saintbletch

A spot on analysis IMO. The important part of the formation is the "-1" defensive midfielder in front of the defence - Wotton. This makes us able to be quite adventurous going forward. Watching how we dominated the space created when we went 4-4-2 and seeing how MK Dons looked lost justifies the change when games have become too tight.

I agree. The issue is not the fact that Pardew changed personnel, but that he changed the formation. It was a big decision because we had kept the game really tight. Making the change gave both teams more space in the midfield and the two players that came on did really well. It wasn't an obvious choice but a brave one IMO, and one that Pardew got spot on.

I agree with all of that except the emboldened part above. Over the 90 minutes I don't think I've seen a worse performance from a visiting player. He was woeful.

I agree. It reads as if it's a hoax. If not, then the interviewee has either not been trained in dealing with the media at all, or he has no absolutely no awareness of the sensitivities of what he is saying. There is definitely something fishy about this Storrie.

I too would love to see that formation BUT can we really change a formation that has got has scoring freely and winning games on the bounce? There is so much that is contingent on the 4-5-1 formation. For example Wotton seems to be re-born but would I have him in CM in a 4? I don't know. Morgan again is playing well with Wotton behind him but move that to a 4 and I'm not so sure he's strong enough. Injuries might force AP's hand I guess Thanks for a really interesting read.

No offence. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you wrote and I hope you saw the smilie which was intended to mean that my comment was light-hearted. When I read your post I was just struck by how comfortable you were talking in glowing terms - about yourself. As I said perhaps I misread it.

A team functions best if everyone in the team a) has a specific role and b) knows and understands what that role is and what is expected of them. That, and bringing in some talent and experience is what Pardew has done in my opinion. I have no idea what his individual man-management skills are - but now I do know all about yours. Thanks for letting me read all about you and your management skills. Are you a narcissistic personality disorder sufferer?

Boro set to name Strachan as boss from the BBC. I thought Southgate's treatment was a bit harsh especially by Steve Gibson's normal standards - who was is danger of losing his über-chairman tag. OK he got them relegated but the decision seems more to do with appeasing the fans who are no longer turning out to watch their team. The BBC mentioned some of the conditions Southgate was working under this morning. Last year, when they were still a Premiership side, he lowered the wage bill by £7M and brought in £25M in transfer revenue. This year he further lowered the wage bill by £10M and still had the team one point from top spot in the Championship. I suppose it's academic if the fans had given up on their team but it does seem a bit harsh. Either way I think Strachan will thrive under a chairman like Gibson. Good luck to him.

Got it. So just to confirm the basis of your vehement defence of this incident was the store you placed in the evidence of some passers-by that you now apparently don't know and I'm guessing wouldn't recognise again from Adam. Come on StuRomseySaint. You can't have it both ways. You either heard this and put stay in the 'witness' reports or you have no real clue about this at all. Perhaps you could at the least call Crime Stoppers and offer a description of the passers-by. You never know it might help. In the mean time I guess we should all re-read everything you've written on this thread, repeating to ourselves StuRomseySaint doesn't know for certain that things happened the way he says. Thanks for taking part.

Strachan was called out by an ex-'Boro pro on Radio 5 this morning as a name that had been mentioned amongst those close to the club. But he then qualified that by questioning whether Strachan would want the job.

Seems to me StuRomseySaint that you are exactly the type of person that the police want to hear from. You 'heard' and you have "hear(sic) witness accounts' so presumably you know people that at the very least saw what was going on. Go on. Do the right thing. You never know you might get as much pleasure from wearing your sticky "I helped stop a crime" badge as you do wearing your "I'm a bit football factory, me." badge on here. Perhaps someone on this forum will inform the police that you could help them. Not me. I believe in the "what is said on the forum stays on the forum" credo. I'm not a legal expert but I wonder if it will give the forum administrators a little legal heartburn that you apparently know people that could help police with enquiries into a serious assault but are choosing not to give information to the police.

or Peter Mandleson.

Is this confirmed?

