Aston Villa v Newcastle United

[Ketsbaia 0]

We really need to be aiming for 17th place this season. If we go down Allardyce will be ranked alongside Hitler on Tyneside. Hes fucked this club up from top to bottom in less than 6 months.

 

We made 2 journeymen strikers in Harewood and Carew look world class. Theres a reason they keep getting sold you know!

 

The only 4 i wouldnt sell out of that team are Beye, Taylor, Given and maybe Milner.

 

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head.

 

Hard to disagree with that.

 

I don't believe Allardyce fucked up the club, I think he had the right idea in what he was trying to create. Personally, I still reckon we should've stuck with him until the end of the season but that's a moot point now.

 

Keegan is obviously trying to play a certain style of football but the lack of a few key players (Good CB, Creative mid and a world class striker to name a few) is clearly hindering us quite badly.

 

We are in a relegation battle here, make no bones about it.

[Park Life 70]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

 

My trap for Isegrim lay down another path Sima.

 

Agree with the above btw.

[Snake 0]

We really need to be aiming for 17th place this season. If we go down Allardyce will be ranked alongside Hitler on Tyneside. Hes fucked this club up from top to bottom in less than 6 months.

 

We made 2 journeymen strikers in Harewood and Carew look world class. Theres a reason they keep getting sold you know!

 

The only 4 i wouldnt sell out of that team are Beye, Taylor, Given and maybe Milner.

 

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head.

 

Mainly down to a favourable fixture list

[Isegrim 8872]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

[Sima 0]

We really need to be aiming for 17th place this season. If we go down Allardyce will be ranked alongside Hitler on Tyneside. Hes fucked this club up from top to bottom in less than 6 months.

 

We made 2 journeymen strikers in Harewood and Carew look world class. Theres a reason they keep getting sold you know!

 

The only 4 i wouldnt sell out of that team are Beye, Taylor, Given and maybe Milner.

 

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head.

 

Mainly down to a favourable fixture list

 

Allardyce beat better teams than Boro and Bolton at home. We certainly wouldn't have conceded as many goals if he was still in charge.

 

Can't actually believe some people are removing blame from Keegan's door should he take us down.

[snakehips 0]

We really need to be aiming for 17th place this season. If we go down Allardyce will be ranked alongside Hitler on Tyneside. Hes fucked this club up from top to bottom in less than 6 months.

 

We made 2 journeymen strikers in Harewood and Carew look world class. Theres a reason they keep getting sold you know!

 

The only 4 i wouldnt sell out of that team are Beye, Taylor, Given and maybe Milner.

 

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head.

 

Hard to disagree with that.

 

I don't believe Allardyce fucked up the club, I think he had the right idea in what he was trying to create. Personally, I still reckon we should've stuck with him until the end of the season but that's a moot point now.

Keegan is obviously trying to play a certain style of football but the lack of a few key players (Good CB, Creative mid and a world class striker to name a few) is clearly hindering us quite badly.

 

We are in a relegation battle here, make no bones about it.

 

Therein lies the problem iyam. Keegan wants to play a certain way but the players are not good enough to break down the opposition. And when we do go a goal up, Keegan doesn't know how (or want ?) to shut up shop.

 

It will be interesting to see who comes in during the summer, but they will have to be bloody good.

[Park Life 70]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Park Life

[Isegrim 8872]

We really need to be aiming for 17th place this season. If we go down Allardyce will be ranked alongside Hitler on Tyneside. Hes fucked this club up from top to bottom in less than 6 months.

 

We made 2 journeymen strikers in Harewood and Carew look world class. Theres a reason they keep getting sold you know!

 

The only 4 i wouldnt sell out of that team are Beye, Taylor, Given and maybe Milner.

 

Really don't understand how it would be Allardyce's fault if we were relegated. We were mid-table when Keegan took over, if we go down it's squarely on his head.

 

Mainly down to a favourable fixture list

 

Allardyce beat better teams than Boro and Bolton at home. We certainly wouldn't have conceded as many goals if he was still in charge.

 

Can't actually believe some people are removing blame from Keegan's door should he take us down.

Well, Keegan wasn't in charge for the ManU game. Under Allardyce we conceded three against Man City away and two at home, four against Pompey at home, three against Blackburn away etc. So I don't know how you can say that the defence actually really got worse and would have performed better under Big Sam. We also saw some shocking home results under him. One against a team trying to beat Sunderland's negative record.

 

Of course Keegan is (also) to blame if we go down. But I'll make this kind of judgement at the end of the season and not now.

[Isegrim 8872]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Pixies and the voices in your head don't count tbh.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to say that the sacking was "planned" as I just don't know. I was rather on about the hiring of Keegan.

