Shearer & Keegan

[paddy 17]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

would that be 'won' by any chance??

[Craig 6701]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

Agreed. And that's a big difference between back then and now. The way Butt has managed to win the fans over in recent years is fairly rare. Perhaps I am getting old but the younger football fan these days seems a damned sight more fickle than in the past.

[JawD 99]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

would that be 'won' by any chance??

 

Yes

[Big TRon 0]

Keegan was notoriously bad at buying defenders.

 

How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison (at their peak) would get into the current side?

 

Keegan's defenders were mainly bought for their attacking flair, of those you mentioned there, I'd say Venison was the best pure defender, and he left when we were promoted to be replaced by Barton who was fairly shit. I don't think there were many people who will argue that the main reason we didn't win anything under Keegan was that we lacked real class defenders. Not that they weren't good, they just weren't the best.

 

No doubt there'll be glib types like LeazesMag who'll trot out statistics to back their argument for the sake of it, but that was the general consensus.

Venison didn't leave until the end of the 94-95 season. Again, how many of them four would get in today's side?

 

I don't know, it depends who is picking the side. Some managers rate defenders on their defending ability, others on their flair quality. I honestly think if we'd had a Woodgate at that time we'd have won the title.

[Big TRon 0]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

Barton was picked once for England and never again. Winning over the fans and being a top quality player aren't always the same thing.

[JawD 99]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

Barton was picked once for England and never again. Winning over the fans and being a top quality player aren't always the same thing.

 

I didnt go as far as to say they were top quality From memory, Barton, Lee and Howey were in the England team at the same time (once). But, more to the point, Peakcock and Barton suited our team. They both got a lot of stick like. Everyone saying both should get hair cuts as it got in the way In te end, Barton became a canny player for us. Another point, both could get in te team now.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Keegan was notoriously bad at buying defenders.

 

How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison (at their peak) would get into the current side?

 

Keegan's defenders were mainly bought for their attacking flair, of those you mentioned there, I'd say Venison was the best pure defender, and he left when we were promoted to be replaced by Barton who was fairly shit. I don't think there were many people who will argue that the main reason we didn't win anything under Keegan was that we lacked real class defenders. Not that they weren't good, they just weren't the best.

 

No doubt there'll be glib types like LeazesMag who'll trot out statistics to back their argument for the sake of it, but that was the general consensus.

Venison didn't leave until the end of the 94-95 season. Again, how many of them four would get in today's side?

 

I don't know, it depends who is picking the side. Some managers rate defenders on their defending ability, others on their flair quality. I honestly think if we'd had a Woodgate at that time we'd have won the title.

I'm going to make this simple for you. YOU are picking the side. How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison would you pick over yesterdays back four of Enrique, Cacapa, Taylor and Carr?

 

one?

two?

three?

or four?

[Big TRon 0]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

Barton was picked once for England and never again. Winning over the fans and being a top quality player aren't always the same thing.

 

I didnt go as far as to say they were top quality From memory, Barton, Lee and Howey were in the England team at the same time (once). But, more to the point, Peakcock and Barton suited our team. They both got a lot of stick like. Everyone saying both should get hair cuts as it got in the way In te end, Barton became a canny player for us. Another point, both could get in te team now.

 

If you say they weren't top quality, then that's the point I am making anyway. Back then we were the biggest spenders, the only reason we didn't win the league was because we lacked 'top quality' in a couple of key areas. I'd have Beye and Faye ahead of those two any day of the week.

[Big TRon 0]

Keegan was notoriously bad at buying defenders.

 

How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison (at their peak) would get into the current side?

 

Keegan's defenders were mainly bought for their attacking flair, of those you mentioned there, I'd say Venison was the best pure defender, and he left when we were promoted to be replaced by Barton who was fairly shit. I don't think there were many people who will argue that the main reason we didn't win anything under Keegan was that we lacked real class defenders. Not that they weren't good, they just weren't the best.

 

No doubt there'll be glib types like LeazesMag who'll trot out statistics to back their argument for the sake of it, but that was the general consensus.