So it seems that due to a lack of thorough research on the OP's behalf this thread has descended into farce. In an effort to interpret the original question in light of the disclosures below it appears that we now have two questions. 1) Was Lawrie McMenemy one of the 20 best post-war managers in English football in 1980? 2) Should Lawrie McMenemy or his agent be more open in the way LM is promoted for after dinner speaking engagements? I'd answer 1) probably and 2) don't care.

Top post. One that I could have written myself - your experiences match my own very closely. Although my road from Damascus came from having a southern Irish catholic mother and a northern Irish protestant father. The hatred and intolerance between the two sides of my parent's families - apparently in the name of their respective views of God, told me that religion wasn't for me.

I agree (once I'd looked up epistemological that is). I enjoyed reading the God Delusion but was left feeling that Dawkins was 'religiously' anti-religious. It's belief systems in general that I have an issue with and Dawkins almost tries to turn science into a belief system. Smart bloke though.

Don't know that I agree. I'm not a believer BTW so I may not be qualified on matters of faith. However, I don't see a direct link between faith and fundamentalism. I know many people of faith who are not fundamentalists. I think the point where you and I appear to agree is that religion should be interpreted in the context of the current times. I heard a very interesting interview today with Geert Vilders (Dutch MP on an anti-Islam ticket) where he expressed his dislike of Islam because to its believers, the Koran is actually the word of Allah and as such must be interpreted literally and is not open to interpretation. He believes that it is this fact that leads to Muslim Fundamentalism. Whereas he pointed out that Christian teachings were recorded by scholars after the supposed (my term, not his) fact and therefore followers strive to work out the meaning of the text of the bible - as people are doing here. A luxury not given to Muslims as they believe that they are dealing with the word of Allah. I have no alignment to the general views of Vilders, but I did think the distinction he made between the two religions was very interesting.

I've tried to stay out of this but have enjoyed the debate from a distance. Can I just clarify what you're saying? Genuinely confused - no agenda here. Are you saying that the people of the time would not have used or understood the significance of the phrase "through the eye of a needle" BUT that the gate that may or may not have stood in the wall was known as the "eye of the needle"? If you are then I don't understand how the phrase "through the eye of a needle" was NOT understood but that metaphor/idiom "the eye of a needle" used to describe the hole in wall was understood. Unless of course the "eye of the needle" was by some coincidence the name of this small gate. But I don't understand how it would have got that name outside of some sort of metaphor/idiom. One final point - the biblical quote that I see talks of "...eye of A needle" not "...eye of THE needle". i.e. it's a concept not literal.

"You talkin' to me?" Or perhaps "Why am I here and not Red&White56?" As has already been pointed out I'm not going to Staplewood but am happy to ask some questions come the end of season dinner. And I'm hoping to do it in the style of Tubes' one question and one questions only on Soccer AM. "Oh Graeme, your quite fat, who in the squad is the biggest ****?" That sort of thing.

Well I really wasn't expecting this...I've never won anything before. I guess I should say a few words but I haven't prepared anything. I'd like to thank my parents for copulating, my wife for copulating and SteveGrant for pocketing the tenner and fixing this draw. Kerching!

Or just build a really big needle?

...all of this and his team is sitting 'a lowly' 5th in the table. McParland quoted as being on £80K per year. So Sol Campbell would likely have earned more in pre-season before he fecked off than the manager would earn over the duration of his contract. And the Director of Football won't go near the manager's job - not even on a temporary basis. All that money being spent on a League Two club - it's like some sort of ugly genetically modified Frankensteinian experiment. And it's not necessary or helpful.

Although he's not as lanky as PW, that's not a bad shout.

So are you basically saying that you really like Roy Hodgson's "ars".

So the stats seem to show that he got Blackburn to 6th and into Europe in his first season. They had finished 13th the previous season so that was quite an improvement. Then as you say he was sacked in November having had a bad start to the campaign but having lost key players. He did buy the 'pup' Kevin Davies who later went on to be a the first name on the team sheet and leading thug at Bolton for years. So a mixed record I guess but not quite as bad as I thought it was.