ChezGiven

It was me.

Lets gan for it. Good location too although being the landlord there would require some big muscle backing you up. Who's hard on here? Geordie Messiah is an obvious deterrent if he's willing to relocate from Edinburgh. Might put the paying punters off as well though. The perfect doorman, the only issue there would be health and safety. His sweat could make the floors slippy.

Lets gan for it. Good location too although being the landlord there would require some big muscle backing you up. Who's hard on here?

Me neither tbh.

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement? The battle of the uber-memories. FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like? I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him. You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else. Exactly, does this really need to be explained though? In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course. So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set. The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Basically it all boils down to resources and how a manager uses them. Imo Allerdyce has had less resources and used what he has better than Roeder. Given the same team of players, I think the Allerdyce team would easily out perform the same Roeder one. Futhermore, I reckon Allerdyce will buy better. As you say, it's all about opinions. We'll see soon enough if indeed Allerdyce comes though. I was being sympathetic to the Owen / Anelka assessment and overall points of the two teams. Overall Allardyce will be better i'm sure of that.

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement? The battle of the uber-memories. FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like? I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him. You can't simply blank out one player though. If Bolton haven't had Anelka they would have played someone else, if Newcastle haven't had Martins they would have played someone else, too. Who knows what those players instead would have achieved? In the case of Martins someone else might have performed better during the Spurs game? Maybe he had performed better in those other games Martins totally went missing and won us results then? IMHO the whole "without the goals from Anelka/Martins this or that would have happened" is far too simplistic and as much speculation as everything else. Exactly, does this really need to be explained though? In the sense that people's opinions can be clarified yes. In the sense that Isegrim doesnt specify how Carrol would have potentially scored or Luque would have come on and turned the game, then yes, that would need to be explained too. If either of you want to push the logic you would both need to explain how there was someone else in the squad who could have turned that game to address the question of how we would have secured the points without Martins. All opinion of course. So if it doesnt work like that, how do you price a player? How can you begin to evaluate the value of a player without a subjective judgement on how many goals they will score / keep out / set up and hence points on the board. Of course its not precise but those are the 'implicit' judgements being made when the market price is set. The notion of a counter-factual argument shouldnt be lost on you Rents.

So what did you mean when you hoped he got the England job "for Newcastle's sake" at the time we were looking for a Souness replacement? The battle of the uber-memories. FWIW am very sympathetic to what HF is trying to say. And for people who say 'football doesnt work like that' then i have to disagree too. Players change games, like Martins out of the blue equaliser at spurs. We only went on to get the three points because of that goal, so i reckon you can look at it like that. What other variables are there like? I do think Allardyce will be better but am not that excited about the next 2 seasons under him. If we get him.

Fuckin ell, Allardyce sounds like one of the twat-end HR managers we have here. SA "OK everyone, i want you all to break out into groups and go away and think about what 'our mission' is for next season. See if you can think of 3 things you want to acheive in life and 3 things you want to achieve with the club and we'll see if we can align these into a collective 'team vision'. Just a quick heads-up, tomorrow at the branding workshop we're doing the aspirational thinking class we discussed at lunch. Terry, do you want to add to that?" TM "Aye, whos pinched me Racing Post?"

I don't see how putting cat shit in a pie is less inventive than putting dog shit in a curry. Depends on what sort of garnish you use.

One of my favourite Italian wines. Ever had a Gaja Sima?

Souness had a much better squad and the quality of football that team played was atrocious. Results have been similar when arguably the competition in the prem has improved this season. Therefore, for me, Roeder > Souness.

Pinot Noir (grape) from the Bourgogne region.

Isegrim bashing Emre again. He was the best player for us in the first half, dropping back to collect the ball from the defenders before bringing it out and spreading the play about, the only missed pass from him that I remember was a pass to Owen that he played first time and went out for a throw. He also worked his bollocks off closing down in the first half while Dyer and Sibierski stood around like statues. Reading came into it more in the second half but it wasn't until Emre went off that it went completely tits up, without him dropping back and collecting the ball we were left with Bramble hoofing it up field time and time again. Dyer's mistake on 51 and Emre for Zog on 60 were the two decisive moments. I thought Emre got the closing down part of his game together properly and had a very strong 60 mins. He is injury prone though.