Venison didn't leave until the end of the 94-95 season. Again, how many of them four would get in today's side?

 

I don't know, it depends who is picking the side. Some managers rate defenders on their defending ability, others on their flair quality. I honestly think if we'd had a Woodgate at that time we'd have won the title.

I'm going to make this simple for you. YOU are picking the side. How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison would you pick over yesterdays back four of Enrique, Cacapa, Taylor and Carr?

 

one?

two?

three?

or four?

 

Let me make it simple for you:

 

Why did we blow a 12 point lead at the top and lose crucial games 4-3?

 

a) The Attack

The Midfield

c) The Defence

 

bear in mind, we could afford to buy the best in every department and spent heavily in all, if you want to talk in context.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Big TRon

[Craig 6701]

Keegan was notoriously bad at buying defenders.

 

How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison (at their peak) would get into the current side?

 

Keegan's defenders were mainly bought for their attacking flair, of those you mentioned there, I'd say Venison was the best pure defender, and he left when we were promoted to be replaced by Barton who was fairly shit. I don't think there were many people who will argue that the main reason we didn't win anything under Keegan was that we lacked real class defenders. Not that they weren't good, they just weren't the best.

 

No doubt there'll be glib types like LeazesMag who'll trot out statistics to back their argument for the sake of it, but that was the general consensus.

Venison didn't leave until the end of the 94-95 season. Again, how many of them four would get in today's side?

 

I don't know, it depends who is picking the side. Some managers rate defenders on their defending ability, others on their flair quality. I honestly think if we'd had a Woodgate at that time we'd have won the title.

I'm going to make this simple for you. YOU are picking the side. How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison would you pick over yesterdays back four of Enrique, Cacapa, Taylor and Carr?

 

one?

two?

three?

or four?

 

Let me make it simple for you:

 

Why did we blow a 12 point lead at the top and lose crucial games 4-3?

 

a) The Attack

The Midfield

c) The Defence

 

bear in mind, we could afford to buy the best in every department and spent heavily in all, if you want to talk in context.

 

9 points plus game in hand to be exact....

 

But I think the thing you're failing to take into account here is Man Utd's half season between January and May 1996. They hardly dropped a point and THAT is why we didn't win the title.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

[Sima 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

[Holden McGroin 6928]

At some point. Barton and Peacock got a fair bit of stick, but both own fans over in the end, mostly.

 

Barton was picked once for England and never again. Winning over the fans and being a top quality player aren't always the same thing.

 

Barton wasnt a very good footballer to be honest.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

Correct. Only two more than Man U. People conveniently gloss over the fact that they scored seven more than us.

 

The figure I was looking for was 37.

 

Now without going and checking, how many do you think we've conceded so far this season?

[Big TRon 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

Resorting to narrow arguments and statistics (as predicted) I see. I think I answered your crap question in any case which was so poor you ended up limiting the comparison to yesterdays' line up to your Keegan's select over 5 years. That says everything tbh.

[Big TRon 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

Correct. Only two more than Man U. People conveniently gloss over the fact that they scored seven more than us.

 

The figure I was looking for was 37.

 

Now without going and checking, how many do you think we've conceded so far this season?

 

 

statistics, statistics, damned lies and statistics.

 

Are you Allardyce in disguise?

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

Correct. Only two more than Man U. People conveniently gloss over the fact that they scored seven more than us.

 

The figure I was looking for was 37.

 

Now without going and checking, how many do you think we've conceded so far this season?

 

 

statistics, statistics, damned lies and statistics.

 

Are you Allardyce in disguise?

Oh dear

 

I doubt Allardyce would be keen to point out how many we've conceded this season, don't you?

[Big TRon 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

Correct. Only two more than Man U. People conveniently gloss over the fact that they scored seven more than us.

 

The figure I was looking for was 37.

 

Now without going and checking, how many do you think we've conceded so far this season?

 

 

statistics, statistics, damned lies and statistics.

 

Are you Allardyce in disguise?

Oh dear

 

I doubt Allardyce would be keen to point out how many we've conceded this season, don't you?

