Noelie

During the 5 years between leaving school in 1948 until I went to sea in 1953 I had the imeasurable good fortune to see 'Wor Jackie' numerous times, even on an off day he was a joy to watch.

Must have a talk with the poor young lad..............he needs some councilling.

Glad that Parker got selected to the England squad.................disappointed he didn't get some playing time..........yet in a way glad he didn't in case he got hurt like Owen did. I think perhaps he may get some playing time against Croatia and he could certainly do as well as Lampard did. Lampard reminds me a lot of Colin Bell and Glen Hoddle, great club players but never really shone for England.

There's a reason antiquated formations aren't used nowadays, because they have been superceded by better formations. Nine times out of 10 4-4-2 is the most effective. I think we will lose today, but play with your team and it could be double figures! Maybe we wouldn't have lost today with my formation which is far from antiquated, only difference today was Roeder started four(4) at the back while I suggested three(3) and he started one(1) up front where I would have started two(2). Any formation I would suggest would NEVER have less than two(2) up front. You'll notice Ramage was not in my starting line-up and gawd knows he shouldn't have been. Hoy! I read that McClaren might change his formation, maybe to a 3-5-2 as opposed to the 4-2-4 he has used in his last 3 games. Mebbe my antiquated 3-5-2 might have done better against Man.U last week. Nothing ventured-nothing gained. Who dares Wins.

GIVE ME A STRONGER LOOKING STARTING LINE-UP IF YOU CAN. Who's the player called O spearheading the attack? Anybugger wiv arf a brain would know that 'O' would signify the ball or the centre-spot, or perhaps your IQ I normally prefer to leave these formations to others, but your offering frankly looks apalling to me And perhaps you should, but then again with the exception of Milner for Zoggy, Roeder started the middle five(5) as I suggested so I wasn't far off there There's a reason antiquated formations aren't used nowadays, because they have been superceded by better formations. Nine times out of 10 4-4-2 is the most effective. I think we will lose today, but play with your team and it could be double figures! Maybe we wouldn't have lost today with my formation which is far from antiquated, only difference today was Roeder started four(4) at the back while I suggested three(3) and he started one(1) up front where I would have started two(2). Any formation I would suggest would NEVER have less than two(2) up front. You'll notice Ramage was not in my starting line-up and gawd knows he shouldn't have been.

I'm surprised no one has made a comment about my suggested formation to face Man.U.re. Perhaps you think I'm a balmy old sod approaching senility, or perhaps you're all wallowing in self-pity and have no idea of the "Who Dares......WINS" approach, and have tunnel vision. In the days when all teams played with five(5) forwards there were only three(3) at the back to contend with them, getting help from the two(2) half-backs if needed. IT WORKED. Instead of five(5) forwards and 2 half-backs I'm suggesting five(5) in the middle and three(3) at the back, not four(4), and with two(2) up front. I abhor the thought of a lone striker at any time in any park, the futility of it has been proved time and time again. GIVE ME A STRONGER LOOKING STARTING LINE-UP IF YOU CAN.

Why do you lot of young wankers feel you must have a back four? When I was growing up and playing it was basic to have the traditional back three. Left & Right full-backs and Centre-half. The team formation was always 1 - 3 - 2 - 5. Think about this when you try to figure out a formation to play Man.U. I, the aad gadgee, might be tempted to go with; ......................................................Harper...... .................Carr...............................Moore.........................Taylor. ...Duff...................Parker.................Emre..................Butt.....................Zoggy. ..........................................Martins......O......Ameobe....................... Parker and Butt can play defensive roles assisting the back three, getting forward as often as often as possible and letting Emre have a free rein in the middle to spread passes to the wings and feed the front two Duff and Zoggy can play the wings, taking defenders on, feeding the front two, tracking back to assist Carr and Taylor if necessary. Think about it, anyone wiv arf a brain (smirk) can see why this could work and it relieves the stress of having to start Ramage or Bramble. Subs: Milner Sibierski Ramage Krul.

It is my considered opinion that Roeder should start Bernard at left-back. OK, so he is considered not match-fit but just what is being match fit? He has been training, he has put some time in with the reserves, how unfit can he be? Ramage is not a left-sided player, Bernard is. If Bernard struggles take him off and put Ramage in to replace him. What's there to lose other than the match and I think we expect to do that bar a miracle. Should never have let Elliot go, he was a good substitute left-back or centre-back. Butt should be on the bench and maybe get some time on the field, he might just have something to make up for after the last game against his old team. Taylor and Moore should start as central defenders. What's your opinions?

