Signing Shearer - was it really a mistake?

[tmonkey]

I think ive made my points clearly, so will jump out of this "debate" because theres nowt else to say that hasnt already been said.

 

Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things.

 

You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form.

 

Theres nowt else for me to contribute to in a thread where there are plenty of posts that do nothing except ridicule anyone with a different opinion.

 

Its not arrogance, ego or me saying im 100% correct - ive not said any of that, and im not sure how youve got that from one line where im trying to cut myself off from debating this topic any further because id merely be repeating myself, and hence wasting time.

 

What you also need to realise is that although I initially replied to you, I also have the habit of replying to other posts/posters within the same reply. I dont mind debating if youre going to bring up some actual points that can be debated, which youve done, I was more pissed off at the childish replies on here that noone can "debate" with since theyre just one line comments bearing no relevance and followed up with a smiley or two.

 

At the time Shearer was arguably the best striker in world football and we brought him home. Do you genuinely think Keegan and that squad would have ever fully recovered from losing the title in 95/96? If you're not debating anymore, could someone else answer this for me?

 

Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldnt be arguing any different. IMO we lost the title for several reasons, but most of all because we lacked the defence to win it, that was the key difference between us and ManU. Games like Blackburn away when Shearer and that other Geordie lad, Fenton or something like that, bagged two sitters iirc, with horrible defending, is what cost us big time. Too many away games like that that season.

 

Bring some good defenders in and wed have been a different team. I was hoping at the time wed move for someone like Southgate, who imo we could have landed at the time had we put a good bid in, or one of the many highly rated defenders from Euro 96, like Thuram who looked really good (and others who have turned out shiite but also looked good, cant really remember them now). Instead, we got noone for the defence. Why? Because we spent all our money on one forward for a world record fee.

 

Was our downfall buying Shearer instead of strengthening the defence or the other factors surrounding the club at the time? Things like the losing of the title, Ginola wanting away, Asprilla "upsetting" the balance or the PLC business? Was the defence even THAT bad in the first place?

 

The defence was shiite for a side looking to win the title. Any team in the Premiership could score against us, and easily so, completely different to the likes of ManU. It was a lower mid table defence, the reason why the stats would probably show that defence to be in the near the top is because the rest of the team was very good, and at times sublime - St James' was a fortress, many a team spent most of the game pegged back in their own half

 

Obviously there are always other factors into why we failed to move forward since 95/96, no doubt the new board put a chokehold on the finances, which was probably why Keegan walked - but thats not what is being discussed - its whether or not we were right to spend 15mill on one forward, when the squad could have done with several players and the defence particularly needed a top class recruit.

 

For example, the notion that Asprilla caused the side to be unbalanced - imo it was Gillespie's injury that did that, not Tino's arrival. Like the defence, Gillespie's injury and the resulting lack of cover cost us the title, although imo not as much of a factor as the defence. We went from a fluid, two flanked team, to one with an out of position player doing nowt on the right, and Ginola being the only true winger getting marked out of the game - which is why in the second half of that season, the likes of Ginola and Ferdinand were shiite in comparison to the first half. We needed another winger, I remember it took ages for Gillespie to get fit, and when he returned he was poor, a shadow of what he was previously - like us needing a defensive recruit, did we buy a replacement right winger? No, we bought another striker with all the money we had, and as you suggest, probably more than we had.

 

Alternatively, what might have happened to NUFC had Keegan still left and Shearer hadn't have been around to bang the goals in for 9 years afterwards? Granted, things could have been brilliant, but things could also have been a hell of a lot worse than they are now, after Shearer.

 

Thats the thing, we wont ever know. It could be either way, but it pisses me off that people say with such certainty "wed have gone down". Of course wed have gone down if we hadnt had Shearer AND noone to replace him, but then thats a silly notion to think that without Shearer wed have just sat around doing nothing. Shephard has never been that thick to think wed do well without a decent goalscorer. If we hadnt bought Shearer in the first place, or had sold him at some point during the time we were shiite, wed have replaced him like weve replaced him today. Maybe we got lucky with Martins, but the point is that there are plenty of good forwards out there, ones that we either dont know about or dont watch regularly because theyre not in this country and rarely on telly, and its just not on to say theres absolutely noone.

 

Who knows. Maybe we wouldve been the ones who signed the promising Vieri from Juve (following summer after 96), and not Athletico, and wed have been laughing it up when hed have been banging it in for fun, or maybe wed have gone for someone like Yorke, or Heskey, or someone shit. Who knows.

 

Shearer deserves praise for what he did, but again, its not about what he did. Its about what Newcastle United did at a point when they had enough money to spend to break the world transfer record and a team that was lost the title because of inadequacies in the defence and an injury that upset the balance of the team in midfield. IMO, they spent the money wrongly, and the fact that Shearer had to keep us in this league just 2-3 seasons after we lost the title suggests that it was the wrong thing to do.

