Renton

On that basis Bobby would have been sacked early in 3 of the next 4 seasons. In the league in 99/00 and 00/01 we were dross - just as bad if not worse than last/this year. I also don't agree that the squad he took over was as bad as is being implied. (I agree on the cup) 73842[/snapback] I think our two foreign correspondents (Bombadil and Isegrim) are spot on on this one, I think that you too NJS also know the difference. Also, nobody has even talked about the relative managerial CVs of Robson and Souness - they don't really compare. Personally, I am willing to give a manager more time if he has had previous success. And Robson to me had proven he was world class.

Going by that reckoning Ferguson would have been sacked by Man Utd early in his career, Morinho just likes to heap pressure on his rivals in my opinion. If he doesn't win the Champions League with Chelsea this season or next (which I'm sure is what Abramovich wants) then no doubt he'll be saying he wants time. Regarding Souness, I'm not saying give him more time as he was never the right man for the job, rather that he hasn't had time in my view. 73791[/snapback] the best 2 managers at Newcastle in recent times, Keegan and Robson. From the start, they brought an obvious improvement and came across as knowing what they were doing 73808[/snapback] So I imagined 18 months of utter shite (disguised by a cup run) under Bobby? There was no further sign of any improvement until Bellamy/Robert signed (see I can give praise to those two when rightful) 73822[/snapback] Quite correct tbh. 73827[/snapback] Aye, sure it is. We had 1 point from 7 under Gullit, and we were about to lose arguably our greatest player ever and our best midfielder of recent times, and were in real danger of relegation. The improvement in form was immediate and amazing imo, and we were very unlucky not to win the cup that year, as anyone who was at Wembley will know (with Villa waiting for us in the final). You seriously want to compare that situation with Souness's do you?

So what's your stance now Gemmill, out of interest? Are you finally going to admit you were wrong in your assertion that Souness should be given a minimum of 2 years to prove himself, regardless of results and performances on the field, and his PR off it? Can we finally expect an "I was wrong" Gemmill exclusive? 73771[/snapback] Nope. I think that's about how long a manager needs tbh. I've decided a bit early though that I've seen enough and that he clearly doesn't have what it takes. Just not as early as the day he arrived at the club, which was as much time as you were prepared to afford him. 73782[/snapback] If Shepherd appoints Peter Reid, how much time would you afford him? 73790[/snapback] The man who engineered Sunderland's demise? Job for life tbh. 73793[/snapback] You know what I'm getting at, being facetious changes nothing. For the record Gemmill, I would have given Souness time despite his appalling pedigree, but practically from day one the man showed what an idiot he is. You just can't accept that I was right about him and you were wrong. 73805[/snapback] Being facetious as in asking silly questions about Peter Reid you mean? I said that once the bloke is appointed he needs time to prove himself. You called for his head from the minute he was appointed, and before he'd even been in charge of a game. Sorry, but I think I'm sounding like the more level-headed one here tbh. I dread to think what will happen if we appoint another manager you don't like the look of. Ok, he's proven that he isn't good enough (using the time that I said he deserved - that's all I said btw, no matter how much you want to make out that I painted him as our messiah). That doesn't make you right and me wrong. 73820[/snapback] Actually, I never "called for his head" straight away as you put it, I think I was probably in favour of him being sacked after Christmas, during the Bellamy fiasco, which imo showed his complete lack of man-management skills to go along with his belief that tactics don't matter etc, etc, etc..... The point is I predicted what a disaster he would be, and you didn't. Whilst you never said he would be the next messiah, I do recall you saying he would be good for us - which has patently been proven wrong. Look, believe it or not, I'm not interested in petty points scoring now; I just think it would be nice if for once out of your 10000 odd posts on this and other similar message boards you could hold up your hands and say you were wrong about Souness, that's all. And for the record, if we do appoint someone I don't approve of, I'll stick my head out and say it. There's a big difference between that and calling for his head before he's played a game though.

