BlueStar Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 I think Bobby was losing it at the time and I think it was getting to the point where he'd taken the club as far as he could. So in terms of replacing him, maybe that wasn't a bad idea. But if Freddy was going to do it, it should have been done in the summer, rather than giving him money to spend and sacking him four games in with no idea of who to replace him with, thus ending up with Souness.
Charlie Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In fact, which managers in the premiership were great players? Hughes, Pearce... Who else? Roy Keane? Sir Alex? Gordon Strachan, to an extent, although he's in the SPL.
Ant-Shimmin Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 I think Bobby was losing it at the time and I think it was getting to the point where he'd taken the club as far as he could. So in terms of replacing him, maybe that wasn't a bad idea. But if Freddy was going to do it, it should have been done in the summer, rather than giving him money to spend and sacking him four games in with no idea of who to replace him with, thus ending up with Souness. Good Point, Heard quite a few rumours about Bobby Robson, that he used to always confuse Ameobi and Carl Cort? and that when he signed Carl Cort he actually wanted someone else! so they paid £7 million for crap! Still, Newcastle need stability and time to rebuild... Roy Keane? Sir Alex? Gordon Strachan, to an extent, although he's in the SPL. Thought Strachan did a good job at Southampton myself
flameboy Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Newcastle need someone who has natural charisma, who doesn't mind showing his passion, just like Keegan, then the fans will take to him which they havn't with either Souness or Roeder and arguably they never did with Dalglish and Gullit either. I think they did take to Robson however very well. I just don't think Big Sam is that man, he plays more "technical" football planning out set plays etc... rather than relying on individual brillance, and resorts to long ball tactics a lot.
darkcloud Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 yet none of them have the quality of Henry, Ljunberg and Pires to do what them three did during that season. Robin Van Persie wants a word.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13-uRvDJL4&mode=related&search= Before he was injured he was on his way to easilly scoring over 20 goals this season..... The same can be said about Henry before he was injured... That's 40 goals from two players.... It also needs to be remembered Arsenal have scored second or third (think it's second) most goals this season of any team in the premiership...... Goal scoring is not where Arsenal are lacking, well apart from the second half of the season where we've been using are 3rd, 4th and 5th forwards. Henry also happens to be Arsenal's best player.... It's like taking Ronaldo out of ManU and we all saw what happened when Chelsea lost an influential player like Terry..... So yeah, like I said, what Arsenal is lacking isn't goal scoring ability.. :-/
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 The problem isn't really down to any players being injured. Not in my opinion, anyway. Fact is, look at the table this season: Position Played Won Drawn Lost For Against G/D Points 1 Manchester United 36 28 4 4 83 26 57 88 2 Chelsea 36 24 9 3 63 23 40 81 3 Liverpool 37 20 7 10 55 25 30 67 4 Arsenal 37 19 10 8 63 35 28 67 They have won 9 less than united, 5 less than Chelsea, and only one less than Liverpool. But, look at how many games they've drawn. 10. And they've lost 8 games, which is twice as many as United and 5 more than Chelsea. Is a draw gaining one point or losing two? How many potential points have Arsenal dropped through draws alone? They've conceded the most goals in the top four. They've scored just as much as Chelsea, which is all well and good, but if you concede 12 more, well... They need a commanding defender. United have Neville, Ferdinand and to some extent Vidic. Chelsea have John Terry, and Liverpool have Carragher. They are all players who take the game by the scruff of the neck and that gives the team a boost. Who have Arsenal got?