[Cronky]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

Agreed!

 

People on here say that Shearer made a mistake coming here!! Only he could possibly answer that. Jesus wept man have you not heard of something called loyalty?? There are those of us who if we did manage to play for the club that we love and support would not leave and play for another club guaranteed trophy's or no bloody trophy's!! Loyalty is a dying thing in football and it sadens me big time seeing greed and disloyalty grow so unbelievably big its actually accepted by some . I admire the Shearers, Le Tissers and Steve Bulls of this world who stayed loyal to their clubs, when they could have taken the bigger club, better pay and trophy's. Players like them should be admired and congratulated for taking a stand.

 

Presumably this loyal player is the one who threatened to leave if he wasn't guaranteed a first team place, right?

 

Pressumably this is a fact that you can prove and not half baked gossip/hearsay?? 

 

Who in their right mind would drop Shearer in his hayday anyway (bar Guillit)??

 

It was a bit more than gossip or hearsay. It was a quote from a newspaper interview. You can believe that the journalist was making it up if you like, but earlier on in the season Shearer had publicly complained when he was rested for the Valerenga game. And if you read Sir Bob's book, it's obvious that there was difficulty between the two men that season over the issue of him playing every game.

[Rich]

I think ive made my points clearly, so will jump out of this "debate" because theres nowt else to say that hasnt already been said.

 

Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things.

 

You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form.

 

Theres nowt else for me to contribute to in a thread where there are plenty of posts that do nothing except ridicule anyone with a different opinion.

 

Its not arrogance, ego or me saying im 100% correct - ive not said any of that, and im not sure how youve got that from one line where im trying to cut myself off from debating this topic any further because id merely be repeating myself, and hence wasting time.

 

What you also need to realise is that although I initially replied to you, I also have the habit of replying to other posts/posters within the same reply. I dont mind debating if youre going to bring up some actual points that can be debated, which youve done, I was more pissed off at the childish replies on here that noone can "debate" with since theyre just one line comments bearing no relevance and followed up with a smiley or two.

 

At the time Shearer was arguably the best striker in world football and we brought him home. Do you genuinely think Keegan and that squad would have ever fully recovered from losing the title in 95/96? If you're not debating anymore, could someone else answer this for me?

 

Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldnt be arguing any different. IMO we lost the title for several reasons, but most of all because we lacked the defence to win it, that was the key difference between us and ManU. Games like Blackburn away when Shearer and that other Geordie lad, Fenton or something like that, bagged two sitters iirc, with horrible defending, is what cost us big time. Too many away games like that that season.

 

Bring some good defenders in and wed have been a different team. I was hoping at the time wed move for someone like Southgate, who imo we could have landed at the time had we put a good bid in, or one of the many highly rated defenders from Euro 96, like Thuram who looked really good (and others who have turned out shiite but also looked good, cant really remember them now). Instead, we got noone for the defence. Why? Because we spent all our money on one forward for a world record fee.

 

Was our downfall buying Shearer instead of strengthening the defence or the other factors surrounding the club at the time? Things like the losing of the title, Ginola wanting away, Asprilla "upsetting" the balance or the PLC business? Was the defence even THAT bad in the first place?

 

The defence was shiite for a side looking to win the title. Any team in the Premiership could score against us, and easily so, completely different to the likes of ManU. It was a lower mid table defence, the reason why the stats would probably show that defence to be in the near the top is because the rest of the team was very good, and at times sublime - St James' was a fortress, many a team spent most of the game pegged back in their own half

 

Obviously there are always other factors into why we failed to move forward since 95/96, no doubt the new board put a chokehold on the finances, which was probably why Keegan walked - but thats not what is being discussed - its whether or not we were right to spend 15mill on one forward, when the squad could have done with several players and the defence particularly needed a top class recruit.

 

For example, the notion that Asprilla caused the side to be unbalanced - imo it was Gillespie's injury that did that, not Tino's arrival. Like the defence, Gillespie's injury and the resulting lack of cover cost us the title, although imo not as much of a factor as the defence. We went from a fluid, two flanked team, to one with an out of position player doing nowt on the right, and Ginola being the only true winger getting marked out of the game - which is why in the second half of that season, the likes of Ginola and Ferdinand were shiite in comparison to the first half. We needed another winger, I remember it took ages for Gillespie to get fit, and when he returned he was poor, a shadow of what he was previously - like us needing a defensive recruit, did we buy a replacement right winger? No, we bought another striker with all the money we had, and as you suggest, probably more than we had.