 

No, he'd probably be telling us how well we played against Stoke or or Derby away, like most wankers who end up quoting statistics.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

You could just admit you're wrong and give me the number if you want.

 

Remind me how many goal we conceded that season.

 

2 more than Man Utd

Correct. Only two more than Man U. People conveniently gloss over the fact that they scored seven more than us.

 

The figure I was looking for was 37.

 

Now without going and checking, how many do you think we've conceded so far this season?

 

 

statistics, statistics, damned lies and statistics.

 

Are you Allardyce in disguise?

Oh dear

 

I doubt Allardyce would be keen to point out how many we've conceded this season, don't you?

 

No, he'd probably be telling us how well we played against Stoke or or Derby away, like most wankers who end up quoting statistics.

Mmm, I find you can prove most things with FACTS.

[Big TRon 0]

So what are you trying to prove exactly?

[LeazesMag 0]

Keegan was notoriously bad at buying defenders.

 

How many of Beresford, Albert, Peacock and Venison (at their peak) would get into the current side?

 

Keegan's defenders were mainly bought for their attacking flair, of those you mentioned there, I'd say Venison was the best pure defender, and he left when we were promoted to be replaced by Barton who was fairly shit. I don't think there were many people who will argue that the main reason we didn't win anything under Keegan was that we lacked real class defenders. Not that they weren't good, they just weren't the best.

 

No doubt there'll be glib types like LeazesMag who'll trot out statistics to back their argument for the sake of it, but that was the general consensus.

 

The only statistics I will trot out is that all these "defensive and more tactically astute" types we have had since Keegan

have failed to get anywhere near both his points total or his defensive record in 1996

 

If that is "glib", I would say that it is absolutely correct, but if anything I feel sorry for people like you who clearly have no opinion of your own and we won't even go into having good judgement.

 

The "general consensus" was the the Keegan years were the best ever experienced by all the clubs supporters. That includes the 30,000 who only came back because of what he provided.

Edited January 14, 2008 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

So what are you trying to prove exactly?

 

I think he is trying to say you are talking totall bollocks.

 

If only we were 12 points clear at the top of the league tonight eh

 

[you should do some reseach on that too by the way, as you don't appear to realise that manu had games in hand. But I'm sure you will continue to believe the spin by the cockney journalist bullshitters]

[Scottish Mag 3]

I see someone over on N-O had said the SSN have just spoken to Keegan and he refused to rule himself out. Anyone hear/see this?

[The Fish 11079]

it's bollocks mate

they've ambushed him with questions he isn't prepared to answer. Says everyone knows that he loves the club and it's a club he's managed before. He's not ruling something out he hasn't really considered. To me it sounds like he honestly hasn't thought about a return what-so-ever, so ruling himself out or into anything would be daft.

 

Didn't strike me as a positive stance. (but with the right amount of persuasion and cash I reckon he could be convinced (which isn't something I'd want fwiw))

[Scottish Mag 3]

Former Newcastle United manager Kevin Keegan is not ruling himself 'in or out' of a return to the club he 'loves'.

 

 

Keegan has emerged as a popular choice to replace Sam Allardyce at St James' Park after Harry Redknapp's decision to stay at Portsmouth.

 

Reports have claimed that Keegan could form a managerial 'dream team' with Magpies legend Alan Shearer.

 

When asked about any interest in a second stint as Newcastle boss by Sky Sports News, Keegan admitted he had not had time to think about the subject.

 

However, he acknowledged his affection for the club and did not dismiss the possibility of another stab at the job.

 

"I'm not ruling myself in or out, or anything," Keegan told Sky Sports News.

 

"It's a club I love and that's all I'm prepared to say. Everybody knows that. It's a club I've managed before."

 

Keegan's first spell as Newcastle manager started in February 1992 as he kept the team in the old Division Two before winning the title the following year.

 

He led the club to third spot in their first campaign in the Premier League and blew a 12-point lead at the top in the 1995/96 season.

 

After leaving the club in January 1997, Keegan had spells in charge of Fulham, England and Manchester City, which was his last managerial position almost three years ago.