I'll raise you an Olivier Bernard. Since when has he been our midfield 'engine' week in week out? I thought we were just comparing shit signings. Btw there's not much to choose between both managers in terms of performances or stats really. It's a fucking joke either of them got the job. It wasnt the fact that Souness signed him, it was the fact that he then played him week after week. He more than anyone exemplified the football we played under Souness.

I'll raise you an Olivier Bernard. Since when has he been our midfield 'engine' week in week out? Bernard can't even get a game for the reserves man. What a signing. Aye, Souness was the man for spending big money. He knew how to do that alright, he would have spent £8m on some lad from Benfica instead. Bernard was a low risk, low cost move. I'm not going to defend his signing though.

I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about performances. Souness for all his faults would never have stood for some of the shit we've served up at SJP this season, which has been worse than anything under Souness in terms of the way we've meekly surrendered when put under any sort of pressure. We just didn't roll over for teams like we have been this season. Genuinely outplayed by far more sides when we had a better squad imo. Souness was worse than Roeder man.

I'll raise you an Olivier Bernard. Since when has he been our midfield 'engine' week in week out?

Two words. Amdy Faye.

Gemmill Souness man.

I honestly think everyone got a lift when Souness left and that was a major part of the revival at the end of last season. Btw, Given doesn't like competition Shearer and Given have proven themselves. Once Charlie boy has he can prime his donna as much as he wants. Untill then the lazy french twat can forget about 35 hour weeks and taking August off.

Ise, you think I said that prima donnas shouldnt be sportsmen? You've based all your replies to me on that basis? Fuckin ell man. I said he has to deal with competition for his place. You've tried to shift the debate towards 'the type of player who needs an arm around him' cliché. You should be embarrassed about the comparison to Klinsmann and N'Zogbia btw.

I was just continuing the debate alex. If you want to blame Roeder for his decline then the case would be stronger if he had not played well since just after he took over. If he continued to play well then turned to shit after the arrival of Duff, i'm more inclined to blame him. Tbf I am a little confused as to why i am comparing N'Zogbia to Klinsmann as evidence as to whether we should keep him though.

Last season in fairness. He's not the only one though. If you mean under Roeder then he has played well for him already then. If the change was after the arrival of Duff then the lad is a prick. He was not exactly a game winner (it is possible to be at that age, just look at Man U) so why shouldnt the squad strengthen in midfield in his area? He has also stated that he prefers to play more centrally. He has no right at that age to be put out by the arrival of a player that will compete for his place. I meant he's not the only one whose last good game was last season. Just a joke lyke, y'knaa? You could have meant under Souness.

Shouldn't N'Zogbia be fighting for his place though? He's been crap this year tbf. He's been kept out of the team by a bloke that shouldn't have been getting a game - pretty demoralising I imagine. Then when he's finally fit and the other bloke gets injured, we rejig the team so that he still doesn't get a game. I don't really buy that, competition should make him more determined. Maybe he hasn't warranted his place; difficult to believe, I know, considering the opposition. In the ideal case yes. But not every player responds to this kind of "motivation" in the same way. I think the fact that Roeder rather plays right footed players in this position would piss me off big time as well. And unhappy players rarely perform. Then he shouldnt be playing sport for a living. Simple as that. If a sportsman doesnt respond to competition then they should be booted out of the sport. Get rid. Nonsense. There have been loads of players who liked to throw a tantrum when they are not treated like prima donnas. I'm not saying that N'Zogbia is in the league of Romario or Klinsmann for example, but to say those kind of players should not be playing sport for a living is hilarious. You have to deal with them as they are - good managers are able to. Those players 'demonstrated' why they should be in the team when they were on the pitch. Massive difference here. Both of those players had fierce competitive spirits too, so not sure wtf you are on about. Maybe my point about him needing a competitive nature needs re-iterating. They were just two players springing to my mind who didn't like competition. There have been many more. Klinsmann for example had clauses in his contracts at the end of his career who secured him to be first choice player. He also left every club as soon as possible when his first choice status was in danger. Doesn't really fit into your description that players who don't like competition shouldn't do sports for a living, does it? If you want to spin that as not wanting competition for a place rather than him being a prima donna then yeah, great example. However using Klinsmann as a comparison to Zog is just laughable (you must be a wee bit embarrassed?). Klinsmann was one of the best centre forwards in the world whose competitive spirit (and cheating spirit) was there for all to see. I'm not arguing Zog isnt a prima donna, he may well be but the point is he has no right to be. He should be made to fight for his place when he hasnt proven he is worth it.