Yes, to be fair it has glossed over the low points. Such as his failure to sack Barmby after his jealousy-driven assault on Bullard. A decision still haunting the club today. However, Phil Brown deserves respect from all of us, y'know, for achieving something here.
Thanks for joining us Dean. King, as much as he's a **** was and still is a striker capable of scoring fairly regularly in the PL. Cousin with a strike partner was also a good player. Having to play half a season carrying an injury (or carrying Manucho) screwed up the 2nd half of the season for him and then he fell out with Brown as well. 451 was a farce for everyone involved. Where they are when they're 40 is irrelevent though, that season they weren't in their 40s and you pick the team based on the players then, not where they'll be in 15 years time. But it you could try to quote me correctly? I said they were better players to START games. Surely even you can admit that due to your age and the speed of play in the PL you were going to be better used as an impact sub than as a regular starter. Much like we'd start a game with McKenna and Evans now using Barmby as a 60-70 minute sub. Given our form at the time there was no reason to use impact subs, and repeatedly publically questionning the management's decision not to start you every game wasn't appropriate, especially as we were so high in the table for the first 2 or 3 articles.
On the Cousin, King debate. Still believe that the spine we had of TURNER, ASHBEE, KING (and COUSIN) was made in heaven. "If only" it could have stayed in place all season. Oh! and pretty decent article; hairdryer v naughty step!