So what's your stance now Gemmill, out of interest? Are you finally going to admit you were wrong in your assertion that Souness should be given a minimum of 2 years to prove himself, regardless of results and performances on the field, and his PR off it? Can we finally expect an "I was wrong" Gemmill exclusive? 73771[/snapback] Nope. I think that's about how long a manager needs tbh. I've decided a bit early though that I've seen enough and that he clearly doesn't have what it takes. Just not as early as the day he arrived at the club, which was as much time as you were prepared to afford him. 73782[/snapback] If Shepherd appoints Peter Reid, how much time would you afford him? 73790[/snapback] The man who engineered Sunderland's demise? Job for life tbh. 73793[/snapback] You know what I'm getting at, being facetious changes nothing. For the record Gemmill, I would have given Souness time despite his appalling pedigree, but practically from day one the man showed what an idiot he is. You just can't accept that I was right about him and you were wrong.

Going by that reckoning Ferguson would have been sacked by Man Utd early in his career, Morinho just likes to heap pressure on his rivals in my opinion. If he doesn't win the Champions League with Chelsea this season or next (which I'm sure is what Abramovich wants) then no doubt he'll be saying he wants time. Regarding Souness, I'm not saying give him more time as he was never the right man for the job, rather that he hasn't had time in my view. 73791[/snapback] Didn't ManU come 2nd in the league in the first year Ferguson was in charge, a massive improvement? I don't think anyone is saying you have to win things straight away, but you should reasonably expect the club doesn't go into a nosedive, especially when you are given £50M to spend.....

So what's your stance now Gemmill, out of interest? Are you finally going to admit you were wrong in your assertion that Souness should be given a minimum of 2 years to prove himself, regardless of results and performances on the field, and his PR off it? Can we finally expect an "I was wrong" Gemmill exclusive? 73771[/snapback] Nope. I think that's about how long a manager needs tbh. I've decided a bit early though that I've seen enough and that he clearly doesn't have what it takes. Just not as early as the day he arrived at the club, which was as much time as you were prepared to afford him. 73782[/snapback] If Shepherd appoints Peter Reid, how much time would you afford him?

Exactly. We should be looking for the best candidate regardless of nationality. We got Souness in the first place because we were only going to appoint someone British. 73772[/snapback] Agree that nationality should be irrelevant, however, I'm somewhat less convinced that Shepherd insists the manager has to be British anyway. This seems to be based largely around his idiotic "geordie" comments - however, SHepherd is always spouting shit I suspect he doesn't necessarily really agree with. 73774[/snapback] What non-British managers were approached/considered last time then? 73777[/snapback] Who knows, does anyone really know what happened? And even if there were no European managers approached, does it prove anything? Were any top class European managers available then (I can't remember tbh). Maybe even Shepherd will learn from his mistakes, I really hope he does this time - surely it is his last chance to get it right.

Exactly. We should be looking for the best candidate regardless of nationality. We got Souness in the first place because we were only going to appoint someone British. 73772[/snapback] Agree that nationality should be irrelevant, however, I'm somewhat less convinced that Shepherd insists the manager has to be British anyway. This seems to be based largely around his idiotic "geordie" comments - however, SHepherd is always spouting shit I suspect he doesn't necessarily really agree with.

So what's your stance now Gemmill, out of interest? Are you finally going to admit you were wrong in your assertion that Souness should be given a minimum of 2 years to prove himself, regardless of results and performances on the field, and his PR off it? Can we finally expect an "I was wrong" Gemmill exclusive?

By the same reckoning, you'd have to blame Shearer then 73540[/snapback] Not really, Shearer's goal rate proved his use, plus we changed managers at the same time. I realise I am a voice in the wilderness here but I really hated that Yorkshire twat! Most others blame Asprilla of course. 73546[/snapback] Keegan doesn't - he blames neither. KK choses to put the blame on some of the players who had been there since the start of the 95-96 season and suggested their performances had gone into decline. Both Asprilla and Batty took the flak because they joined at a time when Manchester United became awesome. Remember we didn't drop many points on that run in, they just managed to drop less. David Batty is one of the best defensive midfielders to ever grace the black and white shirt in recent years - FACT. People criticised Keegan for being too attacking, he brings in Batty and gets criticised again! 73672[/snapback] Also just thought I'd point out that I never criticized KK for being too attacking. Even at the time I could spell the media bullshit anyway - we weren't particlarly bad defensively.