 

Alternatively, what might have happened to NUFC had Keegan still left and Shearer hadn't have been around to bang the goals in for 9 years afterwards? Granted, things could have been brilliant, but things could also have been a hell of a lot worse than they are now, after Shearer.

 

Thats the thing, we wont ever know. It could be either way, but it pisses me off that people say with such certainty "wed have gone down". Of course wed have gone down if we hadnt had Shearer AND noone to replace him, but then thats a silly notion to think that without Shearer wed have just sat around doing nothing. Shephard has never been that thick to think wed do well without a decent goalscorer. If we hadnt bought Shearer in the first place, or had sold him at some point during the time we were shiite, wed have replaced him like weve replaced him today. Maybe we got lucky with Martins, but the point is that there are plenty of good forwards out there, ones that we either dont know about or dont watch regularly because theyre not in this country and rarely on telly, and its just not on to say theres absolutely noone.

 

Who knows. Maybe we wouldve been the ones who signed the promising Vieri from Juve (following summer after 96), and not Athletico, and wed have been laughing it up when hed have been banging it in for fun, or maybe wed have gone for someone like Yorke, or Heskey, or someone shit. Who knows.

 

Shearer deserves praise for what he did, but again, its not about what he did. Its about what Newcastle United did at a point when they had enough money to spend to break the world transfer record and a team that was lost the title because of inadequacies in the defence and an injury that upset the balance of the team in midfield. IMO, they spent the money wrongly, and the fact that Shearer had to keep us in this league just 2-3 seasons after we lost the title suggests that it was the wrong thing to do.

 

Top class response, that, more like the usual you. I'll happily take all that on board as my recollection of the 95/96 season is shabby at best, which is why I asked those questions that I did. I can't really argue much of it back with you, which is a great shame, but surely there's someone else who can take up the debate without being a complete arsehole over it. It's a shame that there are posts like that on this board and all people can do to reply is take the piss and make daft comments. Granted, not everyone has the time/knowledge to debate like demons, but there are plenty on here who do.

 

To anyone else who wishes to join in, or just back to Monkey... do you think it was the defensive players themselves that were poor, or was it the style of play that put too much pressure on them? From what I remember of that season, Albert somtimes went on darts forward and our fullbacks were hardly defensive-minded. Was it the personnel or was it the style of play that was our undoing?

 

The right-winger (Gillespie) argument is one I've never heard before and I'd love to hear some other opinions about it from some more that are older than me. The 95/96 is fascinating to me looking back, I was only 9 at the time like, so can hardly speak with authority on that particular year (regarding the defence.) My main defence of signing Big Al is for what he did in those subsequent years here.

[Dinho lad]

which is mainly why he was desperate to sign for us.

 

Sorry, I had to giggle there. Is there any proof for this? 

[Guest KeithKettleborough]

Shearer was regarded as the icing on the cake when we got him. Unfortunately we never progressed after he arrived. The football we played never reached the heights of the "entertainers" of the previous few seasons but not all of this was Als fault. Beardsley was reaching the end and Keegan never tried to replace him. I dont feel that Tino was the reason why we won nothing but we could have probably got Zola round about the same time and for the same price instead of him. It was KK's loyalty to Beardo that was more of a factor. Resting him was not in KK's thoughts and this was a reason why we started to slip. Zola would have been the perfect replacement and I believe that had we got him, we would have stayed near the top for a lot longer and Al would have benefitted more than anyone.

 

We don't know how good AL would have been for us but for the injuries but again you cant make excuses and say thats why he never won anything while at the Toon. He was a great player but his arrival meant that we felt we could get rid of Les and again this proved a mistake. Although folk say Les and Al were a great partnership, I never felt this was the case. It was more the fact that both were great centre forwards in their own right. I didnt feel they did anything for each other, no telepathy etc like Beardo and Cole seemed to have for instance. When Shearer was injured, we would have been ok with Les still there but he was gone and that was a big factor too. As far as we know not Als fault, although who knows how much Les felt he had his nose pushed out with the saga of the number 9 shirt etc.

 

Whether the money would have been better spent elsewhere we will never know. If we hadn't got him, then maybe we would have been relegated but again who knows. He was bought to give us that extra push and to win something but the fact that we never won anything means that his arrival failed in that respect. His influence on proceedings, particularly in recent years may have been crucial, the current state being the end result. Again how much was he to blame for things is open to debate but it seems obvious he has had a great influence.

 

Al may have become too big an influence at the Toon and his role in the past few years may well have been detrimental but this does not mean that he was not worth the money. The plain fact is that we can never say because history has shown that we won nothing and in fact slipped well down from the standard we had when he came. You can believe that he has saved us and kept us alive in the Premiere or you can say that we slipped when he came and he was influential in the events surrounding Gullit, Robson, Souness/Bellamy etc. Whatever view you hold, you can't say you are right as its impossible to say where we would have been had we not got him. Guess the best way is to enjoy the moments he gave us, memorable that they were, regret that he overstayed his time in spite of some goals record and hope that when he does take over as manager, as most feel will happen, that he brings us the success that we never had while he played for us and actually get us to win something meaningful.