Noodleman Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 The problem isn't really down to any players being injured. Not in my opinion, anyway. Fact is, look at the table this season: Position Played Won Drawn Lost For Against G/D Points 1 Manchester United 36 28 4 4 83 26 57 88 2 Chelsea 36 24 9 3 63 23 40 81 3 Liverpool 37 20 7 10 55 25 30 67 4 Arsenal 37 19 10 8 63 35 28 67 They have won 9 less than united, 5 less than Chelsea, and only one less than Liverpool. But, look at how many games they've drawn. 10. And they've lost 8 games, which is twice as many as United and 5 more than Chelsea. Is a draw gaining one point or losing two? How many potential points have Arsenal dropped through draws alone? They've conceded the most goals in the top four. They've scored just as much as Chelsea, which is all well and good, but if you concede 12 more, well... They need a commanding defender. United have Neville, Ferdinand and to some extent Vidic. Chelsea have John Terry, and Liverpool have Carragher. They are all players who take the game by the scruff of the neck and that gives the team a boost. Who have Arsenal got? Gallas? Toure? I dont think you could drop either of them imo.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Gallas? Toure? I dont think you could drop either of them imo. They're both great players, but I just don't think that's enough. Personally, I think the Arsenal back four (back 5 if you include the keeper) isn't as good as it should be. It isn't all that cohesive (well it hasn't been this season), and it doesn't give the rest of the team a lift.
Noodleman Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Well Gallas was injured for a lot of this season. And when him and Toure have played together they've looked pretty solid at the back really.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Well Gallas was injured for a lot of this season. And when him and Toure have played together they've looked pretty solid at the back really. Aye, but you really can't just rely on those two players. At some point in the season, there will be an occassion where one of them will not be able to play. What about cover? If anything should happen to Toure, who could they really bring in, and who could they really trust to do the job well? They'll need to sort that out next season, or they'll just drop more points.
Atomic Boo Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Arsenal have Toure If and when Alex Ferguson leaves United, I think Coppel will take over. We're going to get Owen Hargreaves this summer I think. Photos of Fergie and Owen shaking hands await. Im not sure if he's worth the money though, we'll have to see.
Chuck Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 It was a bit of a surprise for me, that Roeder Left. I think fans would want Shearer to become manager, but I think hell be shat. Souness was a fag, correct. Allerdyce will become manager, but there is a danger he will bring naff players to the club.
darkcloud Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 The problem isn't really down to any players being injured. Not in my opinion, anyway. Fact is, look at the table this season: Position Played Won Drawn Lost For Against G/D Points 1 Manchester United 36 28 4 4 83 26 57 88 2 Chelsea 36 24 9 3 63 23 40 81 3 Liverpool 37 20 7 10 55 25 30 67 4 Arsenal 37 19 10 8 63 35 28 67 They have won 9 less than united, 5 less than Chelsea, and only one less than Liverpool. But, look at how many games they've drawn. 10. And they've lost 8 games, which is twice as many as United and 5 more than Chelsea. Is a draw gaining one point or losing two? How many potential points have Arsenal dropped through draws alone? They've conceded the most goals in the top four. They've scored just as much as Chelsea, which is all well and good, but if you concede 12 more, well... They need a commanding defender. United have Neville, Ferdinand and to some extent Vidic. Chelsea have John Terry, and Liverpool have Carragher. They are all players who take the game by the scruff of the neck and that gives the team a boost. Who have Arsenal got? Isn't that my point though? There problem is not scoring..... Arsenal's problem is that they haven't kept on to there lead or have had to come from behind. Arsenal's problems this season were always defensively. :-/ Oh and to say it's not an injury thing is stupid.... There has barely been a point in this season when Arsenal's first team has played a string of 3 games together.... Only recently have Arsenal been able to get there first team defence back out there, but, it's too late, they have barely played together as a unit all season. :-/
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Isn't that my point though? There problem is not scoring..... Arsenal's problem is that they haven't kept on to there lead or have had to come from behind. Arsenal's problems this season were always defensively. :-/ Oh and to say it's not an injury thing is stupid.... There has barely been a point in this season when Arsenal's first team has played a string of 3 games together.... Only recently have Arsenal been able to get there first team defence back out there, but, it's too late, they have barely played together as a unit all season. :-/ I didn't say it wasn't a stupid thing. About the injury thing: I was initially refering to your point about Henry and Van Persie. But then, that goes back to my point about cover. Arsenal just don't have it.
