Page 1 of Keegan`s comments.............he`s right isn`t he ?

The bit about Newcastle not being able to break the monopoly of the current big four while he`s in charge there. I mean unless they get hold of a serious big spender(and soon) with mega bucks I don`t think anyone can see it happening. OK I don`t suppose he should say it as it`s not exactly a morale booster for the club but then he is recognised as someone who speaks the truth. I reckon the "boring" part of his comments can be put aside as a reflection of the same grip of the big four and not as a general view of the Premier League.
Do you think he`s right ?
Pete :¦

He`s right and he`s wrong, at the same time.
He`s right, but maybe wrong to say it.
We all know Newcastle have next to no chance of getting into the top four.
I keep saying it, but their sheer geography works against them.
For a given wage, a player will always, IMO, go for the London or Manchester team.
I`ve spent a fair amount of time in all of them. and I know I`d rather live in London or Manchester, especially if I were loaded.
So that leaves Newcastle with no option but to pay miles more than other teams.
Even the, I`m not convinced the right players would join.
Once you reach a given salary level, I think a player will pick his club, rather than automatically go for the highest bidder.
The club owner has obviously looked upon his comments as defeatist though, rather than realistic.
I think there are other teams far more likely to break into the top four than Newcastle.

This item was edited on Friday, 9th May 2008, 10:44

The EPL is a strange beast for me, I mean Scottish league is slated due to the Old Firm dominating, is there much difference between 2 teams dominating and 3 teams dominating? (I rule out Liverpool as they havent challenged for years) I know the argument about it being harder in the EPL and of course it is, but I would say there are as many easy games as hard.

The main problem as ever is cash, as in Scotland if a 2nd tier team buys a player and he`s a hit (Spurs and Berbatov spring to mind) you can pretty much guarantee he will be poached by one of the challengers or a top European team which weakens them and strengthens the top teams even more, Chelsea are as ever a law unto themselves as they can pretty much buy anyone they want.

I think that in the future something really needs to be done about the foreign player quota as I think it really is hurting the development of the game and lets say even 6 players must be English would be an improvement which would help not only the lower teams on a feeding system but the International side.

Finally I think boring was the wrong word, maybe monotonous would be more apt as you could be confident in the last 5 years plus the winners would be Arsenal Man U or Chelsea.

Quote:
The EPL is a strange beast for me, I mean Scottish league is slated due to the Old Firm dominating, is there much difference between 2 teams dominating and 3 teams dominating?

The SPL is, quite rightly, slated because of the utter dominance of Celtic/Rangers.
It`s unusual for either team to lose against any of other teams in the league in a season.
That`s dominance waaaay over and above EPL levels.
Whilst the same teams may end up at the top of the EPL, the league itself is far more competitive and, therefore, entertaining.

Quote:
as in Scotland if a 2nd tier team buys a player and he`s a hit (Spurs and Berbatov spring to mind)

Nice try :¦
Spurs have had a poor season this time around, but were only 1 point away from the Top 4 the season before.
Given they have a better manager and plenty of money to spend (bigger club, financially, than the likes of Celtic, for example), I would say they are definitely one of the most likely clubs to break into the top 4 next season.

This item was edited on Friday, 9th May 2008, 10:50

1) Newcastle are the 4th biggest spender in the premier league for the last 10 years

2) Everton have built a decent squad and a firm footing from which to start challenging (well so it seems) without spending the mega bucks that other clubs have

3) those 2 points aside I can still see Keegan`s point - though I think he was saying it to try and curtail the inevitable Geordie over-expectations


I like the way mbilko includes Chelsea but ignores liverpool - They did nothing for years until they got Mourinho and bucket of cash to use. We;ve been in the top 2 to 4 a substantial number of times over the past 17 years (or however long the EPL has now being going)
Laughable as that is, the other point he totally misses about the std of EPL vs SPL is how many times are you likely to see a mid table side in EPL do the the double over Celtic or Rangers like Man CIty did?? or Bottom of the table teams like Gretna / ST Mirren hold teams like Celtic and Ranegrs to draws like B`ham / WIgan have to the likes of Pool, Arsenal etc????






Chris

A.C.C. Member
LFC
YNWA

Quote:
Laughable as that is, the other point he totally misses about the std of EPL vs SPL is how many times are you likely to see a mid table side in EPL do the the double over Celtic or Rangers like Man CIty did?? or Bottom of the table teams like Gretna / ST Mirren hold teams like Celtic and Ranegrs to draws like B`ham / WIgan have to the likes of Pool, Arsenal etc????

My point exactly.
Christ, he ( or his chum spooky1967 ) had a pop at Aberdeen for celebrating their Parkhead cup win like they`d won the Champion`s League.
In itself, that`s an indictment of how rare an occurence it is to win against either of them.

It`s unusual for either team to lose against any of other teams in the league in a season

last few years losing record for Celtic and Rangers

07/08 5 5
06/07 6/8
05/06 3/8
04/05 3/7
03/04 6/3

Last few years Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U losing records

07/08 1/5/5
06/07 5/11/5
05/06 3/8/5
04/05 3/3/5

So not too much difference in the amount of games lost then? I googled the info so if its not 100% i apologise :)

I didnt count liverpool because of the reason I mentioned before, tell me the last year they sustained a challenge because off hand I seriously cant remember.

This item was edited on Friday, 9th May 2008, 11:17

last few years losing record for Celtic and Rangers
Quote:

07/08 5 5
06/07 6/8
05/06 3/8
04/05 3/7
03/04 6/3

Last few years Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U losing records

07/08 1/5/5
06/07 5/11/5
05/06 3/8/5
04/05 3/3/5

How many of Rangers/Celtic loses were against each other?

Probably a similar number to the loses between the big 3 (or 4 if u want) in the EPL??

So, Celtic or Rangers, basically, have little chance of losing to anyone other than each other, in a season?
Correct?
The EPL top 4, by comparison, have the chance of at least three other teams beating them in season?
So that makes the EPL at least 3 times more competitive?
That`s ignoring the likes of Bolton beating Man U at the Reebok (as they did this season)?

Give up, mbilko.
Your vehement support of the SPL is admirable, but you`re always going to lose this argument.
Non old-firm wins against the old firm are like Hens teeth.

The top 4 of the EPL are perfectly likely to lose against `lesser` opposition.
Using your own view of Tottenham as a `lesser` team, they have managed two draws against Man utd and humpings of Arsenal and Chelsea.