Nothing out of the ordinary (except the speed at which they're getting his interviews up now). He's frustrated - thinks it's a game we could have won, all too often he had space on the left but never got the ball, everything was going down the right. He shoudl be fit for Fulham.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Answers

In fact, all that differentiates it from pretty much every previous interview is that he doesn't big up Distin.

So, those who were there - does he have a point about lack of service?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Not really. He had a fair amount of the ball and frequently ran into trouble with it. He mixed this up with one or two superb crosses and crossfield passes. He is the archetypal footballing enigma.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

It's his nimrod variations that cause it.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Whoooosh. (the sound of a Nimrod flying over my head) a musical allusion?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

I thought Nimrod Variations was slang for our defence?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Not sure, but their theme tune is apparently, "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, Dear Liza".

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

It certainly isn't 'Stand By Your Man'

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

A "Nimrod" is defined as "son of a mighty hunter" which counts out wor lads straight away.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Is it not "son of a sheet mighty hunter"

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Lack of Service My arse. He had plenty of the ball but either held it for a couple of sec and gave it back to another player under pressure, or ran with it into a defender.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

I thought it meant an idiotic person....hmmmm...so it's not a put down?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Well looky here. Ya learn somethig new every day. :-)

Here's an excerpt:
At one point, gloating over his adversary's failures, Daffy sneers, "Well, well, my little Nimrod..."

Here, the duck was using the term "Nimrod" strictly in accordance with the definition supplied by Webster's New World Dictionary (Second Collegiate Edition): "...the son of Cush, referred to as a mighty hunter: Gen. 10: 8-9...a hunter." In other words, he was saying (sarcastically), "Well, you're quite the mighty hunter, aren't you?"

Given the context, however, just about everyone who saw that cartoon took the word "Nimrod" to mean "loser," or "clownish nincompoop." Since the word was so pleasing to the ear, a thitherto obscure term quickly gained wide usage with an entirely new meaning, and it has been used thus ever since.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

I stand dissected. LOL, ciara

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

O'Brien could be a ringer for Nimrod with his nose. The Enigma Variations...presumably that refers to Bobby Robson's use of the sweeper system earlier in the season.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Well technically you are correct, Syme, and I was wrong as I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. However by this definition we're both right, providing I now say I was being sarcastic. so....yeah....I meant to be sarcastic. ;-))

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

You yanks must have a few chortles at the name of our high-tech surveillance aircraft then (named due to it's bulbous nose cone and presumably because it hunts for things);-)

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

Yes, but Nimrod was in opposition to God (probably because he likely hunted human prey) so the reference to the Biblical use of the name would be derogatory anyway !

This thread is now well off track ! `8¬)

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

I like these threads that go off on tangents ;-) Hope you don't mind though, Dan.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

If only Lolo knew what his interviews start.... ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2002

I don't whether they inferred this from Robert's web-site utterings, but TribalFootball is carrying the following inflammatory article:

Laurent Robert has blasted his Newcastle United teammates after their 1-1 draw with Aston Villa on Tuesday.

The French left-winger accused Toon players of isolating him and resorting to long-ball tactics. He said, "That was a match we could have won - but, yet again, we failed to take our chances. I'm convinced we would have gone home with all three points if only we had played it a different way.

"We kept hitting long balls upfield and our play was mostly down the right channel. I often found myself completely unmarked in plenty of space but the ball never came over. I find that a real shame."

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

No denying the long-ball remark, I seem to remember commenting on it quite forcefully on the match thread.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

...imo we have played the 'long ball' very successfully this season to make use of Bellamy's pace. It has been more obvious when doing the same thing to two big strikers, in part because it has been less successful.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

The problem is that we are bypassing 4 midfielders who can all pass the ball in favour of hoofing it at 2 slow forwards, one of whom can't head without the ref blowing the whistle and one of the whom can't head at all. Posession given up for a 30/70 ball makes no sense at all.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I'm not sure that 'long ball' is a useful term any more because of it's pejorative overtones. Nothing wrong with a long pass, either for someone to run on to, or to an able target man, and Robert makes plenty of long passes himself. The repetetive and aimless use of log, high balls seemingly just because it gets the ball momentarily nearer the opposition goal is what I think most of us hate, including Robert.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

It's long balls at home that p*ss me off, look at the Everton game, no long balls there.

The long balls to Bellamy only really work when we are winning, as the other team pushes forward a bit giving him a headstart. With Shearer (alone up front as I heard from Metro against Villa) it make no sense to knock it long.

Can you remember when we were experiencing our "purple patch" around Christmas? Nearly every time Given got the ball, he realeased it to one of the full backs. Now he boots it as hard as he can to Shearer or Cort. Complete waste IMHO. What's wrong with ball to Hughes, up to Solano and then start the nice little passing triangles? (or the same on the left)

Booting it up is more often than not a waste of posession as we rarely get anything from it.

Why doesn't Robert raise these concerns with BR? I think BR would rather be told to his face than via a French website.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002