[Guest Moe-Ali]

Not a mistake in my eyes, might be a biased opinion though, i am a very big shearer fan and im sure most of the others on here are. ^-^

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I think ive made my points clearly, so will jump out of this "debate" because theres nowt else to say that hasnt already been said.

 

Monkey, I think you're genuinely a top-class poster but that last line is pure bollocks. Smacks of nowt but ego to me and it basically alludes to you being 100% correct with this and everyone who disagrees with you being way-off. As for the "debate", I'd venture to say that there have been good points raised on both sides, but much like everything else that sparks interest on here the main protagonists are never going to agree. Anyone could simply sign-off by saying "agree to disagree", but wording it the way you did isn't the way to go about things.

 

You've made points based on not much more than personal opinion with a lot of guesswork/prediction interwoven, just like everyone else has in here. I came at you without calling you a Mackem (laughable that people have), or ridiculing you, and offered an alternative to your story of "what might have been", now you're bowing out of the "debate". Bad form.

 

Theres nowt else for me to contribute to in a thread where there are plenty of posts that do nothing except ridicule anyone with a different opinion.

 

Its not arrogance, ego or me saying im 100% correct - ive not said any of that, and im not sure how youve got that from one line where im trying to cut myself off from debating this topic any further because id merely be repeating myself, and hence wasting time.

 

What you also need to realise is that although I initially replied to you, I also have the habit of replying to other posts/posters within the same reply. I dont mind debating if youre going to bring up some actual points that can be debated, which youve done, I was more pissed off at the childish replies on here that noone can "debate" with since theyre just one line comments bearing no relevance and followed up with a smiley or two.

 

At the time Shearer was arguably the best striker in world football and we brought him home. Do you genuinely think Keegan and that squad would have ever fully recovered from losing the title in 95/96? If you're not debating anymore, could someone else answer this for me?

 

Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldnt be arguing any different. IMO we lost the title for several reasons, but most of all because we lacked the defence to win it, that was the key difference between us and ManU. Games like Blackburn away when Shearer and that other Geordie lad, Fenton or something like that, bagged two sitters iirc, with horrible defending, is what cost us big time. Too many away games like that that season.

 

Bring some good defenders in and wed have been a different team. I was hoping at the time wed move for someone like Southgate, who imo we could have landed at the time had we put a good bid in, or one of the many highly rated defenders from Euro 96, like Thuram who looked really good (and others who have turned out shiite but also looked good, cant really remember them now). Instead, we got noone for the defence. Why? Because we spent all our money on one forward for a world record fee.

 

Was our downfall buying Shearer instead of strengthening the defence or the other factors surrounding the club at the time? Things like the losing of the title, Ginola wanting away, Asprilla "upsetting" the balance or the PLC business? Was the defence even THAT bad in the first place?

 

The defence was shiite for a side looking to win the title. Any team in the Premiership could score against us, and easily so, completely different to the likes of ManU. It was a lower mid table defence, the reason why the stats would probably show that defence to be in the near the top is because the rest of the team was very good, and at times sublime - St James' was a fortress, many a team spent most of the game pegged back in their own half

 

Obviously there are always other factors into why we failed to move forward since 95/96, no doubt the new board put a chokehold on the finances, which was probably why Keegan walked - but thats not what is being discussed - its whether or not we were right to spend 15mill on one forward, when the squad could have done with several players and the defence particularly needed a top class recruit.

 

For example, the notion that Asprilla caused the side to be unbalanced - imo it was Gillespie's injury that did that, not Tino's arrival. Like the defence, Gillespie's injury and the resulting lack of cover cost us the title, although imo not as much of a factor as the defence. We went from a fluid, two flanked team, to one with an out of position player doing nowt on the right, and Ginola being the only true winger getting marked out of the game - which is why in the second half of that season, the likes of Ginola and Ferdinand were shiite in comparison to the first half. We needed another winger, I remember it took ages for Gillespie to get fit, and when he returned he was poor, a shadow of what he was previously - like us needing a defensive recruit, did we buy a replacement right winger? No, we bought another striker with all the money we had, and as you suggest, probably more than we had.

 

Alternatively, what might have happened to NUFC had Keegan still left and Shearer hadn't have been around to bang the goals in for 9 years afterwards? Granted, things could have been brilliant, but things could also have been a hell of a lot worse than they are now, after Shearer.

