Anyone else worried about Martins...

[Yorkie]

HTL,

 

I said that you nit-picked because...

 

You chose to comment on the opening 6 words of my entire post which, like i say, included 7 or 8 lengthy and detailed paragraphs, with plenty more relevant things worth quoting on. The opening line was even mis-worded - something i clearly pointed out later on. I know you didn't know that at the time, but still. It was just something so pointless and barely worthy picking up on, out of the entire post. That's why i said you were nit-picking.

 

Why you chose to overreact about that is beyond me, calling me 'paranoid', etc. And about me being 'childish' in my response to your first post, it's hardly as if i blew up about it. I said it was 'disappointing' that you had decided to do that. That's all.

 

And, regarding the other note, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and although i agree with you to some extent (i don't believe Parker should be a regular starter), to say that Scott Parker is 'inept' is simply nonsense.

 

I selected the bit to comment on because that was the bit I wanted to comment on. I think it is very, very risky not signing a striker, something you appear to support because you want to see Martins up front with Dyer.

 

I don't see why you have a problem with me quoting it, tbh.

 

Jesus Wept. Read my fucking posts for God's Sake.

 

I said i misworded it. I'm not happy that we didn't sign a striker. I clearly stated that afterwards. I said that if there was to be any reason at all for me to be glad, it was so that Martins and Dyer could play together.

 

Fucking pulling teeth.

[STM]

I am not worried about Martins. He hasn't scored more than 20 goals in this league yet so has little chance of a big money move just yet. However, if he does keep on improving at the rate he is then we may have an awesome talent on our hands or a huge pot of gold.

[Northern Monkey]

HTL,

 

I said that you nit-picked because...

 

You chose to comment on the opening 6 words of my entire post which, like i say, included 7 or 8 lengthy and detailed paragraphs, with plenty more relevant things worth quoting on. The opening line was even mis-worded - something i clearly pointed out later on. I know you didn't know that at the time, but still. It was just something so pointless and barely worthy picking up on, out of the entire post. That's why i said you were nit-picking.

 

Why you chose to overreact about that is beyond me, calling me 'paranoid', etc. And about me being 'childish' in my response to your first post, it's hardly as if i blew up about it. I said it was 'disappointing' that you had decided to do that. That's all.

 

And, regarding the other note, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and although i agree with you to some extent (i don't believe Parker should be a regular starter), to say that Scott Parker is 'inept' is simply nonsense.

 

I selected the bit to comment on because that was the bit I wanted to comment on. I think it is very, very risky not signing a striker, something you appear to support because you want to see Martins up front with Dyer.

 

I don't see why you have a problem with me quoting it, tbh.

 

Jesus Wept. Read my fucking posts for God's Sake.

 

I said i misworded it. I'm not happy that we didn't sign a striker. I clearly stated that afterwards. I said that if there was to be any reason at all for me to be glad, it was so that Martins and Dyer could play together.

 

Fucking pulling teeth.

 

But it'd be better to have 2 strikers, rather than one striker and a midfielder who can't do a job there for more than a game or two.

[Yorkie]

Dyer's played upfront about ten times since he's come back and done a bloody good job aswell. 

[Northern Monkey]

Dyer's played upfront about ten times since he's come back and done a bloody good job aswell. 

 

Really? Nice that you think so. He's been alright, but not good enough to play as a striker.

[Ally]

History shows that its impossible to build a team round Dyer. Too injury proned, he's a liability. Not that I think he's much good anyway.

[Yorkie]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

[Ally]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

 

Dyer has helped Martins because we play it on the floor a bit more now, and he's not reliant on Siberski's "ability" to head the ball down for him. Wouldn't particularly say Dyer has done an awful lot himself to help Martins, just the fact that the rest of the team behind them play differently as theres no lanky goon to boot the ball to.

[Northern Monkey]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

 

I disagree. I think Martins is better alongside a proper forward, and was less impressed recently.

 

It might be different with a GOOD quick forward, but Dyer has too many failings in that role to maximise what Martins can offer.

[Yorkie]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

 

I disagree. I think Martins is better alongside a proper forward

 

You can't surely be referring to the likes of Ameobi and Sibierski?

 

I know statistics aren't everything, but it is clear to see that Obafemi has blossomed since he has been partnered with Dyer who, unlike Shola and Sibi, is on the same wavelength - and crucially, has the speed to keep up with him.

