Guest thompers Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I hate the b*llock of a theory that, "he mustn't be pulling his weight in training so he doesn't deserve to play". So f*ck. It's pretty obvious Ameobi & Chopra must look like Eto'o & Shevchenko in training but they're average. Luque has that bit of class, and even when he hasn't performed well, he's still looked a better bet than those two. blueyes.gif blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I hate the b*llock of a theory that, "he mustn't be pulling his weight in training so he doesn't deserve to play". So f*ck. It's pretty obvious Ameobi & Chopra must look like Eto'o & Shevchenko in training but they're average. Luque has that bit of class, and even when he hasn't performed well, he's still looked a better bet than those two. blueyes.gif blueyes.gif blueyes.gif blueyes.gif blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Verlaine Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 The fact is, no one really knows why he wasn't used, so pretty much all theories are bollocks. Except mine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ridzuan Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Photo i took from last nights warm up http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4176/warmup4sq.jpg Nice photo there.He looks like he saw an alien or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Average ability + application and desire to play for the club = earned consideration for selection on matchday. Supposed greater ability - application and desire to play for the club = hasn't earned consideration for selection on matchday. What a surprise that the usual suspects don't understand that ability means nothing when there is no desire to play for the club. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Photo i took from last nights warm up http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4176/warmup4sq.jpg Nice photo there.He looks like he saw an alien or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ember Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 He is probably thinking "Are they taking a picture of me? Hooray! I do have fans" The fact is, no one really knows why he wasn't used, so pretty much all theories are bollocks. Except mine. I agree with your theory actually, I can't find any other decent reason at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Photo i took from last nights warm up http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4176/warmup4sq.jpg Nice photo there.He looks like he saw an alien or something. He'd just spotted a 7 foot tall teddy bear taking a photo of him, how do you expect him to look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Average ability + application and desire to play for the club = earned consideration for selection on matchday. Supposed greater ability - application and desire to play for the club = hasn't earned consideration for selection on matchday. What a surprise that the usual suspects don't understand that ability means nothing when there is no desire to play for the club. Cheers What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Oh and as to the thread, Luque played well, yes it was a testemonial, but I didn't see anyone else score a goal for Newcastle (other then the two fakish ones). He played some nice one two's and sprayed a few great crossfield passes and probably could have done better had we not had lots of old players around him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. P/S: I think Verlaine's theory has some merit too but I'm sure you're just going to dismiss it as crap, so why bother asking when you're not willing to listen to answers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 He did canny in Big Al's testimonial I thought, looked sharp and while he was easily eased off the ball and looked clumsy at times, he showed his class with the goal, his movement in the build-up to Pattison's chance and one or two cracking 40-50-yard balls on the diagonal as well as some nifty footwork once or twice to get away from hooped shirts. Still seems way short of the pace and not too sure of himself mind, but that goal, he did that week in week out for Deportivo and he showed his class in the testimonial for me, even if it wasn't in a competitive game. The key now is to get him to play and perfom regularly. He needs to do more of course but first he needs a chance and I'd like to see all players be given a clean slate under Roader for next term as lets face it, the season just gone has been a weird one and for every "he's shit" argument there is always a "he hasn't had the chance" rebutal. Here is a novel idea... lets keep him, throw him into the lions den and see what he's really made of and if at the end of a succession of games, having played in his natural position whatever that is, and he still doesn't look the part, then peddle him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - and he did so very well. In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. That was clearly his choice, and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, as well as aibility. Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - and he did so very well. In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. That was clearly his choice, and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, as well as aibility. Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear..... We can support Roeder without necessarily thinking that all his decisions were correct. I think his refusal to give Luque a chance is wrong and his decision not to put Luque on the bench aginst Brums when we absolutely needed to win was horrible and Souness like . The only part I agree with your post is the Bellamy bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What a suprise that the same people are coming up with the same shit about desire when they have absolutely no idea what desire Luque shows behind the scene's. Apparently Roeder is a lier in your opinion when he says that Luque puts in extra work in training when the rest of the team are having days off. Given what we've seen of him on the field of play it's a credible idea that he shows a lack of application behind the scenes. Since you and others dismiss the idea so easily I'll ask the question again that I've asked before. Why do you believe Roeder is not selecting Luque if he as good as you and others claim he is? Cheers We've been through this havent we HTL? When u asked the last time I said it could be because Roeder wanted to save him for next season and give him a full preseason to adapt to the EPL. I also said that, that theory was more supportive of our own player instead of assuming the worst "he must