You sure? Just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything, just links to him posting beforehand that he wouldn't be able to make it, that @moreinjuredthanowen referenced. Not mentioned here either: https://www.skysports.com/football/...e funeral for,well as former Liverpool player Sounds like only some players went and there were several who didn't go.
Seems very high but then I think that about every fee that a prem club has paid for any player over the last 5 years. Had a decent year at Forest. But he was in a team that sat back and used pace to hit teams on the break. Brilliant in that style, but Newcastle are going to be the dominant team in 75% of their games and he won’t have that kind of space. Might be a dangerous player for them in games against the top clubs where they will leave more space though.
Newcastle dont play dominant football. They literally parked a bus and hoofed it 3 times against us. Thry dont do.much different up and down the league. In the end he probably fulls a gap from them that Murphy cant long term.
Like I said in my posts - in 75% of their games they will be dominant side. Only times they won’t will be against top teams. Not sure why you suddenly think every club just hoofs it long all of a sudden. Kind of pointless to have a discussion
Newcastle Everton - 65% possession Arsenal v Newcastle - 48% possession Newcastle v Chelsea - 44% possession Brighton v Newcastle - 54% possession Newcastle v Ipswich - 77% possession Villa v Newcastle - 51% possession Newcastle v palace - 59% possession Last few fixtures of the season that bothered to go through. So had more possession v Everton Brighton Ipswich Villa and palace. Less possession v Arsenal Chelsea. So exactly like I said, v lower teams, will generally dominate possession and therefore play less on the counter. V top teams wil have less possession and be more counter football which will suit Elanga.
What's domination then? 60+? Just as an matter of interest, I have no strong opinion on this, just an impression
51 v 49 is not domination for me. Its a 5minute spell.maybe. 60 v 40 is probably a long period in each half that was dominated (say 15 to 20mins each half) 70 v 30 like city v forest would be a classic one side dominating possession and one sitting back
The idea that Newcastle play hoofball is nonsense particularly as the strongest part of teir team is CM
They certainly play hoof ball.against us. They were rubbish at anfield. Frankly they were poor at Wembley and hoof it as isak who van dijk was killing off. We made a **** error where burns was let have the run of beyond the far post off corners. Thst was it. Hoooooooof. It worked but let's not pretend they play lovely football like barca
That's not how I remember the final at all. They were better than us by miles, faster and more competitive. They should have scored more. We were terrible.
Fine. Ignore the word domination Newcastle have MORE of the ball against lower teams who tend to sit in a low block so elanga’s pace won’t be as potent as it is at Forest where Forest are usually the ones sitting back and hitting on a counter. Against the top teams Newcastle have LESS of the ball so his pace to counter may be more effective. Better?
Agreed. They were all over Liverpool faster to everything, stronger in the tackle, quicker in the press.
Just wondering what you thought about it in general. Specifically on newcastle, they are not set up to be a technical side. They are physical. A long way from a side you'd go out of you way to see play
No. Thry literally got it and hoofed it as isak. They had zero intent of being turned over in their own half. It was a dire game. Let's not mistake physicality and technical play. You can be fitter and run about and hoof it at isak.
Go watch it back. Isak didn't get one decent ball first half. Constantly dominated in the air and having to compete with vvd. Trippier just standing there trying to make sure he had double cover and pumping it. Just cos we were leggy after too many being over played and 120mins v psg doesn't mean Newcastle didn't have a clear plan of zero risk and set peice against us.
I generally agree but I'd call it direct football rather than "hooded it". That sacrificed midfield and split the team between defence and attack; defended the box in numbers and then went direct to their wide attackers (where our FBs leave space) and built from there. It's exactly how I'd set a team up to play against us.
Someone who actually remembers the gsme then. Good. Imo we could have been there still and not scored but if we had marked burns properly they would probably have been there still and never scored. It wasn't a good game at all. The horrendous scene of 3 separate warnings being ignored on burns before he nodded it in from a relatively long range was decisive. We were not capable of chasing a gsme on that day we were absolutely out on our feet They deserved their win, but it wasn't down to them playing good football, it was down to direct football and a set piece. They were drilling it far post off trippier at set peice (who couldn't run but we couldn't get at home as we were so slow) thry line up the big man burns at a spot where thry expected macallister and there he was. We didn't adjust and thats why we lost. That first half isak wasn't in the game at all.
