Theregulars

Such a skidmark on the day, that.

Daaaaaammmnnnn.

Worst possible person to get injured in the squad.

Liquid football

And then you have to say Simpson did well there.

Thomas ghosts round Simpson too often for my liking.

BOOM.

Love Jonas in the centre.

Redknapp: " I don't see him scoring tap-ins"

Anyone else noticed Sky's team line up moving picture for Cisse is his head superimposed onto Shola?

Would absolutely love to give these insects a footballing masterclass.

Totally forgot he played for us.

If RVP wasn't so good, Arsenal would be mid-table. If Messi wasn't so good, Barca wouldn't be the best team in the world. If Rooney hadn't scored 20 this year, no way Man U would be winning the league. If Yaya Toure didn't play as often, Man City may not contend for the title. Team minus best/better players = less points and worse league position. I'm referring to chances created. Think we're 3rd bottom of the chances created league. CHANCES CREATED MINIMAL BA ON FIRE MAXIMAL. It's not like Ba just gets the ball in defence and runs it into the goal. Lots of his goals have been set up for him mate, or at least passed to him in a promising position. We're 3rd bottom of chances created league, we're 6th top of actually relevant league. It's an indication of the sides play in positive space (the opp half). Nobody else scoring etc...Tell me if any of our midfielders is even in the top 20 assists? These are the broader indicators of poor direct football. No it's not, the stats relating to us are an indication of whichever style of football we choose to play, which, as of this moment, is a relatively successful style. To score the goals we have done, there have to have been assists or key plays leading up to the goal, and there have been enough of them to mean we have won the majority of games we've played this season.

If RVP wasn't so good, Arsenal would be mid-table. If Messi wasn't so good, Barca wouldn't be the best team in the world. If Rooney hadn't scored 20 this year, no way Man U would be winning the league. If Yaya Toure didn't play as often, Man City may not contend for the title. Team minus best/better players = less points and worse league position. I'm referring to chances created. Think we're 3rd bottom of the chances created league. CHANCES CREATED MINIMAL BA ON FIRE MAXIMAL. It's not like Ba just gets the ball in defence and runs it into the goal. Lots of his goals have been set up for him mate, or at least passed to him in a promising position. We're 3rd bottom of chances created league, we're 6th top of actually relevant league. We don't create enough chances for a side in 6th I can't make it any simpler than that. There are charts out there showing it. Can't be arsed looking for them. Last time I looked we were 3rd bottom of it. We look like a team in 6th - if you look at the table, that's where we are, which to me looks like a side in the top 6.

If RVP wasn't so good, Arsenal would be mid-table. If Messi wasn't so good, Barca wouldn't be the best team in the world. If Rooney hadn't scored 20 this year, no way Man U would be winning the league. If Yaya Toure didn't play as often, Man City may not contend for the title. Team minus best/better players = less points and worse league position. I'm referring to chances created. Think we're 3rd bottom of the chances created league. CHANCES CREATED MINIMAL BA ON FIRE MAXIMAL. It's not like Ba just gets the ball in defence and runs it into the goal. Lots of his goals have been set up for him mate, or at least passed to him in a promising position. We're 3rd bottom of chances created league, we're 6th top of actually relevant league.

If RVP wasn't so good, Arsenal would be mid-table. If Messi wasn't so good, Barca wouldn't be the best team in the world. If Rooney hadn't scored 20 this year, no way Man U would be winning the league. If Yaya Toure didn't play as often, Man City may not contend for the title. Team minus best/better players = less points and worse league position.

Not a single person is suggesting that winning isn't better than entertaining, some of us thinks we can play better without negatively affecting our results. A good point. Perhaps Pardew is going for the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach. I don't think it's a given that we wouldn't suffer if we played better football, and to be fair to the manager there is evidence to back it up. We got spanked by Fulham trying to pass it around, and Chelsea picked us apart on the counter. However, there are also examples where we likely would have got more points if we played more daring and attractive football, so the point is a circular one. I also never said people were suggesting entertaining was better than winning, but people who bemoaned the lack of entertainment did not set sufficient stock in the fact that we are winning. Well, I'd say things looked pretty broke against Tottenham, Wolves, Sunderland and Arsenal. In different ways. Tottenham, fair enough, we were without our midfield. Wolves and Arsenal convincingly closing the shop and pretty much surrender. Sunderland in the end was saved by Pardew and the players realizing; "hey, let's try to play some football for a change". That's a good point, too. My point was more aimed at the overall picture in relation to the whole season, but you are right, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that his system could use a tweaking, but not enough to suggest that it's rubbish/spineless/cowardly/gutless etc as many have levelled. However your point is valid.