tbh, we lost that game because the world's greatest keeper at that time (Schmeichel) had by his own admission the best game of his life. Add to that a moment of genius from Cantona which got their goal and the result is a 1-0 win to Man Utd. How the fuck can you blame the result of that game on David Batty? Talk about finding a scape-goat.... 73675[/snapback] Read the first line of what I said Craig. I'm not blaming Batty per se (or at all for that particular match), but neither do I agree with Isegrim's earlier assertion that we were a much better team with Batty. For an explanation of why, I think LeazesMag explains it pretty well in this thread; I also think he is right that Asprilla should only have been used as a supersub, if at all. I wish we could have cloned Rob Lee personally.....

Yet he is being criticized for his mercenary attitude in this very thread.....

By the same reckoning, you'd have to blame Shearer then 73540[/snapback] Not really, Shearer's goal rate proved his use, plus we changed managers at the same time. I realise I am a voice in the wilderness here but I really hated that Yorkshire twat! Most others blame Asprilla of course. 73546[/snapback] So what about Clark, who played in that position and rarely scored, plus the aforementioned freescoring, able to put the ball on a sixpence from 60 yards Barry Venison then? 73555[/snapback] What about them Alex? Fundamentally we were a better team with Clark in it imo, with Vension you are going too far back in history. It's probably just chance, but iirc Batty's fist game for us was the one that lost us the title in 1996 (1-0 defeat at home by ManU). But since then, we really went downhill, trying to defend when we should have just kept on doing what we did best - attacking. Keegan bottled it - the introduction of Batty showed this to me. And once Keegan had gone Batty became nothing more than a negative liability in the centre of the park, imo, of course.

By the same reckoning, you'd have to blame Shearer then 73540[/snapback] Not really, Shearer's goal rate proved his use, plus we changed managers at the same time. I realise I am a voice in the wilderness here but I really hated that Yorkshire twat! Most others blame Asprilla of course.

I can only assume that Shola is on the menu at your local Chinese and that's what you're referring to? 73515[/snapback] What do you reckon, with chips or mushroom pilau? 73524[/snapback] [pedant] Shouldn't that be egg-fried rice? [\pedant]

So basically, you wouldn't have Makele playing for us then because he wouldn't fit the above requirements? I disagree. 73534[/snapback] I don't watch Chelsea enough to make a judgement tbh. I would say though that they are superb with or without him.

Agree with a lot of what you said but the bit above is a pisstake surely. Even KK's teams had a holding midfielder. In addition to that I'd say almost all successful teams play with at least one midfielder like Parker. 73459[/snapback] Newcastle under KK without Batty would only been half the team they were tbh 73467[/snapback] You see, I completely disagree with that, for me the introduction of Batty was the beginning of the end for KK's Newcastle. As soon as we tried to defend, we lost our attacking impetus. As for Keane/Viera/Makalele, I personaly think they are all far superior to Parker, especially going forward (although obviously they play/ed for far better teams). Now don't get me wrong, I think Parker is a good player, it's just I don't think he is good enough for a truely top side (I would agree he is very necessary at the moment though, and is frequently, even usually, my MotM). But why did Chelsea let him go again? 73507[/snapback] Are you on drugs Renton, even the tactically inept Keegan realised he needed someone to protect a fragile back 4 and Batty was one of the best in the world at this. Parker is a player in a similar vein but can offer more going forward but at the moment hasn't been able to basically because he can't rely on the likes of Emre or Faye to sit and hold that position, perhaps if Clark and Parker were in the middle together he would be more likely to get forward, and on Clark's performance against Boro he'd be my first name on the team sheet for the next game. 73531[/snapback] Well if anyone can produce the NUFC stats for the year before we signed Batty and the year following his signing I'd be greatly interested. By attacking you can take the pressure off your defence, but Batty could only kick sideways and we went downhill iirc. And just to make it perfectly clear, I have already said I think Parker is Souness's best signing - however, people are taking my comment out of context, which was basically as a whole Souness's signings are not good.