 

Thats the thing, we wont ever know. It could be either way, but it pisses me off that people say with such certainty "wed have gone down". Of course wed have gone down if we hadnt had Shearer AND noone to replace him, but then thats a silly notion to think that without Shearer wed have just sat around doing nothing. Shephard has never been that thick to think wed do well without a decent goalscorer. If we hadnt bought Shearer in the first place, or had sold him at some point during the time we were shiite, wed have replaced him like weve replaced him today. Maybe we got lucky with Martins, but the point is that there are plenty of good forwards out there, ones that we either dont know about or dont watch regularly because theyre not in this country and rarely on telly, and its just not on to say theres absolutely noone.

 

Who knows. Maybe we wouldve been the ones who signed the promising Vieri from Juve (following summer after 96), and not Athletico, and wed have been laughing it up when hed have been banging it in for fun, or maybe wed have gone for someone like Yorke, or Heskey, or someone shit. Who knows.

 

Shearer deserves praise for what he did, but again, its not about what he did. Its about what Newcastle United did at a point when they had enough money to spend to break the world transfer record and a team that was lost the title because of inadequacies in the defence and an injury that upset the balance of the team in midfield. IMO, they spent the money wrongly, and the fact that Shearer had to keep us in this league just 2-3 seasons after we lost the title suggests that it was the wrong thing to do.

 

Top class response, that, more like the usual you. I'll happily take all that on board as my recollection of the 95/96 season is shabby at best, which is why I asked those questions that I did. I can't really argue much of it back with you, which is a great shame, but surely there's someone else who can take up the debate without being a complete arsehole over it. It's a shame that there are posts like that on this board and all people can do to reply is take the piss and make daft comments. Granted, not everyone has the time/knowledge to debate like demons, but there are plenty on here who do.

 

To anyone else who wishes to join in, or just back to Monkey... do you think it was the defensive players themselves that were poor, or was it the style of play that put too much pressure on them? From what I remember of that season, Albert somtimes went on darts forward and our fullbacks were hardly defensive-minded. Was it the personnel or was it the style of play that was our undoing?

 

The right-winger (Gillespie) argument is one I've never heard before and I'd love to hear some other opinions about it from some more that are older than me. The 95/96 is fascinating to me looking back, I was only 9 at the time like, so can hardly speak with authority on that particular year (regarding the defence.) My main defence of signing Big Al is for what he did in those subsequent years here.

 

I'm a fully paid up subscriber to the 'Phil Neville cost us the title' club. His challenge on Gillespie cost us the title. Well that and our strikers fondnes for putting every shot into Schmeichels chest rather than slip it through his legs when he did his star job routine.

 

As to was Shearer a misake? Signing him no, allowing him to become as powerful as he did yes. Not selling him to Liverpool under Bobby, possibly.

 

For what its worth I fully believe that if he hadn't knacked himself at Goodison we would have gone close in the league again. is injury ruined any chance of Tommason being successful and resulted in the game agaisnt PSV in the Champs League (home) where our strike force consisted of Rob Lee and JDT alternatig in making runs from midfield.

 

One injury shaped at least 2 seasons, from which we still havent fully recovered despite the brief flirtation with the top under Bobby.

[Cronky]

Shearer was regarded as the icing on the cake when we got him. Unfortunately we never progressed after he arrived. The football we played never reached the heights of the "entertainers" of the previous few seasons but not all of this was Als fault. Beardsley was reaching the end and Keegan never tried to replace him. I dont feel that Tino was the reason why we won nothing but we could have probably got Zola round about the same time and for the same price instead of him. It was KK's loyalty to Beardo that was more of a factor. Resting him was not in KK's thoughts and this was a reason why we started to slip. Zola would have been the perfect replacement and I believe that had we got him, we would have stayed near the top for a lot longer and Al would have benefitted more than anyone.

 

We don't know how good AL would have been for us but for the injuries but again you cant make excuses and say thats why he never won anything while at the Toon. He was a great player but his arrival meant that we felt we could get rid of Les and again this proved a mistake. Although folk say Les and Al were a great partnership, I never felt this was the case. It was more the fact that both were great centre forwards in their own right. I didnt feel they did anything for each other, no telepathy etc like Beardo and Cole seemed to have for instance. When Shearer was injured, we would have been ok with Les still there but he was gone and that was a big factor too. As far as we know not Als fault, although who knows how much Les felt he had his nose pushed out with the saga of the number 9 shirt etc.

 

 

I think you make a good point about Beardsley. His decline, when it came, was fairly rapid. He was a crucial player for us and his replacement was a bigger priority than another centre forward. The gap he left was only filled when Bellamy came.