[Park Life 70]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Pixies and the voices in your head don't count tbh.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to say that the sacking was "planned" as I just don't know. I was rather on about the hiring of Keegan.

 

Well if it wasn't planned how can you say it was done at the right time?

[Isegrim 8872]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Pixies and the voices in your head don't count tbh.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to say that the sacking was "planned" as I just don't know. I was rather on about the hiring of Keegan.

 

Well if it wasn't planned how can you say it was done at the right time?

Because I think the "vision" that was put in place instead is the better option for the future - especially with a head start for the next season.

[Park Life 70]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Pixies and the voices in your head don't count tbh.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to say that the sacking was "planned" as I just don't know. I was rather on about the hiring of Keegan.

 

Well if it wasn't planned how can you say it was done at the right time?

Because I think the "vision" that was put in place instead is the better option for the future - especially with a head start for the next season.

 

The 'fixer' the 'mixer' and the trickster?

 

There is no vision.

 

MA imo hasn't engaged with the club properly yet and was generally clueless to the point he bought back KK.

 

If there is a vision that might save us it will IMO come solely from KK and he will need backing or he'll walk.

 

So far I agree with Alex and other that money 'has been promised'.

 

There is nothing KK need know about this squad that Terry Mac couldn't have told him in 5 minutes. So all that 'looking at the players' stuff is guff really.

 

I'm still mildly confident but not signing Diarra when we had a chance was a mistake.

[Tooj 17]

Much as I prefer KK (maybe it's just the idea of him rather than Allardyce that I prefer) but it's difficult to argue with your synopsis there Sima. I don't think we'll go down but we weren't going down under Allardyce either.

 

Hence the mystery timing of the sacking. Fresh starts are better made in the summer.

Really?The season was already over. Giving your new manager a head start of six months to have a look at the squad and the things he wants to change is much better than to try to do it with limited time in the summer.

 

But it's not though, I might agree with you if we were sitting on 40-odd points but there's still games to win and I can't see us winning any at the minute.

Of course it's not over in respect of the relegation battle, but it was in concern of any top half finish. Would we be in a different scenario if we had stuck with Allardyce? I doubt it. Of course we might have got a result in one of the recent games. Though looking at the form in the games preceding his sacking this is questionable.

 

Of course, if the club gets relegated the "plan" went tits up. But at the moment we are on 28 points, having a couple of home games against other relegation candidates. Ending up on 37+ points should be enough to be safe in the end. From the two scenarios of sticking with Allardyce for the remainder of the season or hiring Keegan with the outlook for the next season, I'd always chose the latter.

 

The development of events some might say points to the fact that the SA sacking wasn't planned.

 

MA is on record as saying that Mort 'called him' to say that SA needed sacking/he had a problem with SA. Of course this doesn't support the theory many have cuddled upto cause they want to believe there was some grand plan (there might not have been).

 

I am told...this was followed by a video conference (involving the three) with MA still in the far east where events took a turn for the worst and it was at this point MA sacked SA. (I'm guessing over transfer funds).

 

Although they had doubts about SA and it seems some parties 'waiting in the wings' a lot of factors point to the idea that perhaps the sacking wasn't as planned as some believe. The consequent flirting with 'Arry (Rumoured Kemsley's idea) also tends to support this.

Pixies and the voices in your head don't count tbh.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to say that the sacking was "planned" as I just don't know. I was rather on about the hiring of Keegan.

 

Well if it wasn't planned how can you say it was done at the right time?

Because I think the "vision" that was put in place instead is the better option for the future - especially with a head start for the next season.

 

The 'fixer' the 'mixer' and the trickster?

 

There is no vision.

 

MA imo hasn't engaged with the club properly yet and was generally clueless to the point he bought back KK.

 

If there is a vision that might save us it will IMO come solely from KK and he will need backing or he'll walk.

 

So far I agree with Alex and other that money 'has been promised'.

 

There is nothing KK need know about this squad that Terry Mac couldn't have told him in 5 minutes. So all that 'looking at the players' stuff is guff really.

 

I'm still mildly confident but not signing Diarra when we had a chance was a mistake.

So you advocate our non footballing men to be making player purchases?

[Park Life 70]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

[Tooj 17]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

[Park Life 70]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

 

Do you just want to have a silly argument? I don't.

 

If you are suggesting that there wasn't good footballing reasons to buy Diarra (whoever selected him) then I'd disagree with you.

 

If you are saying due to the change of manager it became problematic to buy him then fair enough...But we still should have and the club woulnd't have approached hm unless they felt he was a good shout.

 

Not sure why you're taking such umbridge at this.

 

How much was he anyway??

 

Behave.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Park Life

[Tooj 17]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

 

Do you just want to have a silly argument? I don't.

