summerof69 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Don't expect anything from him tomorrow... He scored on Monday, so think he'll be pretty anonymous against Norwich. Hope not but... But what ? I think if he plays, he''ll take the game by storm. It's just that he always does that! You know making a good game and after he's silent, against a lower team... Of course, really hope he'll start and rape them! You also said that started to change towards the the end of his time at Marseille, with his increasing fitness and new found maturity he will do well tomorrow, i think he has shown even in his limited appearences he can be very productive. Yes it's true. Now, if he keeps increasing fitness and working hard, no way he won't succeed. Plus, he's starting to be more productive, scored even 4 goals without playing a big amount of time! Now, he just need to show what he's really capable of! Trust me he can be much more better than he's actually. He's just so frustrating as a player! Perfectly know he could win tomorrow's game by himself but there is a gap between what he could do and the reality.... By the way, didn't NUFC lose against Norwich in the beginning of the season? Yes, but we had no centrebacks, meaning we had two players out of position there and i think most would agree that we really missed some height in the team that day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 you'll generally concede less goals if you have more possession and are attacking more than defending though, it's never as simple as 'good defence' or 'shit defence'. the fact is our defence always looks best when there's less pressure on it, be that through better midfielders or spending more time in possession and going in the right direction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 The weak defence in the 1990s thing is a total myth, isn't it? yes it is. Keegans team actually had a very good defensive record and when Man Utd pipped us to the title there wasn't a lot in it in terms of GD. EDIT We only conceded 4 more Goals than man utd did. Final Table Full Home Away P W D L F A W D L F A W D L F A GD Pt 1 Manchester United 38 25 7 6 73 35 15 4 0 36 9 10 3 6 37 26 +38 82 2 Newcastle United 38 24 6 8 66 37 17 1 1 38 9 7 5 7 28 28 +29 78 3 Liverpool 38 20 11 7 70 34 14 4 1 46 13 6 7 6 24 21 +36 71 4 Aston Villa 38 18 9 11 52 35 11 5 3 32 15 7 4 8 20 20 +17 63 5 Arsenal 38 17 12 9 49 32 10 7 2 30 16 7 5 7 19 16 +17 63 Not sure how that proves your point, you've posted a section of the table that shows us to have conceded more than all the other teams in it. You've missed my point spectacularly anyway. Of course we conceded less than most other teams because we kept the ball so well, football isn't about attack and defence, it's about the team as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I vividly remember the peak Keegan era defence being dogshit compared to what Arsenal and ManU had, and nothing will change that opinion, be it the labelling of said opinion as being based on myths or statistics that "prove" the opinion to be wrong. Why? Because based on what I recall seeing with my own eyes, collectively we were nowhere near as solid/dominating a defensive unit as ManU/Arsenal were, and individually we were, to a man, significantly inferior (imo of course). IIRC Arsenal had Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown, Winterburn, ManU had Schmeical, Parker/Neville, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, and we had Hislop, Barton, Howey/Peacock, Albert, Beresford. Whilst it might be easy to remember our group of defenders having good games, Albert marauding forward like a gazelle with silky smooth ball control, etc etc, there's absolutely no way in hell any of our defenders were on a par defensively with their Arsenal and ManU counterparts, not in terms of defensively ability. That's not to say they were bad or they weren't decent/good players in their own right, just that they weren't as good, much like Shaka Hislop wasn't a bad keeper but wasn't anything like as good as Seaman or Schmeical (and on that note, is anyone going to argue otherwise, since the same set of stats could be used here to argue that Hislop was, infact, only marginally inferior to one of the best keepers in the modern era? Or is that not a myth because...noone can be arsed calling it a myth?). I'd argue that under Keegan, we had a defence that was upper-mid-table standard, as opposed to title challenging standard - similar to the defence we had when we qualified for the CL under Sir Bobby (Dabizas, O'Brien, Bramble, Hughes, etc etc). The biggest problem was the lack of a leader at the back, be it a verbal one or someone who lead by example. Someone like Woodgate or Coloccini would have been a massive boost to the Keegan era backline, and it's something the other teams had in their respective defences (even Blackburn with Hendry). And although I don't get how anyone can see it any differently, I'm not going to belittle their opinion by claiming it's based on media myths, stereotypes or fairytales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 what tmonkey said, on the money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 People keep mentioning the idea that spending more time attacking results in less chance of conceding, but its obviously flawed. An opposition scoring 20% of 10 chances results in more goals than them scoring from 5% of 20 chances. If the likes of Williamson/Simpson/Santon arent covered by someone else we're more likely to concede from less anyway. The issue is whether attacking in a less direct manner so our mids get forward more would improve our attack more than it would weaken our defence. Ive no idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I vividly remember the peak Keegan era defence being dogshit compared to what Arsenal and ManU had, and nothing will change that opinion, be it the labelling of said opinion as being based on myths or statistics that "prove" the opinion to be wrong. Why? Because based on what I recall seeing with my own eyes, collectively we were nowhere near as solid/dominating a defensive unit as ManU/Arsenal were, and individually we were, to a man, significantly inferior (imo of course). IIRC Arsenal had Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown, Winterburn, ManU had