 

I'd also agree that the Shearer - Ferdinand partnership had its limitations. It seemed to end up with Ferdinand tending to drop into more withdrawn positions, which never suited him. He was an out and out centre forward and nothing else. It was logical to replace him with Tomasson, but then we had Shearer's injury and Tomasson never really had much chance after that, having to play with Asprilla or Ketsbaia.

[Guest Kenton Magpie]

This topic should be locked! 

[Guest Li3nZ]

The mistake was keeping him on too long.

 

Gullit and Robson wanted him out. Souness saw keeping him onside as a way of keeping his job.

Without a doubt Shearers career effectively ended the day Bellamy stopped doing the running for him. In my opinion he should have gone two seasons before he did - definitely shouldn't have played out his final season.

 

Robson did not want him out mate, quite the opposite.

 

This thread is "deplorable".

[LooneyToonArmy]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

And your reason for saying all this is...?

 

Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball.

 

To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward?

 

Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

 

Do agree with many points said on here. Not saying Shearer was a mistake at all but we didn't really need him desparately at the time and should have strenghthened in other areas such as the obvious defence.

 

Looking at players at the time of Euro 96 there were some top class players who I'm sure would have cost less than the 15m we spent on one player.

 

Who would you like to have seen? Stoichkov was hot headed but class(already mentioned),Boksic (wasn't injury prone at that age like at Boro),Couto,Chiesa (Sampdoria),Torricelli, Babbel (disappointed Dogliseh didn't follow up his interest),  ,Thuram (Monaco), Blanc (Auxerre), Angloma (Torino), Chapuisat (perfect for EPL), Henchoz.....

 

it's ok in hindsight I suppose but at the time we could attract the best and they would not have cost fortunes

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_UEFA_European_Football_Championship_squads

 

 

 

 

[Guest Li3nZ]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

And your reason for saying all this is...?

 

Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball.

 

On top of this, I think the "Ferdinand became injury prone" arguements are purely ones made in hindsight - he scored more goals than Shearer the season they played together iirc, at the time we signed Shearer these problems hadnt surfaced at all. Easy to look back now and say "yeah, Ferdinand's career was nearing an end", but that wasnt the case when we splashed out a world record 15mill - we signed Shearer irrespective of Ferdinand.

 

To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward?

 

Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

 

We signed Shearer to partner Ferdinand, and they were unreal playing together. Ferdinand's performance was increased tenfold by Shearer's signing. Shearer's workrate when he was 26ish when we signed him, running the flanks, holding up play, and generally dominating the field as a model centre forward created masses of space and I would guess a fair few of Ferdinand's goals were from Shearer's crossing running onto balls down the flank.

 

I'm trying to remove myself from the model response you think is along the lines of "lol WTF Shearer is the best"....

 

However, if you think 15million pounds is not worth the years of service and goals, you're either 12 or you need you heed looking at. Just remember we signed shearer on the back of Euro 96 golden boot winner, and was wideley regarded as the best centre forward in the world. 15 millions was a snip. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say I (and the majority of supporters old enough to remember) would have to completely disagree with everything you're saying.

[LooneyToonArmy]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

And your reason for saying all this is...?

 

Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball.

 

On top of this, I think the "Ferdinand became injury prone" arguements are purely ones made in hindsight - he scored more goals than Shearer the season they played together iirc, at the time we signed Shearer these problems hadnt surfaced at all. Easy to look back now and say "yeah, Ferdinand's career was nearing an end", but that wasnt the case when we splashed out a world record 15mill - we signed Shearer irrespective of Ferdinand.

 

To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward?

 

Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

 

We signed Shearer to partner Ferdinand, and they were unreal playing together. Ferdinand's performance was increased tenfold by Shearer's signing. Shearer's workrate when he was 26ish when we signed him, running the flanks, holding up play, and generally dominating the field as a model centre forward created masses of space and I would guess a fair few of Ferdinand's goals were from Shearer's crossing running onto balls down the flank.

 

I'm trying to remove myself from the model response you think is along the lines of "lol WTF Shearer is the best"....

 

However, if you think 15million pounds is not worth the years of service and goals, you're either 12 or you need you heed looking at. Just remember we signed shearer on the back of Euro 96 golden boot winner, and was wideley regarded as the best centre forward in the world. 15 millions was a snip. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say I (and the majority of supporters old enough to remember) would have to completely disagree with everything you're saying.

 

I don't think people are saying he was not worth it, he was well and truly worth every penny as has been proven......but another attacker I don't think was a top priority that was needed at the time, at least IMO

[Guest Li3nZ]

And if we're really looking to blame a signing for our downfall, blame signing Aspro.

 

Typical Keegan signing and showing his weakness as a manager. Simply no need to sign him, despite being a superb individual talent we had no need for him, and we had to change a successful style of play to accomadate him.