be crap in training" theory that you come out with, despite Roeder himself saying numerous times that Luque has trained well. Your response if I remember correctly was that you dont give a crap what my theory was or whether it was more supportive, and here you are again asking the same question and pretending like nobody has answered you. Not sure why I bother replying to your posts, tbh, so this is the last time. Your deliberate misrepresentation by ignoring the context of my reply to your earlier post on this does you no favours. The link to it is below to refresh your memory. The reason I said I don't care whether your idea is *better* ( note the word 'better', not 'crap' ) is because I'm more interested in how players perform for the team than whether an idea is better or not. Think about it. http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,19142.msg356448.html#msg356448 It still makes no sense to save a fit, so-called 'top' player for next season when the alternatives are proven to be average players at best. Big deal so you didnt use the word crap, I'm eternally grateful :roll: The point is you asked for other reasons on why Roeder could be leaving Luque out, I and a few others gave you plausible reasons and now here you are asking again as if no answers were given to your super question. Whats more you have not explained how your theory that he sucks in training can be reconciled with Roeder's many interviews that he has done well. Instead you just paddle the idea incessantly to justify your position on Luque. Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - and he did so very well. In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. That was clearly his choice, and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, as well as aibility. Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear..... We can support Roeder without necessarily thinking that all his decisions were correct. I think his refusal to give Luque a chance is wrong and his decision not to put Luque on the bench aginst Brums when we absolutely needed to win was horrible and Souness like . The only part I agree with your post is the Bellamy bit. Based on his play for us previously, why should Luque be given a game?? BASED ON HIS PLAY FOR US, not your perceptions of his abiloity based on Depor or his famous showreel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Let's break that post down by NM. 1 Roeder was tasked with fixing the massive mistakes of Souness - 2 who certain people on this Board wanted to stay!!! - 3 and he did so very well. 4 In doing so, he largely overlooked Luque. 5 That was clearly his choice, 6and bearing in mind what he achieved, we have to support him in that. 7 We don't know why Luque isn't getting played. None of us do. 8 But based on what we've seen on the pitch, he's not particularly been worth playing any further. 9 He hasn't been a good buy, tough shit. 10 Lets move on and get someone on with the DESIRE to play, 11 as well as aibility. 12 Someone like BEllamy......oh, dear..... I agree with all 12 points there, can't believe someone agrees ONLY with point #12. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Based on his play for us previously, why should Luque be given a game?? Question is unanswerable as it presumes the amount of time he's played for us and the circumstances under which he's played have been enough to warrant such a decision. To give an answer would be to accept that presumption. I refuse. You may as well demand "Based on the vowels in his name, why shouldn't Luque be given a game?? BASED ON THE VOWELS, not your perception of vowels or letters like `y` that are sometimes vowels and sometimes not. " Equally unanswerable because the qualifications posed are unreasonable. If, 10 games in to next season a fit Luque hasn't bagged any I'll gladly say that he doesn't deserve a game based on previous play. But until then I reserve judgement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Based on his play for us previously, why should Luque be given a game?? Question is unanswerable as it presumes the amount of time he's played for us and the circumstances under which he's played have been enough to warrant such a decision. To give an answer would be to accept that presumption. I refuse. You may as well demand "Based on the vowels in his name, why shouldn't Luque be given a game?? BASED ON THE VOWELS, not your perception of vowels or letters like `y` that are sometimes vowels and sometimes not. " Equally unanswerable because the qualifications posed are unreasonable. If, 10 games in to next season a fit Luque hasn't bagged any I'll gladly say that he doesn't deserve a game based on previous play. But until then I reserve judgement. And if he remains shit/uninterested, you will just say "oh, he's not fit". Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us, he has earned FUCK ALL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us Neither have you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 To be fair mate not alot of foreign players come over and set the pitch alight in a hand full of games after a injury, and being slated in the press,.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved fuck all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved fuck all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ I've seen him play every time he has as well. Since Glenn Roeder took over, that's 90 minutes total, made up of substitute appearances - often at the back end of games which are either already lost or we've been hanging on and not attacking. I refuse to judge a player on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Watching him play, which i'm guessing you haven't done much of for us Neither have you. I've seen him play every time he has, and from what i've seen, he's deserved **** all. Still, maybe we SHOULD play him all the time. After all, he was great fro Depor........ I've seen him play every time he has as well. Since Glenn Roeder took over, that's 90 minutes total, made up of substitute appearances - often at the back end of games which are either already lost or we've been hanging on and not attacking. I refuse to judge a player on that. We didn't lose that many under Roeder? I refuse to accept that he deserves to be starting based on his (admittedly limited) performances. If he can't show some individual talent in the time he's had, he's not worth it. I personally want rid. I realise that i am Officially Wrong about that, and that he should be given 400 consecutive games, and NEVER judged until he's good, but fuck it, thats how i feel. I feel angery when a supposedly great player turns out to be a waster, but shit happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now