flameboy Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Isn't that my point though? There problem is not scoring..... Arsenal's problem is that they haven't kept on to there lead or have had to come from behind. Arsenal's problems this season were always defensively. :-/ Well then surely their problem could be failing to score to finish games off and then allowing teams to get goals on the break etc...then they face an up hill struggle. Take against Pompey this season we went 2-0 up but they had so many more chances than us...before we took the lead they should have scored yet didn't... Anyway I hope they have problems on sunday as we need to beat them to stand a chance of qualifying for europe...
harribo Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Arsenal have Toure If and when Alex Ferguson leaves United, I think Coppel will take over. We're going to get Owen Hargreaves this summer I think. Photos of Fergie and Owen shaking hands await. Im not sure if he's worth the money though, we'll have to see. Well Hargreaves is better than Carrick and you paid how much for him?
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 I'll be a little pissed if Hargreaves come in to replace Carrick. Carrick has been excellent for us this season. He doesn't need replacing. If he comes, I hope it's just another option or another way for us to play. Expansion.
darkcloud Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 About the injury thing: I was initially refering to your point about Henry and Van Persie. But then, that goes back to my point about cover. Arsenal just don't have it. Well, my point with Henry and Van Persie is that we would have easilly out scored most teams despite the fact our defence wasn't a well oiled machine this season. Basically we haven't had a lack of goals, but, with our defence being in a mess we would have needed more..... They would have easilly provided them and we would have probably ended up level with ManU in goal scoring had we had them fit. As for cover, I don't see many teams with cover for there best goal scorers. :-/ Same with defenders.... Take Terry out of Chelsea what happens? Take out Ferdinand from ManU what happens? Seriously, these are the kind of players you can't really have a suitable replacement for. Well then surely their problem could be failing to score to finish games off and then allowing teams to get goals on the break etc...then they face an up hill struggle. Take against Pompey this season we went 2-0 up but they had so many more chances than us...before we took the lead they should have scored yet didn't... Anyway I hope they have problems on sunday as we need to beat them to stand a chance of qualifying for europe... You aren't really thinking on he scale of the whole season though. This was really only a big problem since around about the Carling Cup final. My responce to Arsenal not having enough fire power was talking in respect to people saying Arsenal need to buy new forwards.... Not really the case. I do agree that a winger in the vein of Pires would be welcomed though.
Zechs Merquise Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 I think Sam Allerdyce is the best thing for Newcastle. If Big Sam can produce a UEFA Cup spot for Bolton with those limited resources he should be able to work wondes at a big club with a budget and some quality young players.
Atomic Boo Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 Well Hargreaves is better than Carrick and you paid how much for him? I was going to say that they are both similar players, but Carrick has been a legend
flameboy Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 hey, whos replacing who??? remember the rotation system we had when nicky butt, paul scholes and keano were are 3 main central midfielders??? it worked perfectly man... a similar thing wud happen if hargreaves signed... we need a defensive midfielder and carrick can be crafted into another scholes like player... if we sign a winger, defensive midfielder and a striker this summer ill be happy as pie... yeah the rotation will help keep things fresher for sure... Carrick and Hargreaves are different players anyway, Carrick has Scholes like ability to pick out passes and has started to make more surging runs and is adding to that side of his game, whilst Hargreaves is much more there to pick up the ball in that gap between midfield and attack and help slow down the tempo with some measured passing.
Platty Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 United also need another striker. A goal scoring machine like Ruud was. In a few more season Rooney will be in midfield as the new scholes.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 United also need another striker. A goal scoring machine like Ruud was. The problem with that is that when teams have an out and out striker, they tend to rely on them too much.
Platty Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 The problem with that is that when teams have an out and out striker, they tend to rely on them too much. But without one, you end up relying on other players like we have with Ronaldo this season.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 But without one, you end up relying on other players like we have with Ronaldo this season. That's true. I'd like to see us bring in another striker or two, another winger, and possibly a right sided defensive player.
Recommended Posts