 

Shearer's price tag was not a one off for a single season, it served us well for the next NINE years in a successful manner that no other signing post Shearer has ever come close to.

[Guest Li3nZ]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

And your reason for saying all this is...?

 

Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball.

 

On top of this, I think the "Ferdinand became injury prone" arguements are purely ones made in hindsight - he scored more goals than Shearer the season they played together iirc, at the time we signed Shearer these problems hadnt surfaced at all. Easy to look back now and say "yeah, Ferdinand's career was nearing an end", but that wasnt the case when we splashed out a world record 15mill - we signed Shearer irrespective of Ferdinand.

 

To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward?

 

Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

 

We signed Shearer to partner Ferdinand, and they were unreal playing together. Ferdinand's performance was increased tenfold by Shearer's signing. Shearer's workrate when he was 26ish when we signed him, running the flanks, holding up play, and generally dominating the field as a model centre forward created masses of space and I would guess a fair few of Ferdinand's goals were from Shearer's crossing running onto balls down the flank.

 

I'm trying to remove myself from the model response you think is along the lines of "lol WTF Shearer is the best"....

 

However, if you think 15million pounds is not worth the years of service and goals, you're either 12 or you need you heed looking at. Just remember we signed shearer on the back of Euro 96 golden boot winner, and was wideley regarded as the best centre forward in the world. 15 millions was a snip. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say I (and the majority of supporters old enough to remember) would have to completely disagree with everything you're saying.

 

I don't think people are saying he was not worth it, he was well and truly worth every penny as has been proven......but another attacker I don't think was a top priority that was needed at the time, at least IMO

 

Well maybe wasn't top priority in terms of position but if you think he was worth it surely this answer the initial question of the thread does it not?

[Guest Knightrider]

Signing Shearer was never a mistake, not strengthening other areas was a mistake, but that was down to KK, I'm sure if he wanted to, he could have prised an extra few million for a defender and we were linked with Flowers so I think we were still able, despite splashing all that cash on Shearer, to reinforce, at the time anyway.

 

I remember the Stoichkov quotes (amazing player, one of the best I've seen and I'd have loved to have seen him at SJP, he would have fitted right in).

[LooneyToonArmy]

Whoever said his signing was a mistake is a c**t, there's no other word to describe them, whoever come out with such bollocks is indictive of the new age fan today, fuckin tossers, ashamed to be geordie with people like them around.  Aye it was a mistake 4fs, we should've signed Paul Rideout or Dean Windass.

 

And your reason for saying all this is...?

 

Still yet to see a decent counter arguement that doesnt involve "ROFL YOURE A MACKEM" or "omg shearer mistake? wtf??", other than "Ferdinand was getting old and getting injury prone". To which ive replied about getting quality in that didnt require us to break the bank - Stoichkov was desperate to come to us, at a time when the Premiership was shiite and easy pickings for forwards with great technique, eg Zola who moved to Chelsea in the same summer and prolonged his playing career purely because of technique and intelligence on the ball.

 

On top of this, I think the "Ferdinand became injury prone" arguements are purely ones made in hindsight - he scored more goals than Shearer the season they played together iirc, at the time we signed Shearer these problems hadnt surfaced at all. Easy to look back now and say "yeah, Ferdinand's career was nearing an end", but that wasnt the case when we splashed out a world record 15mill - we signed Shearer irrespective of Ferdinand.

 

To win trophies and stay at the top, we had the firepower, we had the midfield, but not the defence or the keeper. Whats the logical thing to do? Blow EVERYTHING on one centreforward?

 

Call me what you want out of your own ignorance and blind faith, not only do the facts speak for themselves - no trophies, plummiting down the table, squad torn apart, following summer spent 7mill sold 16mill, etc etc - but so do "silly" things like common sense and logic.

 

We signed Shearer to partner Ferdinand, and they were unreal playing together. Ferdinand's performance was increased tenfold by Shearer's signing. Shearer's workrate when he was 26ish when we signed him, running the flanks, holding up play, and generally dominating the field as a model centre forward created masses of space and I would guess a fair few of Ferdinand's goals were from Shearer's crossing running onto balls down the flank.

 

I'm trying to remove myself from the model response you think is along the lines of "lol WTF Shearer is the best"....

 

However, if you think 15million pounds is not worth the years of service and goals, you're either 12 or you need you heed looking at. Just remember we signed shearer on the back of Euro 96 golden boot winner, and was wideley regarded as the best centre forward in the world. 15 millions was a snip. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say I (and the majority of supporters old enough to remember) would have to completely disagree with everything you're saying.

 

I don't think people are saying he was not worth it, he was well and truly worth every penny as has been proven......but another attacker I don't think was a top priority that was needed at the time, at least IMO

 

Well maybe wasn't top priority in terms of position but if you think he was worth it surely this answer the initial question of the thread does it not?