 

If you are suggesting that there wasn't good footballing reasons to buy Diarra (whoever selected him) then I'd disagree with you.

 

If you are saying due to the change of manager it became problematic to buy him then fair enough...But we still should have and the club woulnd't have approached hm unless they felt he was a good shout.

 

Not sure why you're taking such umbridge at this.

 

How much was he anyway??

 

Behave.

I asked a simple question though, a yes or no would have sufficed. As we never had a manager, so this would have meant that the non-footballing members of staff would have been making the purchase, a purchase that perhaps the new man never wanted. All I was saying would you want this to start to become common practice?

[Guest alex]

Parky never answers a simple question 2J, you know that.

Edited February 10, 2008 by alex

[Park Life 70]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

 

Do you just want to have a silly argument? I don't.

 

If you are suggesting that there wasn't good footballing reasons to buy Diarra (whoever selected him) then I'd disagree with you.

 

If you are saying due to the change of manager it became problematic to buy him then fair enough...But we still should have and the club woulnd't have approached hm unless they felt he was a good shout.

 

Not sure why you're taking such umbridge at this.

 

How much was he anyway??

 

Behave.

I asked a simple question though, a yes or no would have sufficed. As we never had a manager, so this would have meant that the non-footballing members of staff would have been making the purchase, a purchase that perhaps the new man never wanted. All I was saying would you want this to start to become common practice?

 

Pan fried tatties with scrambled egg or beans on toast what you reckon?

[Tooj 17]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

 

Do you just want to have a silly argument? I don't.

 

If you are suggesting that there wasn't good footballing reasons to buy Diarra (whoever selected him) then I'd disagree with you.

 

If you are saying due to the change of manager it became problematic to buy him then fair enough...But we still should have and the club woulnd't have approached hm unless they felt he was a good shout.

 

Not sure why you're taking such umbridge at this.

 

How much was he anyway??

 

Behave.

I asked a simple question though, a yes or no would have sufficed. As we never had a manager, so this would have meant that the non-footballing members of staff would have been making the purchase, a purchase that perhaps the new man never wanted. All I was saying would you want this to start to become common practice?

 

Pan fried tatties with scrambled egg or beans on toast what you reckon?

Got me Sunday dinner coming up thanks so I'm all good.

[Park Life 70]

I'm sure the approach for Diarra was made solely on footballing grounds, perhaps SA wanted him or the other 'fixers' who have continued to purchase players through the changeover. Good player by all accounts.

Excellent way to dodge the question.

 

Do you just want to have a silly argument? I don't.

 

If you are suggesting that there wasn't good footballing reasons to buy Diarra (whoever selected him) then I'd disagree with you.

 

If you are saying due to the change of manager it became problematic to buy him then fair enough...But we still should have and the club woulnd't have approached hm unless they felt he was a good shout.

 

Not sure why you're taking such umbridge at this.

 

How much was he anyway??

 

Behave.

I asked a simple question though, a yes or no would have sufficed. As we never had a manager, so this would have meant that the non-footballing members of staff would have been making the purchase, a purchase that perhaps the new man never wanted. All I was saying would you want this to start to become common practice?

 

Pan fried tatties with scrambled egg or beans on toast what you reckon?

Got me Sunday dinner coming up thanks so I'm all good.

 

[sammynb 2929]

So many players had mares in the second half it was untrue. I thought Barton was a disgrace too. The game just passed him by, again. To make it worse me sis had Owen and 3-1 to Villa

 

Alex can your bloody sister stop betting against us, that's at least twice this season she's made money of our misery.

[sammynb 2929]

So you wouldn't have hoyed Emre and Viduka on then? Ok.

 

Aye, good point, they'd have got 2 goals each no problem.

Don't even know what you're on about now. It was crying out for a change at 2-1 and Viduka for Smith and Emre for the woeful Barton were the obvious ones for me. No one is saying they'd have definitely won us the game but just sticking with what we had was tantamount to conceding the match imo.

 

Exactly, no point having 3 subs and only using one when it's obvious half the team needs changing.

[David Kelly 1117]

So you wouldn't have hoyed Emre and Viduka on then? Ok.

 

Aye, good point, they'd have got 2 goals each no problem.

Don't even know what you're on about now. It was crying out for a change at 2-1 and Viduka for Smith and Emre for the woeful Barton were the obvious ones for me. No one is saying they'd have definitely won us the game but just sticking with what we had was tantamount to conceding the match imo.

 

Exactly, no point having 3 subs and only using one when it's obvious half the team needs changing.

We would have needed 11 subs for that second half though and certainly the five we had could have easily replaced Given, Carr, Taylor/Cacapa, Barton and Smith.

TBH I would have had all five of them on from the start and I'm sure if Keegan knew a bit more about the team and Carew he would have certainly started wirth Faye.