manc-mag

no reply then ? A man of your calibre and schooling ? You quoted my response you daft clot. Still trawling for responses at 12.30 am a couple of days later. Oh dear.

Gemmill touting himself out as hired muscle these days now he's on the 'roids.

2 top four finishes (finalist or semi finalist) since we started competing in the WC is a pretty damning statistic like when you look at it another way (ie being 'there or thereabouts'/in a position to actually win a tournament). Germany have 12 top four finishes and 7 final appearances by contrast. Ie they're pretty much always there or thereabouts even if they're shit. Also you'd have liked to think we'd have managed a Euro Championships in our time, but not even so much as a final appearance. Puts things into perspective really when you strip the emotions away from it.

Teams like Spain come along once every 30 years. We're not technically good enough gauged against them yes. As Zathras book points out 6th or 7th best in the world is probably about our level looking at demographics, so why is it such a tragedy and such a failure? Tbh I think 1 World Cup success given our size is a respectable achievement. Obviously France and Spain hadn't won it at all til the last dozen years so we were doing 'better' than them historically. Now I spose we're at the bottom of the pile of the top European nations though. You're right about Spain being a once in a generation team but they still had to turn that into a winning team. Theres only two trophies to play for and they've won them both and done it in quick order. That French team did similar. Gifted teams are one thing but tournament mentality is another issue altogether and I dont think we can claim that as a strong suit unfortunately.

Wilshere looks like he could be the one. Although I totally agree with your point. Aye but shirley you need a team that can keep the ball?....one player who doesnt give it away on his own isn't going to make a lot of odds really. The top teams know when to take a rest in football....to just keep the ball and make sure nothing is happening on the pitch that requires any great effort. English players are still clueless about how to pace themselves in a game after 20 years of the champions league and being on more money than they know what to do with they still score a lot more goals in the first half of their games than the second. In the last big 5 tournaments (not including last year in SA) England scored 22 of their 35 goals in the first half of their games. In the games where they were eliminated from these tournaments, they scored 7 out of their 8 goals in the first half. That book is really good btw Some interesting stats there actually, sounds like it's well worth a read just for a sideways look at things. You're right like, it needs all your players comfortable in possession and that requires decent technique. Without doubt we have more emphasis on athleticism (pace/engine) than footballing ability. Theres dozens upon dozens of players in the Prem who could quite literally train without a ball as far as I'm concerned, they're athletes first and footballers second. Also theres just the general ignorance of our press (as we're so obsessed with the Prem product). Theres various times where they've quite literally claimed Rooney to be the best player in the world. Oh ok then. Gerrard and Lampard have variously been touted quite seriously as the best midfielders in the world. Oh ok then.

I was glad it happened in that game tbh as what must go down as one of the worst officiating blunders in WC history turned out to be completely inconsequential. We just looked like a bunch of dickheads the whole tournament. Hardly inconsequential as it could've completely changed the course of the game. Could have but then I s'pose anything's possible. We were horrific. The point is I'm glad it happened then rather than in a game where we actually deserved summat and ended up with nowt.

golden shower.

I was glad it happened in that game tbh as what must go down as one of the worst officiating blunders in WC history turned out to be completely inconsequential. We just looked like a bunch of dickheads the whole tournament.

I'm like a schoolboy wanting us to win going into a major tournament, and you always have to believe you've got a chance in any game, but when you look at it objectively theres no way our best 11 are better footballers than say 'the best' four or five countries in most World Cups. If those players dont happen to play in our Prem though our press will never have heard of them and call them all worse than shit.

PS as long as: "GET RID!!" remains the most common refrain on English football pitches, none of that will change.

'Losing' is another matter altogether. If the question is why do we lose, then given that we've won one World Cup that's probably a fair return given the size of our population for instance. Where it's hugely discrepant is where you've got Germany winning loads and loads more given a largely similar population. Same could be said of Italy but to a slightly lesser extent. Holland are (nearly) the absolute anomoly of World football with 3 World Cup final appearances in the modern game with a population of nowt. That pisses all over us tbf. Brazil are obviously the biggest 'winners', but then theyve got a population four or five times the size of us and the 'big' European teams. As to why we're shite at football though, (ie as footballers) I would say it's to do with the pace of the game and the lack of importance attached to technical ability. That and too much emphasis being placed on results at a young age and dads giving it the blowtorch on the touchline whenever anyone takes more than two touches.