 

yes, but if  we'd have signed some top class defenders and strenghtened the area where we needed most we might (I know it's all ifs and buts) I'm sure have won some titles/silverware. I would have preferred that than 9 further trophyless years

 

[Guest Li3nZ]

 

I agree some trophies would have been better. But are you on this planet?

 

First of all, Trophies - no matter who we sign the closest thing we're likely to get to winning a trophy is the Intertoto Cup.... (again!)

 

Seriously, if you think NOT signing Shearer would have led to trophies then fair play to you. I just violently disagree with you!

[Colos Short and Curlies]

And if we're really looking to blame a signing for our downfall, blame signing Aspro.

 

Typical Keegan signing and showing his weakness as a manager. Simply no need to sign him, despite being a superb individual talent we had no need for him, and we had to change a successful style of play to accomadate him.

 

Shearer's price tag was not a one off for a single season, it served us well for the next NINE years in a successful manner that no other signing post Shearer has ever come close to.

 

Not 100% true, we had to change our style due to Gillespie being injured for the second half of that season.

 

Funny how people are quick to blame Tino, but not many put the blame with Batty who broke up an effective Lee-Clark partnership in midfield

[Nobby]

we would be in the championship now if we took away his 206 goals

[madras]

at the time we had the 5th best defence in the league(37coceded),comparing favourably with the best arsenal (32),liverpool(34) and villa and champions man u(34each).are some falling into the nufc shit defence myth.all  our defenders were in their prime.on the scoring front we were 3rd (66) behind man u(73) and liverpool (70).it's where our goals came from that make shearer the necessity,25 from the 29yr old ferdinand and 8 each from lee and  beardsley.......to sign the best froward in britain ,possibly the world at that time was a good move on and off the pitch.

 

thinking how much shearer cost in real terms he was a steal and a necessity we could afford,for once nufc done what was right both in the long and short term.

[tmonkey]

We signed Shearer to partner Ferdinand, and they were unreal playing together. Ferdinand's performance was increased tenfold by Shearer's signing. Shearer's workrate when he was 26ish when we signed him, running the flanks, holding up play, and generally dominating the field as a model centre forward created masses of space and I would guess a fair few of Ferdinand's goals were from Shearer's crossing running onto balls down the flank.

 

Ferdinand's form when he partnered Shearer never got anywhere near what it was the season before, before Gillespie's injury.

 

And although both players scored heavily and the partnership "ticked", the team was never as fluid or as balanced as it was when we were playing 4-4-2 with wingers down both flanks. We were lucky to finish 2nd that season, doing so on the last day of the season (jumped 2 places) via goal difference iirc. It wasnt because of the partership per se, but when you dont have a right winger and your most creative and skillful player is a left winger who needs to play in a 4-4-2, its going to hurt the team overall - which is what happened.

 

However, if you think 15million pounds is not worth the years of service and goals, you're either 12 or you need you heed looking at. Just remember we signed shearer on the back of Euro 96 golden boot winner, and was wideley regarded as the best centre forward in the world. 15 millions was a snip. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say I (and the majority of supporters old enough to remember) would have to completely disagree with everything you're saying.

 

Im not debating whether or not Shearer gave us good performances for 15mill. Its about whether the club should have purchased him in the first place if its actual goal was to win trophies. Im arguing we shouldnt have, because to win trophies we only needed to sign some good defenders, and if we needed a striker, we could have landed other top forwards who werent going to cost us an arm and a leg to add to what was already the best attack in the country - ive used Stoichkov as an example, a top player who was desperate to sign for us and publicly stated this desire.

 

In what way does that make me 12 or a madman. I cant see how its anything but a reasonable arguement. Its fair enough to disagree, of course its all about opinions and there isnt just one way to build a squad, but I cant for the life of me see what is so "ridiculous" or laughable about what im trying to argue.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Good points made by t-monkey and i'm in agreement with much of what he says. We were a more fluent team, in effect a 'better team' before his arrival. What i disagree with is the point concerning 'an overhaul of the defense'. Stats-wise we ranked up there with the best, but it can be argued the quality of our possession play and our attack played a major part in our 'goals conceeded' return. The best form of defense is being able to starve the opposition, and it still holds true today. What we needed was a keeper with some 'physical presence', akin to Schmeicel, who could save you at least 5 goals a season.

[Guest hagler]

look who was in shearers bar last night ;D

 

http://www.dwtc.com/kiosk/news866b.jpg

[Guest Simon]

Shearer a bad signing?

1) 206 goals

2) The sheer enjoyment we got out of watching him play

3) Commitment

4) Leadership

5) Despite not winning anything he gave us something to cling to, a Geordie in the number 9 shirt and Captaining the side