..................................................... harsh but it did make me smirk Then have a smirk on me son. I had a brain tumour removed 13 years ago and it was a lot worse than Roeder's, it ended my working life real quick like. Anyone wiv arf a brain (like me) knows that was a trifle harsh.

Haysus Cristo, Roeder mucho stupido hombre por seguro

True, no big deal. After all 'Poof' and the lady disappeared when the Magician waved his wand. Was Puff a poof

Memory fades as you get older and you don't always write things down when you should etc etc. At the last UEFA match some kind gentleman(aka Jewel of a guy) posted the address of a site and I was able to watch the game albeit the commentary was in an Oriental tongue (Fu kin Supah). Is todays game anywhere that I can watch it in the same way??

Just watched 'Goal' today. The scenery was good

That would be my risk if I was the gaffer. What would we have to lose if the risk was taken? one game? well we've already lost one with Given and one with Harper between the sticks so one with Krul wouldn't be way out of whack now would it? Sure it's a risk but how many times was Caig called upon to fill in because Given & Harper were both injured?

Have to agree with you Mr. Gemmill, frankly I thought Martins performence was woeful considering how much he was touted, how much he cost, and how many chances he had to put at least one away and win the match.

Very poor result, we should have won easily had the numerous chances been put to bed. Ameobi's goal was clearly offside so we were lucky to come away with a point. The red-cards were justified, two yellows make a red. Martins looks more like a bad-buy every time I see him(did not see the West Ham match) I waited the whole 2nd. half for Everton to score and with our defense I thought they would. Rossi looked good in the short time he was on, 4 shots ain't bad. Bernard may not be match fit but I would have started him before Ramage at left-back. I should be the manager!

The whole thing is about finish! Martins couldn't finish last if he was left at the start. Ramage couldn't finish his dinner if he had all night. Bramble couldn't finish first if he was the only one in the race. Roeder might not finish the season.

[quote name='wykikitoon' date='Sep 11 2006, 04:21 AM' post='196674' Its sad at the moment being a NUFC fan tbh. "It's sad at the moment" fer gawds sake you musta just joined the army Unless of course yer moments are as long as mine which last for days, weeks, years

Some truth in that, I can only remember having a dead-leg once and after about 30 mins was back on the pitch. (At the time I was playing in California and you could have 4 substitutes whom you could put in & out at will, players could be taken out then put back in)

I think he's in the England squad because he plays for Boro and was/is one of MaClaren's boys when he was at Boro. Mac probably extolled his virtues to Eriksson and will stick with him to prove his point.

Tut tut Mr. Gemmell, behave yersel

192080[/snapback] Aye, and injured again on the 10th. Noelie, don't you remember our disasterous experiments with 3-5-2 in the past 192669[/snapback] Yes I do Doctor but; I think Solano, Parker, Butt, and perhaps Zoggy are capable of tracking back to support the back 3. I think all 5 of the mid-field are also capable of getting forward to support the front 2. And I think to partner Martins with Duff as twin strikers will provide a lot of activity in the box, Duff is capable of providing a lot of movement in the front line.

Given Taylor - Bramble - Moore Solano - Parker - Butt - Emre - Zoggy Martins - Duff Harper Babayaro Rossi Carr.

It's quite feasable that players can prove to be valuable in a position that is not deemed their natural place. Over the years forwards have become capable defenders and vice-versa. One that springs to mind is Terry Cooper who I belive was a left winger and became an England left back. In my younger playing days(played til I was 56) I fluctuated between Left-half, Inside-left, & Left-back mainly because there always seemed to be a shortage of left-footed players, AND, I was a natural Right-footer but wasn't too bad with my left. I think it has a lot to do with mind-set, ability to quickly adapt to a position, and the big asset of being able to read the game.

The FA Cup is the one to win, it holds more glamour and it has more thrill and excitement to it than the league championship does. Sometimes the league championship is determined way before the league is over so it's often a flat ending, unlike the blaze of glory in the FA Cup. Won the FA Cup 3 times in my lifetime, 51-52-55, but I would like to see us win the big league, that's never happened in my f*****g lifetime, YET!