[Nobody]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

 

Dyer has helped Martins because we play it on the floor a bit more now, and he's not reliant on Siberski's "ability" to head the ball down for him. Wouldn't particularly say Dyer has done an awful lot himself to help Martins, just the fact that the rest of the team behind them play differently as theres no lanky goon to boot the ball to.

Dyer's willingness to keep running all the time creates space and opportunities for Martins. Plus the fact that defenders are scared to death because of our pace upfront.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Completely agree. Unless the team rises with him, and the finishing position on the table matches, the situation will bear resemblance to Juninho's stay at Boro........... too good for the team, unable to keep the player.

[Howaythelads]

HTL,

 

I said that you nit-picked because...

 

You chose to comment on the opening 6 words of my entire post which, like i say, included 7 or 8 lengthy and detailed paragraphs, with plenty more relevant things worth quoting on. The opening line was even mis-worded - something i clearly pointed out later on. I know you didn't know that at the time, but still. It was just something so pointless and barely worthy picking up on, out of the entire post. That's why i said you were nit-picking.

 

Why you chose to overreact about that is beyond me, calling me 'paranoid', etc. And about me being 'childish' in my response to your first post, it's hardly as if i blew up about it. I said it was 'disappointing' that you had decided to do that. That's all.

 

And, regarding the other note, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and although i agree with you to some extent (i don't believe Parker should be a regular starter), to say that Scott Parker is 'inept' is simply nonsense.

 

I selected the bit to comment on because that was the bit I wanted to comment on. I think it is very, very risky not signing a striker, something you appear to support because you want to see Martins up front with Dyer.

 

I don't see why you have a problem with me quoting it, tbh.

 

Jesus Wept. Read my f****** posts for God's Sake.

 

I said i misworded it. I'm not happy that we didn't sign a striker. I clearly stated that afterwards. I said that if there was to be any reason at all for me to be glad, it was so that Martins and Dyer could play together.

 

f****** pulling teeth.

 

Jesus Wept. I read your f****** post for God's Sake.

 

As you've already said, you only pointed out you phrased it badly after I'd already replied and terminally pissed you off with what was an innocent, non insulting reply made by me. By then your dummy was gone with accusations of nit-picking, closely followed by an exchange with another poster where you stated I was posting garbage. My reply wasn't nit-picking at all, which you should understand on the basis you claim you badly phrased the section I replied to.

 

I don't see your problem unless you're pissesd off that you spent 2 days writing a few paragraphs, thought it was a masterpiece and threw the dummy out because only a section of it was mentioned in my reply. Which is why I told you to grow up, of course.

 

Your aggressve reaction to what has been pretty much a fuck all exchange is pathetic, mate.

[Northern Monkey]

He hasn't been amazing but if it wasn't for Dyer, Martins would be half the player/performer that he is at this moment in time. See my earlier uber-post on Page 3... Dyer has brought Martins on significantly.

 

I disagree. I think Martins is better alongside a proper forward

 

You can't surely be referring to the likes of Ameobi and Sibierski?

 

I know statistics aren't everything, but it is clear to see that Obafemi has blossomed since he has been partnered with Dyer who, unlike Shola and Sibi, is on the same wavelength - and crucially, has the speed to keep up with him.

 

Point out where i sais Ameobi or Sibierski, please.

 

i said a "proper forward". By this i mena a forward with intelligence, goiod movement, striking ability and power. Not any of the two you mentioned, or Dyer. Dyer has done a job up to a point, but it woudl be absolute madness to think he can play the role of first team striker for us. He simly isn't that good at it. He's very fast, yes. SO was Des Hamilton. Didn't make him a great player.

 

Dyer is great at getting the ball and running at defenders. But his end product, historically, is piss poor.

[Yorkie]

The Sibierski/Shola thing was a question... hence the question mark.

 

I was talking about this season, Northern Monkey. I don't know how much of Martins you have seen in the past, but he has not played with a 'proper' forward this season, nor do we have one in the squad. I might agree with you if we still had a Shearer-type player at the club. I firmly believe that Dyer is the best option that we have to play with Martins this season atleast.

[Howaythelads]

The Sibierski/Shola thing was a question... hence the question mark.

