiote, Barton and perhaps Nolan, all of them bought (some quite expensive) and none of them which would qualify as 'locals' (even using the broad definition)

 

Nobody would argue against having a spine for a club to be successful, that would be silly and was not the original argument. It was whether we need 'local' players (through birth or academy) which has now somewhat morphed into having a 'spine'.

 

It's only morphed because you started off misrepresenting your opposition. I voted yes, because you need players who are as local as Rob Lee and Nobby Solano.

 

To quote Wullie (so that I am not accused of misrepresenting his views again)

 

No we came off badly because we lost a Geordie striker with the potential to be the fulcrum of our side for the next ten years. We can't replace that because unfortunately the likes of Carroll come round once or twice in a generation, if you're lucky.

 

That was the origins of the debate and the reason for this new thread/poll

 

Regarding this by the way, you've misconstrued him because you don't rate Carroll. Whether he's Geordie or not is irrelevant to whether he comes around once or twice in a generation, the latter is true just in terms of raw ability, present and potential. The fact he was possibly the spiritual fulcrum of the team, given he was so well liked and rated by his teammates and players like Enrique may now think this club is a dead duck like it used to be back in the 1980s just compounds the issue.

 

How have I misrepresented Wullie or the opposition (whoever that is)?   Have you read the Enrique thread where the debate first originated from? It's cool by the way that you are acting like Wullie's defence counsel.

 

Wullie specifically mention "Geordie" in the post I quoted. Granted the part on "comes around once or twice a generation" could be interpreted either way. Like you said because I don't rate Carroll as highly as others (different from not rating at all though as you say), I took it to mean that what made him rare is because on top of his raw potential, he is also a Geordie (which adds another qualifier). I find it difficult to believe that anyone would believe that Carroll is a "comes around once or twice in a generation" type of player on an absolute level.  Players like Zidane, Ronaldo, Messi, Xavi can be described as "come around once or twice in a generation". If you take a generation to mean like 20-30 years, then it's crazy (to me at least) that anyone would think that a player like Carroll is so special that in the whole footballing world that stretches from Europe to South America to Africa, there won't be another player like Carroll for the next 20-30 years. If you add the qualifier that a Geordie player like Carroll "comes around once or twice in a generation", then I find that easier to accept.

 

Plus if you look into the Enrique thread, Wullie mentioned examples like Carragher and Gerrard for Liverpool, Terry and Lampard for Chelsea, Scholes, Beckham, Brown etc for Man Utd, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi for Barcelona as his examples. What do they all have in common? Yes they are good players but more importantly they are locals to those teams mentioned (locals here defined as coming from that region or having graduated through the youth academy). So a Solano as in your example would not fit into this category and would be an outlier to Wullie's example because he was neither born in Newcastle nor is he from our academy.

 

Notice also how Inter Milan was used as an example of a team who is now supposedly underpeforming because they lack the x factor. Inter Milan does have a spine, it's just that they don't consist of 'locals'. Wullie's use of Inter Milan as a negative example makes it clear that what was meant is that we need 'local' players to be successful not just a spine which is why I said that the argument has now morphed from 'locals' to teams needing a spine.

 

Perhaps the best way of phrasing this is that you need players who've 'developed' at your club, and by this I don't even necessarily mean in terms of technical skill but, as I said in the other thread, players who've earned experience that can't be obtained elsewhere because they got it here. Players who have been socialised - not just participants in a team but members of a tribe. Maybe they've learnt from prior adversity and know what this particular club needs to avoid that in the future, maybe they've developed a relationship with the people of this locality and want to reward the affection they've been offered, or don't want to let other incoming players exist as wasters and make that affection dissolve. Or perhaps played a first-hand role in the development of a 'resurgency' narrative which is of huge psychological importance in generating the determination to overcome teams they otherwise could succumb to.

 

It's also true that some players are more tribal than others. See Craig Bellamy, who's virtually a one man army in himself, or Kevin Nolan, who seems to be a professional founder and mentor of packs.

 

It's also important to define what 'local' or 'good' players are supposed to be useful for. Personally, I accept a bunch of good players can win a game, maybe even a season very occasionally, but they won't win an era and define an institution beyond their physical peak, that's the point.

 

On the second part of your post, I agree to a large extent, like I said nobody would argue against that every successful team needs a spine. But these players with the attributes you described above does not need to be local (again refer broad definition). Players like Craig Bellamy, Solano, Barton, Nolan are all not "local" but were/are hugely important to our team and in the case of Barton and Nolan has only been with us what for 3-4 years.

 

I'm not quiet sure what you mean by "but they won't win an era and define an institution beyond their physical peak, that's the point". I was arguing on the prerequisites for a successful team and for that you need a team yes with a spine but this spine does not need to be local. If you are referring to leaving a legacy or to define an era after they's stopped playing, then I agree you need the "local" element for this but that was not the original debate.

 

The original debate was a simple question do you need 'local players/heroes' to be successful and my answer was a resounding no as it is still now.

 

[Wullie]

This is the only place where a Newcastle supporter could be castigated for wanting a potential all time great Geordie number 9 spending his career at Newcastle.

 

Whatever. I'm sure the club will revolve around whoever we bring in for the next ten years in the same way Liverpool has revolved around Steven Gerrard. 80 gets it and that's enough for me. I'm out.

[Cronky]

I think Alex Ferguson would disagree with all of you, and 'local' slightly misrepresents my point, which is as much about produced players as anything.

 

Inter are a perfect example to back up my point too, as i said. A year later they're struggling because there was no foundations there beyond the manager. My point was about building consistent progress around certain players.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. It's more about building a consistent foundation by having players that (a) come through regularly enough to provide enough players and (b) have enough attachment to the club to stick around and care about how the club performs.

 

Man Utd a brilliant example as you say, and Inter (and possibly Chelsea) an example of how success that is only built through mercenaries can be fleeting.

 

SAF has always said that it's important for a club to have a regular supply of young players coming through the ranks. Why exactly it's important I don't know, but it's probably one of those intangibles like team spirit. The stars may need reminding where they came from, and mixing with hungry young players helps to maintain their own hunger and desire for self-improvement.

 

It's interesting to compare Man U and Chelsea now. Man U are top of the league with a side that's very much in a transitional phase and ought to be there for the taking. Chelsea have a more talented squad, but they seem to have run out of energy.

[Guest]

I think Alex Ferguson would disagree with all of you, and 'local' slightly misrepresents my point, which is as much about produced players as anything.

 

Inter are a perfect example to back up my point too, as i said. A year later they're struggling because there was no foundations there beyond the manager. My point was about building consistent progress around certain players.

 

It's a lot easier to convince local players to stay when you win everything going, and pay even squad players like Gibson, O'Shea, Brown & Fletcher mega wages which they'd not get elsewhere.

 

The elite clubs can do this because there's no need for local players to leave because they're already winning things, how many great players have stayed at the one club from a youth all the way through who haven't been at a club who wins things regularly? I can think of Matt Le Tissier...Ledley King perhaps but I reckon if he wasn't made of glass one of the elite clubs would have signed him.

 

This isn't me being defeatist, just stating a fact. We're a club who's finished in the top 6 of the top flight 7 seasons in almost 40.

[Heron]

I personally think this is a stupid debate. There is no reason why a 'Local Hero' is a necessity. It's just nice to have one so the fans can relate to the player/team/club better.