Agree with a lot of what you said but the bit above is a pisstake surely. Even KK's teams had a holding midfielder. In addition to that I'd say almost all successful teams play with at least one midfielder like Parker. 73459[/snapback] Newcastle under KK without Batty would only been half the team they were tbh 73467[/snapback] You see, I completely disagree with that, for me the introduction of Batty was the beginning of the end for KK's Newcastle. As soon as we tried to defend, we lost our attacking impetus. As for Keane/Viera/Makalele, I personaly think they are all far superior to Parker, especially going forward (although obviously they play/ed for far better teams). Now don't get me wrong, I think Parker is a good player, it's just I don't think he is good enough for a truely top side (I would agree he is very necessary at the moment though, and is frequently, even usually, my MotM). But why did Chelsea let him go again? 73507[/snapback] Clark played in the holding role that season before Batty. He may have been slightly different in terms of his qualities but he played in the same position in that season. Also, you said you'd rather we didn't need this type of player re: Parker, not that you'd rather have a player like Parker only better. So which is it? 73521[/snapback] I'd prefer all our midfielders to attack a bit more, not just fulfill the "holding role". I'm not asking for total football or anything, but I'd like him to get forward more and score at least half a dozen a season. I also refer you to my post above.

That's what I thought, but joking aside we really need him at the moment, as there's no-one else. He is still a better player than Chopra.

You may have a point, but I can only judge him by what I've seen. I am aware he played a more attacking game for Charlton, but his return was pretty low for a midfilder even then. Besides, I was trying to make a cheap shot at all Souness's signings - sometimes it's easier to put a bit of spin on it to make the point. He is Souness's best signing imo and a future captain, and he cannot be faulted for comittment to the cause, unlike most of our team.

Agree with a lot of what you said but the bit above is a pisstake surely. Even KK's teams had a holding midfielder. In addition to that I'd say almost all successful teams play with at least one midfielder like Parker. 73459[/snapback] Newcastle under KK without Batty would only been half the team they were tbh 73467[/snapback] You see, I completely disagree with that, for me the introduction of Batty was the beginning of the end for KK's Newcastle. As soon as we tried to defend, we lost our attacking impetus. As for Keane/Viera/Makalele, I personaly think they are all far superior to Parker, especially going forward (although obviously they play/ed for far better teams). Now don't get me wrong, I think Parker is a good player, it's just I don't think he is good enough for a truely top side (I would agree he is very necessary at the moment though, and is frequently, even usually, my MotM). But why did Chelsea let him go again?

Isn't Ramage several years older than Taylor though?

Don't worry Gwaemme, I still love you.

At the moment he reeks to me of being a panic-buy-Spanish-flop. However, I agree he needs more time to prove himself. But personally, I wish we'd never made this gamble. Also, how many Spanish La Liga players have adapted to the EPL, especially northern teams? A lot of people who have supported Souness have defended him on the basis of his signings, but I am getting less convinced by the day. Faye = one of the worst players for us in recent history. Bousong = the most over-priced defender ever, not fit for the EPL. Owen = too injury prone for the money we spent, he'll be gone in June for less the £10 M. Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player. Emre = great ability, but doesn't score enough, is injury prone, plus lacks commitment. Luque = probable Spanish flop. Babyaro = poorer than avaerage LB with no heart, paid a fortune. All in all, a pretty poor return on £50 M really. Especially whe the likes of Bellamy were let go for peanuts. So even in the transfer market, I'd say Souness is proving to be shit.

Not at all; I'm just a bit tetchy about Gemmill taking the piss because I booed the team AFTER the match for the first time ever, which was the result of serious provocation imo. 73374[/snapback] You feel ashamed of what you did. That's why you're tetchy. 73392[/snapback] Do I fuck. 73395[/snapback] You'll feel better if you share your shame with the group. Let it out. 73397[/snapback] Booing is canny gay like 73404[/snapback] Not as gay as Gemmill rimming Souness like. Anyway, it was more of a "fuck off Souness you useless tosser" comment than a boo, which probably surprised my neighbours coming from me as it was out of character (at the match I mean, not on here obviously). Agree about Oliver being more Shepherd's mouthpiece, the end is nigh for Souness alright. If he had any decency he'd resign, but he probably now wants to get sacked to get his pay off.