Those saying we need strikers rather than defenders...

[Guest]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

[Dave]

The truth is we need a lot of things. The only disagreement is which area is the priority. I'd like to see us spend some time and money genuinely trying to build from the back for a change. The state of our defence (though often unfairly maligned) has been a running joke for too long.

[Skirge]

Our attack is fine really, surely the most important roles to fill first are fullbacks, both left and right sides.

 

If anything the only attacker we should be looking for  is in midfield, a creative midfielder is what we need after we sort out the back four.

[Guest Der Kaiser]

Easy to blame the defence though. Yes we need defenders but we also need strikers and a decent manager. Far too much faith is being placed in Martins, Sib is crap and what will Owen be like when back?

 

Next season with Martins, Owen, Shola and Sib could be a total nightmare.

 

Will Martins and Owen play well together? Not too sure, even if they do will the clueless midfiled be able to get the ball to them?

[Skirge]

Pointless scoring goals if we are going to concede more than we score!

[Guest]

Well ok, change the word "Those" to "NE5" in my title.

[Skirge]

Well ok, change the word "Those" to "NE5" in my title.

lol

 

I suppose in a way its costing us alover the pitch having a poor back four, players like Psrker, Emre and Butt will all fear getting to far forward as they know how weak our defence is. Its got to be easier to get forward if you have faith in the players behind you.

[Rebellious]

There are nine clubs that have conceeded less than us. 4 of them in the top 4. Clubs above us have conceeded far more goals. 3 clubs below us have conceeded less. Go figure.

[Dave]

It's not just the quantity of goals conceded though, it's their manner and timing that fucks many people off.

[Rebellious]

It's not just the quantity of goals conceded though, it's their manner and timing that fucks many people off.

 

Maybe thats just football. Otherwise there would be more than 10 entries in goal of the month.

[Kasper]

It's not just the quantity of goals conceded though, it's their manner and timing that fucks many people off.

 

Maybe thats just football. Otherwise there would be more than 10 entries in goal of the month.

 

 

What next!?! "Maybe Bramble is just a footballer" 

[Cajun]

Quality full backs would help attack and defence, at the moment our whole left side is weak. 

[Elliottman]

any team that wants to challenge for anything should build from the back. No question about it, no hums no hars, you want sucess, build from the back. We have NEVER done that, thats why we are shit.

[Cajun]

People always go on about how if we lost Owen and Martins we would be in the shit (which is true and fair enough) but we don't need to lose anyone at the back to be in the shit, we are already there!

[NUFC06]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

The people who are saying that we need strikers rather than defenders because we dont keep enough possession just dont understand anything about football

Against AZ in the 1st game if we had solid defence the game should probably have finished 3:0 or 4:1

In the 2nd leg if we had solid defence to keep 0:0 for at least the second half the pace of Martins and Dyer should have destroyed them on the counter

 

For example against Liverpool Barcelona had 60% possession in the both legs but didnt manage to do anything with it

 

Sir Alex Ferguson said it long time ago:Quality defenders wins you things

[Bad Mongo]

Looking at the possession stats only is a bit simplistic. We don't defend well against teams that sit back and counter-attack quickly. Neither against teams that put a lot of pressure on our midfield, or teams that play good passing, possession football. Or teams that just kick and run and hope to fluke a goal from a mistake in our midfield or defence. Or teams that are a lot worse than us and make our players over-confident and lazy. So possession doesn't tell the full story. The full story is that we're shit.

[chicago_shearer]

With Bramble's contract up this summer and the low numbers to begin with we have the perfect excuse to try and rebuild the defence.  It has needed doing for years.

[buzza]

For me, the reason we don't get too many goals and didn't create the other eveening is that we have nicky butt and scott parker as our midfield partnership. Given that 75% of the ball goes through this area we can assume that our creativity and chances to possession ratio is at an almighty low!!! Why the hell hasn't he put emre back in the middle with nicky butt instead of fannying around and changing him for duff?? Why the fuck wasn't charlie zog brought on much earlier instead of duff??? Why wasn't dyer moved upfront when sibbers could hardly move any more and milner put out on the wing...

Sorry, forgot that we're only allowed three changes and only 5 minutes before full time.........aaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggggggghhh

[NE5]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

[Greg]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

We certainly need an attacking midfielder who can create and score goals.

 

0 goals in our last 3 league games is not good enough.

[NUFC06]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

[Guest nyscooby]

What we need is coaching staff and a manager who know what they are doing and can get the best out of the players.

 

Our staff are awfull.

 

 

[NE5]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

[Baggio]

We need a LB, CB, RB, attacking midfielder and a striker.

 

We can review our possible need for a striker when Owen and Ameobi are fit as we can't sign anyone until then anyway.

[Yorkie]

I've been saying all along that i don't think we need to go blowing our budget, or a significant amount of it, on another striker. Something we're so typical at doing.

 

Next season we will have:

 

Obafemi Martins - who will no doubt be even better that this season, providing of course no case of second season syndrome. It all depends on whether he gels with Owen, which he should do.

 

Michael Owen - who was a world class striker before his major injuries. Those who are worried about his performances when he comes back, just look at Shearer, who like Owen, was a model professional. He had major injuries and came back still a very good striker. I'm not concerned about Owen, although it will take a couple of months, methinks.

 

Kieron Dyer - adapted to a dangerous yet not spectacular forward as far as i am concerned.

 

Then Shola Ameobi and Antoine Sibierski. One of which is decent enough, the other to make up the numbers.

 

To go spending £7/8/9/10m on another striker is just senseless in my opinion - there's just no need for it. There's no problem with our strikers. The midfield, with perhaps one quality addition (i'm thining Steve Sidwell), should be a lot better next season - with both N'Zogbia and Milner developing (providing they play ), and with a bit of luck, Emre will stay.

 

Focus our budget on the defense. Get Viduka in on a free if we're getting another striker. Martins, Owen, Dyer, Viduka, Ameobi and Sibierski. Nothing wrong with that, imo.