Jump to content

Luque again


LeazesMag
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will nail my colours to the mast.

 

First time I saw him (against Manure) I wondered if he was going to flatter to deceive.

 

Now, after boro, I reckon that given the opportunity and correct service he could turn out to be a fantastic player for us up front.

 

There, I've said it and I feel, oh, so much better for it! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thing is though, whether you think he'll ultimately make it here or not, it's a disgrace that after a handful of games he's already getting that famous SJP OTT mumbling and grumbling every time something doesn't work out for him, or he loses possession or whatever. Lots of people have clearly already made their minds up about the bloke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will nail my colours to the mast.

 

First time I saw him (against Manure) I wondered if he was going to flatter to deceive.

 

Now, after boro, I reckon that given the opportunity and correct service he could turn out to be a fantastic player for us up front.

 

There, I've said it and I feel, oh, so much better for it! :)

73421[/snapback]

 

To a certain extent I agree. I don't think he's an out and out donkey, he made some intelligent runs. However, he seems to want too much time and looks like he's going to stay well away from the rough stuff, which at this moment in time is looking quite problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is though, whether you think he'll ultimately make it here or not, it's a disgrace that after a handful of games he's already getting that famous SJP OTT mumbling and grumbling every time something doesn't work out for him, or he loses possession or whatever.  Lots of people have clearly already made their minds up about the bloke.

73424[/snapback]

 

Like I said yesterday, Shola must be loving him. Shit deflecter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he'll be good alongside an out and out goal scorer. If only we had one on the pitch.

 

It strikes me that we might have quite a few players who arn't too happy to be playing for NUFC (this is just speculation), Given - Wants silverware, Boumsong - wants to be with his family, Carr - Wants to get away from Souness, Emre - I'm sure he thinks he made a mistake coming here and the state of his general fitness, Luque - See Emre, Owen - Just wants match practice before the WC & can't believe he's swapped the football of Real Madrid for this what he's endured while here.

 

All this 'Team Spirit' sh*te, i don't believe it. The names above are a decent set of players, i'm making that judgement based on their performances for other clubs, not NUFC (except Given) and yet they spectacularly have failed to amount to even half of the sum of their parts, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

 

I think you can make your point very well without talking shit. Arsenal without Vieira, Man U without Keane, Chelsea without Makelele, who exactly doesn't need this type of player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker's far superior to Makelele going forward.  He's hardly had much opportunity to show what he can do going forward under Souness, has he?

73512[/snapback]

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

73532[/snapback]

So basically, you wouldn't have Makele playing for us then because he wouldn't fit the above requirements? I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker = Great defensive midfielder, but personally I'd rather we had a team that didn't need this type of player.

73447[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

73532[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

73537[/snapback]

By the same reckoning, you'd have to blame Shearer then :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

73537[/snapback]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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]

 

If it makes you feel better, my old man hated Batty as well. But he also thought Shola rounding the fat bloke from Corrie was 'class.' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.