 

I was talking about this season, Northern Monkey. I don't know how much of Martins you have seen in the past, but he has not played with a 'proper' forward this season, nor do we have one in the squad. I might agree with you if we still had a Shearer-type player at the club. I firmly believe that Dyer is the best option that we have to play with Martins this season atleast.

 

If Martins is injured we will be knackered. If we had a proper striker playing alongside Martins it wouldn't be such a big deal if Martins was injured, we'd struggle but we wouldn't be knackered. Martins being injured being a big deal is because Dyer is a "makeshift" striker, meaning he wouldn't be able to do the business without Martins who is a real striker. Whether or not Dyer is the best option we have right now I don't think is up for debate, that's a no-brainer and I agree with you, but that doesn't make Dyer the ideal answer. The ideal answer is a proper striker. We should have signed one.

 

[Yorkie]

Agree with you.

 

I didn't disagree initially. Like i've said, about three times now, i misworded the first part of my very first post. Also saying that i'm not happy that we didn't get a striker, but seeing Martins---Dyer up there is one reason for why i am. Also, i didn't respond aggressively. I did to the Parker/Butt thing, as that was pure drivel, but that's a different matter. I said you nit-picked, something i still stand by, but by no means did i respond aggressively. My post read something like: "it's unfortunate that you've done that..." Sorry if you find that aggressive.

 

Aye, the Parker/Butt thing was replied to 'aggressively' (i used a swear word, i think?) but that's irrelevant - that's a totally different matter.

 

I'd just like to end this with you now, mate - it's pointless going on. I think this occured two days ago now and it's a nothing argument.

 

To sum up:

 

1. I thought you nit-picked, something i still think you did. I didn't blow up about it i was just disappointed.

 

2. I did not respond aggressively, i merely said that it was a shame that you did it.

 

3. Similar to point 2, there was no 'spitting my dummy out' in the slightest. Not in any way whatsoever. As said previously, i mentioned that it was 'unfortunate' considering that the opening line was relatively irrelevant and the post itself was a detaield contribution to the topic.

 

4. Amending my very first line once again: I am not especially happy that we didn't bring in a striker. However, if there were to be a reason for why i may be glad, it is so that Martins and Dyer can continue to play together, as i feel that it is a productive partnership. Therefore, i agree with you and you agree with me - rendering the whole argument relatively pointless. The argument could have been halted, but you seemingly failed to grasp what i really meant.

 

5. On a slightly different note, the Parker/Butt comments i still render as trash. To say that either of them is 'inept' is dross as far as i am concerned. They're both key members of the first team squad. Admittedly, i did reply aggressively to that, but not aggressively to the inital piece of the argument (the one straight after my long post).

 

I hope that this clears it up mate, i think i've explained just about everything there. It's such a daft argument, i'm ashamed that i've made it last this long. Please can we just forget it, and be friends?

[Howaythelads]

Agree with you.

 

I didn't disagree initially. Like i've said, about three times now, i misworded the first part of my very first post. Also saying that i'm not happy that we didn't get a striker, but seeing Martins---Dyer up there is one reason for why i am. Also, i didn't respond aggressively. I did to the Parker/Butt thing, as that was pure drivel, but that's a different matter. I said you nit-picked, something i still stand by, but by no means did i respond aggressively. My post read something like: "it's unfortunate that you've done that..." Sorry if you find that aggressive.

 

Aye, the Parker/Butt thing was replied to 'aggressively' (i used a swear word, i think?) but that's irrelevant - that's a totally different matter.

 

I'd just like to end this with you now, mate - it's pointless going on. I think this occured two days ago now and it's a nothing argument.

 

To sum up:

 

1. I thought you nit-picked, something i still think you did. I didn't blow up about it i was just disappointed.

 

2. I did not respond aggressively, i merely said that it was a shame that you did it.

 

3. Similar to point 2, there was no 'spitting my dummy out' in the slightest. Not in any way whatsoever. As said previously, i mentioned that it was 'unfortunate' considering that the opening line was relatively irrelevant and the post itself was a detaield contribution to the topic.

 

4. Amending my very first line once again: I am not especially happy that we didn't bring in a striker. However, if there were to be a reason for why i may be glad, it is so that Martins and Dyer can continue to play together, as i feel that it is a productive partnership. Therefore, i agree with you and you agree with me - rendering the whole argument relatively pointless. The argument could have been halted, but you seemingly failed to grasp what i really meant.