If that was the case then why didn't we bring somebody in during the January transfer window when we spent £10 million on a forward? Because nobody of the requisite quality was available at a reasonable price? This is a transfer strategy which has been proved to have serious merit on the basis of this season. Also, they probably didn't think Williamson would be as suspect as he has been based on how solid, if unspectacular, he was last year.

We were all over Fulham and we were 1-0 at half time, 2nd half we didn't play well and got slaughtered and weren't trying to pass it around in that half. Bigger picture. We tried to play decent, passing football with a high-line - the warning signs that we'd be pinged on the counter were there before half-time (Santon should have been sent off for hauling down cueball Johnson). We were brutally exposed on the counter-attack by playing that style of football, lending total credence to Otter's post at the top of this page.

Not a single person is suggesting that winning isn't better than entertaining, some of us thinks we can play better without negatively affecting our results. Exactly. Krul time wasting was embarrassing yesterday. We looked quite good for about the first half hour, but then just tried to shut up shop and win the game 1-0. Against teams who we are at least the equals of footballing wise, we should be trying to go on and kill the game. Shutting up shop is a method of killing the game which can be just as effective as going for the jugular.

Not a single person is suggesting that winning isn't better than entertaining, some of us thinks we can play better without negatively affecting our results. A good point. Perhaps Pardew is going for the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach. I don't think it's a given that we wouldn't suffer if we played better football, and to be fair to the manager there is evidence to back it up. We got spanked by Fulham trying to pass it around, and Chelsea picked us apart on the counter. However, there are also examples where we likely would have got more points if we played more daring and attractive football, so the point is a circular one. I also never said people were suggesting entertaining was better than winning, but people who bemoaned the lack of entertainment did not set sufficient stock in the fact that we are winning.

Has it got to be one or the other? I have never said that and I don't think anybody else is. The point is that, while winning AND entertaining football is the ideal, the reality is we are not getting both, and for me/others winning>entertaining. Pretty stark perception of reality really. Personally I think we have a squad capable of both serving up decent fotball and picking up points while doing it too. Clearly you disagree. I don't think it's a stark perception at all. My point clearly states that my preference is for both winning and entertaining football, but if one isn't apparent, i'd rather it be entertainment. I think we have the players to play some decent football - if you read my posting history you will pick this up - but my point was that, if the manager does not make that happen, as long as we are winning then I'm inclined to sacrifice the entertainment side. I would dearly love for your ideal to come true and for our time to play blindingly and spank teams off the park regularly. But most teams in the league are pretty decent too, and not that far off us (in the way we're not far off 4th/5th), so caution isn't something to be roundly criticised.

I'd rather see more of that too, but not at the expense of winning. If Pardew, who probably knows more about tactics and football in general than most people on here, who also sees these players every day in training, thinks that we are vulnerable on the counter-attack, then that's his prerogative and his decision to take as the manager of our football club and, with our league position, he's entirely justified. I personally would not like to see a counter-attack by any left winger against Danny Simpson. It will be interesting to see whether this philosophy changes if Pardew is granted a better right-back, for instance. Also, while as above I'd like to see more lovely football like Jonas' cross to Cisse, there were a few examples of that (Cabaye's ball to Demba for Ruddy's save). Pardew's philosophy, I think, is that the quality in the team means that moments like that will happen a few times in the game, and, with signing Ba and Cisse, we have finishers of sufficient quality to execute the chances to grab us at least 1-2 goals most games, and then a defence/team defending philosophy to see it out. Like it or not, it's working well.

Has it got to be one or the other? I have never said that and I don't think anybody else is. The point is that, while winning AND entertaining football is the ideal, the reality is we are not getting both, and for me/others winning>entertaining.

Nobody is, but we're saying it is effective, in effect arguing that we are content to let substance supersede style as long as we continue to pick up points.