Schmeical, Parker/Neville, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, and we had Hislop, Barton, Howey/Peacock, Albert, Beresford. Whilst it might be easy to remember our group of defenders having good games, Albert marauding forward like a gazelle with silky smooth ball control, etc etc, there's absolutely no way in hell any of our defenders were on a par defensively with their Arsenal and ManU counterparts, not in terms of defensively ability. That's not to say they were bad or they weren't decent/good players in their own right, just that they weren't as good, much like Shaka Hislop wasn't a bad keeper but wasn't anything like as good as Seaman or Schmeical (and on that note, is anyone going to argue otherwise, since the same set of stats could be used here to argue that Hislop was, infact, only marginally inferior to one of the best keepers in the modern era? Or is that not a myth because...noone can be arsed calling it a myth?). I'd argue that under Keegan, we had a defence that was upper-mid-table standard, as opposed to title challenging standard - similar to the defence we had when we qualified for the CL under Sir Bobby (Dabizas, O'Brien, Bramble, Hughes, etc etc). The biggest problem was the lack of a leader at the back, be it a verbal one or someone who lead by example. Someone like Woodgate or Coloccini would have been a massive boost to the Keegan era backline, and it's something the other teams had in their respective defences (even Blackburn with Hendry). And although I don't get how anyone can see it any differently, I'm not going to belittle their opinion by claiming it's based on media myths, stereotypes or fairytales. Yeah, I agree with this. A particularly good point about leadership at the back. The defence failed us in the pressure games - in particular losing 4-3 to Liverpool when 3-2 up, and Blackburn 2-1 when 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go. It was partly a matter of the nerve and mind-set of the whole team, as well as the individual quality of the defenders. Although it's great and usually right to keep attacking, you have to also have the ability and temperament to keep good opposition out when they are putting you under pressure. We never had a Plan B for those moments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Goalkeeping errors cost us massively in both of those games, has to be said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 He'll have his monocle on today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I vividly remember the peak Keegan era defence being dogshit compared to what Arsenal and ManU had, and nothing will change that opinion, be it the labelling of said opinion as being based on myths or statistics that "prove" the opinion to be wrong. Why? Because based on what I recall seeing with my own eyes, collectively we were nowhere near as solid/dominating a defensive unit as ManU/Arsenal were, and individually we were, to a man, significantly inferior (imo of course). IIRC Arsenal had Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown, Winterburn, ManU had Schmeical, Parker/Neville, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, and we had Hislop, Barton, Howey/Peacock, Albert, Beresford. Whilst it might be easy to remember our group of defenders having good games, Albert marauding forward like a gazelle with silky smooth ball control, etc etc, there's absolutely no way in hell any of our defenders were on a par defensively with their Arsenal and ManU counterparts, not in terms of defensively ability. That's not to say they were bad or they weren't decent/good players in their own right, just that they weren't as good, much like Shaka Hislop wasn't a bad keeper but wasn't anything like as good as Seaman or Schmeical (and on that note, is anyone going to argue otherwise, since the same set of stats could be used here to argue that Hislop was, infact, only marginally inferior to one of the best keepers in the modern era? Or is that not a myth because...noone can be arsed calling it a myth?). I'd argue that under Keegan, we had a defence that was upper-mid-table standard, as opposed to title challenging standard - similar to the defence we had when we qualified for the CL under Sir Bobby (Dabizas, O'Brien, Bramble, Hughes, etc etc). The biggest problem was the lack of a leader at the back, be it a verbal one or someone who lead by example. Someone like Woodgate or Coloccini would have been a massive boost to the Keegan era backline, and it's something the other teams had in their respective defences (even Blackburn with Hendry). And although I don't get how anyone can see it any differently, I'm not going to belittle their opinion by claiming it's based on media myths, stereotypes or fairytales. not how i remember it. think of those defences man, lee dixon, nigel winterburn, steve bruce, dennis irwin, all limited players but in very organised defensive units, same as us. what you say about a woodgate or colo of late is true but would have been equally true of those others aswell. there was a while during that season when steve howey was probably the best centre half in the country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I vividly remember the peak Keegan era defence being dogshit compared to what Arsenal and ManU had, and nothing will change that opinion, be it the labelling of said opinion as being based on myths or statistics that "prove" the opinion to be wrong. Why? Because based on what I recall seeing with my own eyes, collectively we were nowhere near as solid/dominating a defensive unit as ManU/Arsenal were, and individually we were, to a man, significantly inferior (imo of course). IIRC Arsenal had Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown, Winterburn, ManU had Schmeical, Parker/Neville, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, and we had Hislop, Barton, Howey/Peacock, Albert, Beresford. Whilst it might be easy to remember our group of defenders having good games, Albert marauding forward like a gazelle with silky smooth ball control, etc etc, there's absolutely no way in hell any of our defenders were on a par defensively with their Arsenal and ManU counterparts, not in terms of defensively ability. That's not to say they were bad or they weren't decent/good players in their own right, just that they weren't as good, much like Shaka Hislop