 

5. On a slightly different note, the Parker/Butt comments i still render as trash. To say that either of them is 'inept' is dross as far as i am concerned. They're both key members of the first team squad. Admittedly, i did reply aggressively to that, but not aggressively to the inital piece of the argument (the one straight after my long post).

 

I hope that this clears it up mate, i think i've explained just about everything there. It's such a daft argument, i'm ashamed that i've made it last this long. Please can we just forget it, and be friends?

 

You rate Parker, I think he's average at best. To me, in the PL a player who is average is actually inept for the level I want the club to be at, ie top 6. That you disagree doesn't make the point garbage, it just means you disagree.

 

[LooneyToonArmy]

is Martins in the starting XI?? no mention on bbc's site bar british related games

[Northern Monkey]

Martins and Dyer will not be a productive partnership for long, because Dyer cannot perform the role of striker properly. imho.

[tmonkey]

Martins and Dyer will not be a productive partnership for long, because Dyer cannot perform the role of striker properly. imho.

 

Hes a key player for us, make no mistake about it. The impact he makes in the team is unquestionable, and I think its a case of something weve all experienced when playing football at some point - when someone who is a significantly better footballer comes onto the pitch, everyone passes to him and has trust in his abilities, and it changes the way the team plays. The same happens with Emre and to a lesser extent, Nobby (because he doesnt play centrally).

 

All three players change the way the team plays to a degree, and when we have as many poor or inconsistent footballers as we do, its vital we have them in the team. Even though they lack end product compared to top class players (bar Nobby), its when theyre not in the team or have just returned that we see what a difference they can make. Once were used to that impact they make, of course the complaints naturally follow.

 

However, as you say, Dyer isnt doing too well up front. As a forward, hes good on the break and the odd linkup between midfield and attack, but essentially he spends too much of the time in the wrong areas of the pitch for that type of forward. Compare his positional play to someone like Gudjohnsen, who plays a similar role when in his natural position, theres a big gulf in the threat and linkup play between both players, and in both cases its in favour of Gudjohnsen. I think Dyer hasnt got the discipline or the know-how to play this role permanently (yet), spending too much of the game getting bogged down in central midfield trying to start things off.

 

Much of the time Martins is isolated because Dyer is back 30 yards linking up with midfield players. Maybe thats because with a midfield of Parker/Butt, hes forced to do so in order to inject some creativity, but essentially if hes going to become a forward, he needs to play further up the pitch and concentrate on doing his job, rather than trying to do someone else's. When he has been close to Martins, theyve both linked up extremely well, but thats been far too infrequent.

 

Dont think he should lose his striking place to anyone in the current squad except Owen though.

[Yorkie]

Martins and Dyer will not be a productive partnership for long, because Dyer cannot perform the role of striker properly. imho.

 

Well i'm happy enough so far.

 

I'd be willing to bet with you that the Martins-Dyer partnership will continue to be a decent one, at the very least, until the end of the season.

[ChezGiven]

Cant be arsed to read through most of this thread (so apols if already said) but Henry Winter included Martins in his list of players of the season so far in the Telegraph today. There were at least 10 to 15 players in the list, including players like Pederson but still nice to see.

[Guest teepee]

according to danish media martins was expected to show for the international last night - but didn't

 

he is being reported to fifa, and could be banned from playing for us..... bollocks

 

http://www.bolddk.com/nyt/?vis=65279

[Guest elbee909]

Saw this on nufc.com too:

 

Nigeria coach Augustine Eguavoen has slammed Obafemi Martins  for going AWOL for Tuesday's friendly against Ghana. He said he would report the Newcastle striker to FIFA, with strict new rules meaning he could risk a ban from club matches.

 

Eguavoen says Martins failed to join up with the squad for the game at Brentford's Griffin Park, and even suggested that the 22-year-old had left the country.

 

"He was invited but to my great surprise he is not here. He's nowhere to be found - he's not even in England," said Eguavoen.

 

"I will go to FIFA as it's the highest authority in football and this is the highest level of disrespect."

 

If Martins is found to have snubbed his country, he could face a domestic suspension.

 

Earlier this season, FIFA threatened to ban Chelsea's Claude Makelele for two matches for every France game he missed.

 

The midfielder had attempted to retire from international football but found himself called up by France anyway, a situation that led Jose Mourinho to describe Makelele as being treated like "a slave".