Our game's all about pace. Sounds daft but it's typically a country where you have to keep running about to stay warm. You play at a slower speed in warmer countries and that's usually better for technique. There are exceptions (Holland) but there technique is massively trained into kids from a young age. And rightly so. Our top players are all athletes that can run about for 90 minutes. That's all well and good but it's nee use if you haven't got the ball to begin with-and when you're playing technically superior sides, they just wont give you the ball to begin with. There's a lot of hype surrounding the fact that because our league is the most entertaining to watch the English players playing for the top teams must be the best players in the world but it's a load of old crap at the end of the day. I'd take Ashley Cole and put him in any world 11. Apart from that nah.

Look at the interviews 20 years on. Fucking anti-freeze in some of those bloodstreams. Sinister shit.

Also, while the Umbro badge is missing, they used to peel off anyway. Well the old crest certainly did at any rate. Curled up so you had to pick bits off. These ones look like the badges are embroidered tbf. That was the shit thing with Umbro shirts - everything was replica except the patches. Oh aye and for years they never sold shirts with a sponsors logo did they? I think the first one I had that did was the barcode effort with the Greenalls logo. I had a very early 80s top that had the big Newcastle Brown Ale circle on the front as I remember. The Bukta one? Old skool. Chris Waddle acne faced pre-mullet kit.

nah.

you're making things up again, I've never said we would have access to money like Man City or Chelsea. Read the post. I'm saying what I've been saying for 4 years, and you've disagreed, but are now saying what I've been telling you, about the limited ambitions of the owner. What a clown. No thats just you being a sad case - what you're deliberately not saying there is limited ambitions 'relative' to the last regime, which is all you ever bang on about for reasons best known only to yourself. Everyone is ultra clear about MA-he won't spend his own cash to fund it. That's what you get in a tiz about. That's not reality though, thats just a bairn wanting more. I draw a different line (I think Chez does too for the most part, and I dispute what you say about me associating myself with his views where theres no nexus between them) For me, the justifiable greivance is where he's found to be fleecing NUFC if/when it 'breaks even'. Ie after it has proved itself and stood on its own two feet. That's not a relative/historical point either, it's an absolute one-a simple matter of fact. It would be wrong. The fact is though, even if we break even and MA doesnt take a penny out, we will still have less money than Man C, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal (at the very least) ergo we will lose players to those teams. Ergo you will still claim we're a selling club. Ergo that will be technically correct (in certain circumstances) but significantly you won't offer any explanation as to how you would finance the retention of the same players. You'll just bleat on about the last lot. So you see you've got nowt to say basically apart from shout slogans. Whether you're older than other posters or not, whether you've seen more Newcastle teams than other posters or not, you are no more than the TT equivalent of a misspelled bed sheet. Yours affectionately etc etc

If we can play our game (defend as a unit, press whenever not in possession), keep the scores at nil for half an hour, earn ourselves a bit of luck and then take our chances when we get them we can take something off these. They're not unbeatable and they'll have all had internationals where we've mainly had a rest. Players returning should give the extra impetus/5% that might just make the difference.

Leazes you daft clot. All I'm saying is it's just a basic statement of fact that if you spend the most money you have access to the best players. That's all you're saying in essence. Nice one, we know that, you can basically give up posting now. We don't have access to that sort of money though. That's sort of where we're in difficulty with your groundbreaking ideas. It would be unprecedented in the history of NUFC for anyone to bankroll us in the way you want. You can tell me how I'm wrong in that assertion if you like.

and he never let it hold him back tbf.

You want to get your fish monged somewhere else if your fishmonger is flogging you fish with eyebrows like.

None of it explains entirely why an area with 70% of the worlds population has literally produced no one. Alright they're too weak mentally and phsically and a load of them are ladyboys.

In his book he said he used to kick a stone about for years, and never kicked a ball till he was 12 years of age. He used his feet to blast away the shackles and the walls came tumbling down. Great line.

too late

And the dog is the blokes half time snack.