wasn't a bad keeper but wasn't anything like as good as Seaman or Schmeical (and on that note, is anyone going to argue otherwise, since the same set of stats could be used here to argue that Hislop was, infact, only marginally inferior to one of the best keepers in the modern era? Or is that not a myth because...noone can be arsed calling it a myth?). I'd argue that under Keegan, we had a defence that was upper-mid-table standard, as opposed to title challenging standard - similar to the defence we had when we qualified for the CL under Sir Bobby (Dabizas, O'Brien, Bramble, Hughes, etc etc). The biggest problem was the lack of a leader at the back, be it a verbal one or someone who lead by example. Someone like Woodgate or Coloccini would have been a massive boost to the Keegan era backline, and it's something the other teams had in their respective defences (even Blackburn with Hendry). And although I don't get how anyone can see it any differently, I'm not going to belittle their opinion by claiming it's based on media myths, stereotypes or fairytales. Completely correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Dennis Irwin was limited? Not how I remember it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Dennis Irwin was limited? Not how I remember it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 not how i remember it. think of those defences man, lee dixon, nigel winterburn, steve bruce, dennis irwin, all limited players but in very organised defensive units, same as us. what you say about a woodgate or colo of late is true but would have been equally true of those others aswell. there was a while during that season when steve howey was probably the best centre half in the country. limited in what respect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Limited in that had they not been in well organised defences I'd doubt their natural talents would have made them stand out above the likes of Barton or Beresford. Does all this mean our midfield must have been far superior to theirs to make up for our shit defence ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I vividly remember the peak Keegan era defence being dogshit compared to what Arsenal and ManU had, and nothing will change that opinion, be it the labelling of said opinion as being based on myths or statistics that "prove" the opinion to be wrong. Why? Because based on what I recall seeing with my own eyes, collectively we were nowhere near as solid/dominating a defensive unit as ManU/Arsenal were, and individually we were, to a man, significantly inferior (imo of course). IIRC Arsenal had Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown, Winterburn, ManU had Schmeical, Parker/Neville, Bruce, Pallister, Irwin, and we had Hislop, Barton, Howey/Peacock, Albert, Beresford. Whilst it might be easy to remember our group of defenders having good games, Albert marauding forward like a gazelle with silky smooth ball control, etc etc, there's absolutely no way in hell any of our defenders were on a par defensively with their Arsenal and ManU counterparts, not in terms of defensively ability. That's not to say they were bad or they weren't decent/good players in their own right, just that they weren't as good, much like Shaka Hislop wasn't a bad keeper but wasn't anything like as good as Seaman or Schmeical (and on that note, is anyone going to argue otherwise, since the same set of stats could be used here to argue that Hislop was, infact, only marginally inferior to one of the best keepers in the modern era? Or is that not a myth because...noone can be arsed calling it a myth?). I'd argue that under Keegan, we had a defence that was upper-mid-table standard, as opposed to title challenging standard - similar to the defence we had when we qualified for the CL under Sir Bobby (Dabizas, O'Brien, Bramble, Hughes, etc etc). The biggest problem was the lack of a leader at the back, be it a verbal one or someone who lead by example. Someone like Woodgate or Coloccini would have been a massive boost to the Keegan era backline, and it's something the other teams had in their respective defences (even Blackburn with Hendry). And although I don't get how anyone can see it any differently, I'm not going to belittle their opinion by claiming it's based on media myths, stereotypes or fairytales. Completely correct. I concur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Limited in that had they not been in well organised defences I'd doubt their natural talents would have made them stand out above the likes of Barton or Beresford. Does all this mean our midfield must have been far superior to theirs to make up for our shit defence ? hm, don't know about that myself...they were excellent defenders, looking at it the other way were barton or beresford good enough to make the manyoo or arsenal defences of that era? i'm not so sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Some nice pieces in the Sunday Sun today. http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2012/03/18/teamwork-comes-first-for-toon-s-hatem-ben-arfa-79310-30561761/ http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2012/03/18/newcastle-s-french-connection-helping-ben-arfa-79310-30561759/ Good stuff. This interested me: We played the English v the Europeans in training this week. The English came out on top – which was a surprise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Do we have a full English XI? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 "Europeans" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Well, Colo wasn't allowed to play (not being European) and Kadar doesn't exist so no surprise the English won. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Is England not in Europe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shayno Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Is England not in Europe? No, just ask Nigel Farage if you don't believe me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mimifrench Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Maybe it was a French-speaking vs English battle! But no way, English won... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
powellnufc Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Well from what I've heard Shola is unstoppable in training Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts