My dislike for the old ‘big’ clubs is such that I’m happy to see Citeh ruining their seasons for a few more years yet, but in the end it will get boring.
This x 100.
When United were winning the title year after year, their fans were insufferable. On the rare occasion they didn't win it, they'd sing we've got our trophy back the following year when they won the title again.
Same with Chelsea fans as Abramovich's dirty money bought title after title.
I think it's wonderful to see how City have stopped these people from crowing. Not only stopped them but shoved them right back in their box.
And anyway, just sit back and enjoy the wonderful football City are playing. I defy anyone who saw last nights game not to watch in awe. Sure unlimited money helps (to put it mildly) to create such a team but you've only got to look at the shambles Chelsea currently are to see it doesn't guarantee success.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
That Everton result is horrendous for them. They have the same stench about them as us. A club that shouldn’t be where it is - but will be until poor ownership is resolved.
You cannot be successful if the off-field stuff isn’t working in tandem with the on-field.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
I do agree with that but would Bruce have bought the right players for the money in question and got the whole side playing as a unit not just over time but straighaway? Schar (£3m) was already there and the other four in question are Pope (£10m), Trippier (£12m), Burn (£13m) and Botman (£32m). That is a total cost of £70m for the whole of their keeper and back four.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
That Everton result is horrendous for them. They have the same stench about them as us. A club that shouldn’t be where it is - but will be until poor ownership is resolved.
You cannot be successful if the off-field stuff isn’t working in tandem with the on-field.
I have always liked Everton.
A fantastic ground, the supporters are alright, and the city is fantastic for a weekend away.
Sadly, I can only see relegation after this shocker of a result.
I know a lot of people say 'oh they only win because they've got loads of money' but i thought this was a really good interview that goes into a bit of detail and explains exactly what Pep wanted to do. Yes you can have tons of money, but things like this is what wins you the big games.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
I do agree with that but would Bruce have bought the right players for the money in question and got the whole side playing as a unit not just over time but straighaway? Schar (£3m) was already there and the other four in question are Pope (£10m), Trippier (£12m), Burn (£13m) and Botman (£32m). That is a total cost of £70m for the whole of their keeper and back four.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
Bruce didn't have the say in transfers that Howe has now. Like I said I am not, for one moment, suggesting Bruce is even half the manager Howe is but your comparing apples and oranges because the manager isn't the only thing that changed.
If they had kept Bruce they wouldn't be 4th. But they almost certainly wouldn't be in a relegation fight either. If they had replaced Bruce with Howe and changed nothing else, they wouldn't be 4th either.
I know a lot of people say 'oh they only win because they've got loads of money' but i thought this was a really good interview that goes into a bit of detail and explains exactly what Pep wanted to do. Yes you can have tons of money, but things like this is what wins you the big games.
They have the most money though, so they're literally able to buy this kind of optimisation. If it hadn't been perfect, they'd have simply replaced Pep and the players with better. They reached peak infiniball earlier than scheduled. It's boring as fuck, sorry. I don't buy this wankathon at how great they are. They're a complete stain on football, along with PSG, the Spanish giants, Newcastle, Chelsea and anyone else to whom money is absolutely no object
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
I do agree with that but would Bruce have bought the right players for the money in question and got the whole side playing as a unit not just over time but straighaway? Schar (£3m) was already there and the other four in question are Pope (£10m), Trippier (£12m), Burn (£13m) and Botman (£32m). That is a total cost of £70m for the whole of their keeper and back four.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
Bruce didn't have the say in transfers that Howe has now. Like I said I am not, for one moment, suggesting Bruce is even half the manager Howe is but your comparing apples and oranges because the manager isn't the only thing that changed.
If they had kept Bruce they wouldn't be 4th. But they almost certainly wouldn't be in a relegation fight either. If they had replaced Bruce with Howe and changed nothing else, they wouldn't be 4th either.
And I totally agree that the transfers were a contributory factor to Newcastle's survival. But the acid test, so far as Bruce is concerned, is what subsequently went on at WBA. He managed 8 wins from 32 games and in this season it was 2 from 16. Following his departure, under Corberan, they have won 16 of their 31 matches. With exactly the same squad.
One thing that I heard recently was a former player is that even seasoned internationals at a club want to hear something different, however small, that challenges and improves them as a player. Guardiola does that. Howe does that. Arteta does that. Bruce doesn't. Someone like Warnock has been very successful but the reality is that he is a supreme motivator who can only take a side of limited footballers, when compared to the best in the land, so far and I really don't think he would have the same success with a group of internationals because he would not be sufficiently innovative.
That Everton result is horrendous for them. They have the same stench about them as us. A club that shouldn’t be where it is - but will be until poor ownership is resolved.
You cannot be successful if the off-field stuff isn’t working in tandem with the on-field.
I have always liked Everton.
A fantastic ground, the supporters are alright, and the city is fantastic for a weekend away.
Sadly, I can only see relegation after this shocker of a result.
A lot of my mates are Everton’s fans and always want them to do well. The people’s team. In England there is only one sleeping giant and that is them 9 league title in their history. For a club of their size to not have won anything for 30+ years in a crime.
After 72 consecutive years they will be relegated. I took 33/1 for them to finish bottom before the season started. Can’t just survive relegation and sell your own good player in Richarlison.
Angers me even more that the final year at Goodinson Park will be in the championship whilst we are stuck in league 1 with Northampton etc. One guarantee is that Everton home and away will be everyone cup final next season.
As a betting man, I am not sure i will be having them to go straight back up next season. Dele Alli to the rescue next season haha.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
I do agree with that but would Bruce have bought the right players for the money in question and got the whole side playing as a unit not just over time but straighaway? Schar (£3m) was already there and the other four in question are Pope (£10m), Trippier (£12m), Burn (£13m) and Botman (£32m). That is a total cost of £70m for the whole of their keeper and back four.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
Bruce didn't have the say in transfers that Howe has now. Like I said I am not, for one moment, suggesting Bruce is even half the manager Howe is but your comparing apples and oranges because the manager isn't the only thing that changed.
If they had kept Bruce they wouldn't be 4th. But they almost certainly wouldn't be in a relegation fight either. If they had replaced Bruce with Howe and changed nothing else, they wouldn't be 4th either.
And I totally agree that the transfers were a contributory factor to Newcastle's survival. But the acid test, so far as Bruce is concerned, is what subsequently went on at WBA. He managed 8 wins from 32 games and in this season it was 2 from 16. Following his departure, under Corberan, they have won 16 of their 31 matches. With exactly the same squad.
One thing that I heard recently was a former player is that even seasoned internationals at a club want to hear something different, however small, that challenges and improves them as a player. Guardiola does that. Howe does that. Arteta does that. Bruce doesn't. Someone like Warnock has been very successful but the reality is that he is a supreme motivator who can only take a side of limited footballers, when compared to the best in the land, so far and I really don't think he would have the same success with a group of internationals because he would not be sufficiently innovative.
But never said Bruce was good. Your now arguing a point I have twice agreed with you about...
Howe wouldn't have got the team Bruce had 4th. Bruce wouldn't have got the team Howe has 4th.
I think the argument of "he improves players" has so many variables, unless you observe it daily, you can never really say if its true or false. We all went through the same arguments when Bowyer was our manager.
It's the same with Newcastle. Right now most people seem to like them, they've got in amongst the 'big 6', it's nice to see someone else up near the top, Eddie Howe is a likeable manager, and despite the owners money the vast majority of the squad were there when Steve Bruce was manager.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I think that's the point and why I like Guardiola and Howe as Managers. Because they actually improve players. Guardiola has done it with Sterling, Walker, Foden, Stones and Grealish and that has benefitted the England team. Lewis will be the next beneficiary of that. Look at the Newcastle forum and how they can't believe how much better the likes of Almiron, Schar, Longstaff, Murphy, Willock and Joelinton have been performing than under Bruce. Then look at Chelsea and Spurs and their flops.
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
I do agree with that but would Bruce have bought the right players for the money in question and got the whole side playing as a unit not just over time but straighaway? Schar (£3m) was already there and the other four in question are Pope (£10m), Trippier (£12m), Burn (£13m) and Botman (£32m). That is a total cost of £70m for the whole of their keeper and back four.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
Bruce didn't have the say in transfers that Howe has now. Like I said I am not, for one moment, suggesting Bruce is even half the manager Howe is but your comparing apples and oranges because the manager isn't the only thing that changed.
If they had kept Bruce they wouldn't be 4th. But they almost certainly wouldn't be in a relegation fight either. If they had replaced Bruce with Howe and changed nothing else, they wouldn't be 4th either.
And I totally agree that the transfers were a contributory factor to Newcastle's survival. But the acid test, so far as Bruce is concerned, is what subsequently went on at WBA. He managed 8 wins from 32 games and in this season it was 2 from 16. Following his departure, under Corberan, they have won 16 of their 31 matches. With exactly the same squad.
One thing that I heard recently was a former player is that even seasoned internationals at a club want to hear something different, however small, that challenges and improves them as a player. Guardiola does that. Howe does that. Arteta does that. Bruce doesn't. Someone like Warnock has been very successful but the reality is that he is a supreme motivator who can only take a side of limited footballers, when compared to the best in the land, so far and I really don't think he would have the same success with a group of internationals because he would not be sufficiently innovative.
But never said Bruce was good. Your now arguing a point I have twice agreed with you about...
Howe wouldn't have got the team Bruce had 4th. Bruce wouldn't have got the team Howe has 4th.
I think the argument of "he improves players" has so many variables, unless you observe it daily, you can never really say if its true or false.We all went through the same arguments when Bowyer was our manager.
But there is loads and loads of anecdotal evidence from the players themselves about how they have been improved be it Guardiola or Howe. Notwithstanding that the likes of Cancello, Lewis, Walker and Stones to name just four have been converted and coached into playing different roles to the ones they were used to doing.
Equally, I don't think that you can compare someone like Bowyer to Howe - Howe took over at Bournemouth when they were bottom of League 2, and in danger of being relegated to the Conference, to the Premier League and kept them there for five seasons. In 2015 Howe was named Manager of the Decade by the EFL. He left to go to Burnley in that period (and then returned) but found it very hard personally following the death of his mother - emotionally and so far away from home he admitted that he could not do the job to the best of his ability. That is his honesty and unlike Bowyer he doesn't choose to air any dirty linen in public about players not performing. There was a long article on the Newcastle forum that I read (and think quoted on here) from a Bournemouth fan who detailed every single thing that Howe changed and how he did it including the hours worked, trips abroad to learn from other coaches etc etc. It made a fascinating read.
You do not achieve that unless you are consistently doing the right things both tactically and through good man management. He built the foundations for Bournemouth and that is the reason why, whenever he returns, he gets a standing ovation from their fans. Not many Managers have done that or get that response for doing so.
In some respects, the prospect of loads of money could be Howe's undoing in that this could undermine his achievements. That said, I hope that he takes the England job before that day arrives.
But I do agree that Howe wouldn't have got the team that Bruce had 4th and that Bruce wouldn't have got the team Howe has 4th. It's just that I believe that Howe is someone who has a vision of what he wants to do in the short, medium and long term whereas Bruce hangs around as long as he can. A bit like comparing Guardiola to Mourinho. One has had three clubs in the last 15 years and the other has had seven. One leaves the club in a good state whereas the other leaves because the players have usually had enough of him by then!
Palace v West Ham match delayed by 15 minutes. Because the season ticket card reader doesn't work. Never happened when you used to tear off a ticket from your book. Technology eh!!!!
Comments
When United were winning the title year after year, their fans were insufferable. On the rare occasion they didn't win it, they'd sing we've got our trophy back the following year when they won the title again.
Same with Chelsea fans as Abramovich's dirty money bought title after title.
I think it's wonderful to see how City have stopped these people from crowing. Not only stopped them but shoved them right back in their box.
And anyway, just sit back and enjoy the wonderful football City are playing. I defy anyone who saw last nights game not to watch in awe. Sure unlimited money helps (to put it mildly) to create such a team but you've only got to look at the shambles Chelsea currently are to see it doesn't guarantee success.
Give it 3/4/5 years and if they're still in the top 4 and buying the best players around Europe for 75m+ everyone will hate them.
I had 4-1 and Rashford to score at anytime at 30/1. Think I should have gone 4-0.
Absolutely pathetic.
Disallowed, fractionally offside
Won 0
Drew 1
Lost 13
I am not, for one second, suggesting Eddie Howe isn't a better manager than Steve Bruce but you can't underestimate the difference buying a decent defence made. It gives the attacking players a lot more freedom, I remember a game just before the take over when Newcastle had a Championship back 4, at best, and basically played a 4-6-0.
They have the same stench about them as us. A club that shouldn’t be where it is - but will be until poor ownership is resolved.
Liverpool spent £178m on three of their defensive unit - van Dijk, Allison and Konate, Man United spent £163m on three - Maguire, Varane and Martinez, Spurs spent £135m on four - Sanchez, Romero, Sessegnon and Emerson, Chelsea spent on £213m on four - Koulibaly, Cucurella, Fofana and Chilwell. Those four sides have conceded 39, 39, 53 and 35 goals respectively compared to Newcastle's 26.
So Newcastle didn't throw the sort of money around that one might expect them to have done given their miserly defence. These players were carefully chosen for not just their footballing ability but also their mindset and Howe's assessment as to whether they would fit into one fighting unit. And they needed to be just that because at the time that Howe took over last season Newcastle were staring relegation in the face. Look at Dan Burn - he could not get a regular starting place at Brighton (68 in three and a half years) where he was used in all sorts of positions. He has started 30 of Newcastle's 32 PL matches at LB and came on as sub in those other two.
Newcastle will finish 4th at worst, no team has lost less games than they have in the PL and they have the best defence too. They have spent money but nothing like the sort of sums that City, Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool have forked out and there isn't one player who isn't pulling in the same direction as all of the others. And ultimately that is what a good Manager does. He gets the players to play the way that he wants them to play, as a unit but also improves them individually. Steve Bruce would never have got Newcastle doing that as evidenced by his subsequent disastrous spell at WBA - with 2 wins from the opening 16 games this season, he left them in the relegation zone at the time of his sacking. They've won 15 of the subsequent 28 matches.
Southampton are surely gone.
Leicester v Everton on Monday night is huge!
If they had kept Bruce they wouldn't be 4th. But they almost certainly wouldn't be in a relegation fight either. If they had replaced Bruce with Howe and changed nothing else, they wouldn't be 4th either.
One thing that I heard recently was a former player is that even seasoned internationals at a club want to hear something different, however small, that challenges and improves them as a player. Guardiola does that. Howe does that. Arteta does that. Bruce doesn't. Someone like Warnock has been very successful but the reality is that he is a supreme motivator who can only take a side of limited footballers, when compared to the best in the land, so far and I really don't think he would have the same success with a group of internationals because he would not be sufficiently innovative.
Howe wouldn't have got the team Bruce had 4th. Bruce wouldn't have got the team Howe has 4th.
I think the argument of "he improves players" has so many variables, unless you observe it daily, you can never really say if its true or false. We all went through the same arguments when Bowyer was our manager.
Equally, I don't think that you can compare someone like Bowyer to Howe - Howe took over at Bournemouth when they were bottom of League 2, and in danger of being relegated to the Conference, to the Premier League and kept them there for five seasons. In 2015 Howe was named Manager of the Decade by the EFL. He left to go to Burnley in that period (and then returned) but found it very hard personally following the death of his mother - emotionally and so far away from home he admitted that he could not do the job to the best of his ability. That is his honesty and unlike Bowyer he doesn't choose to air any dirty linen in public about players not performing. There was a long article on the Newcastle forum that I read (and think quoted on here) from a Bournemouth fan who detailed every single thing that Howe changed and how he did it including the hours worked, trips abroad to learn from other coaches etc etc. It made a fascinating read.
You do not achieve that unless you are consistently doing the right things both tactically and through good man management. He built the foundations for Bournemouth and that is the reason why, whenever he returns, he gets a standing ovation from their fans. Not many Managers have done that or get that response for doing so.
In some respects, the prospect of loads of money could be Howe's undoing in that this could undermine his achievements. That said, I hope that he takes the England job before that day arrives.
But I do agree that Howe wouldn't have got the team that Bruce had 4th and that Bruce wouldn't have got the team Howe has 4th. It's just that I believe that Howe is someone who has a vision of what he wants to do in the short, medium and long term whereas Bruce hangs around as long as he can. A bit like comparing Guardiola to Mourinho. One has had three clubs in the last 15 years and the other has had seven. One leaves the club in a good state whereas the other leaves because the players have usually had enough of him by then!