alpal78

What do you class as hoof ball? seems bloody obvious mate, getting it long whever you have the chance, we didn't do that in those games. Think you have a problem of definition then. Hoofball doesn't mean that we always go long whenever we have the chance. Obviously in all games, there will be times that we pass the ball on the ground sideways or even backwards. When Colocini passes the ball to Tiote/Cabaye in midfield, it does not mean that we are not playing hoofball. What matters is how we get the ball to Ba and Cisse or whoever our strikers are. Do we get the ball down and play pass and move to get the ball to them the way the likes of Man Utd, City, Arsenal, Spurs play or do we just launched one after perhaps trying a few times to pass the ball to Tiote/Cabaye and being unable to make anymore forward progress? That's the criteria to distinguish whether we are playing hoofball or passing football. Even then in a game, there might be a few times when we actually get the ball to the strikers by passing on the ground but if those are the exceptions compared to the number of times that we launch the ball to them hoping that they can control the ball and do something out of it, then yes we are playing hoofball.

Paid 5k to go to the match = seen extensive highlights = listened on the radio

Well it's not, because I've seen it through my own eyes whilst being objective about things and not just :fwap:ing about him because I'm a fanboi Pray tell me what you have seen with your own eyes that shows to you that he is lazy. You know that HBA is not wearing 23 right. Just a few examples would do

The lazy tag just goes to show what effect propaganda from the manager can have. I've honestly never watched him once and thought he was lazy. Losing possession cheaply at times and holding onto the ball too long are all valid criticisms (almost always in positions like yesterday where he's given twenty minutes to win the game cos no f***er else will) but the lazy thing, I simply do not get. Robert was lazy, I loved him and didn't care, but I could freely admit that workrate wasn't up there as an attribute. Ben Arfa? I simply don't see it. Same here Wullie, everytime he loses the ball, he works his bollocks off to track back. He is not gonna put in a perfect sliding tackle and win the ball back but at the very least he does prevent the attacking player from making much progress. Case in point was when he (stupidly) lost the ball in our own half and went right down to right back position to cover the player. I absolutely hate it when our fans have this dualism of if you are skilful, you must be lazy shit and it's really down to the vibes that Pardew has been airing. I appreciate what Pardew has done to get us into our current position, but man management wise, I can't help but feel that his treatment of HBA is the exact same thing that Souness did to Robert. You can see yesterday HBA's desperation to do well and how he's lost quite a bit of confidence to just skip by a player. He was really pissed off at himself the few times he dribbled the ball out but here's the thing, no other fucker was trying to win us the game!

What is the basis of your assumption? How many goals + assists + good chances created vs lost possession in dangerous areas + non tracking back would you put at for HBA?

Right because club managers are the same with the England manager

Gosh I just put up Ronaldo's stats as comparison since someone was saying how great Messi's stats are, didn't even say Ronaldo was better and look at all the sarcastic remarks I'm getting. So stats are only good when they are used to prove that Messi is better than Pele and Maradona combined, right. The Messi worshipping over here is ridiculous, you guys might as well set up the Messintology religion/cult.

At the risk of being called all sorts of names, Ronaldo's record for comparison stands at 28 goals in 23 league games. Over three seasons at Madrid, he is at 94 goals in 86 league games, that's a ratio of more than 1 goal per game over 3 seasons!

You completely misunderstood Wullie's point. Nobody is saying that we should be thrashing teams 5-0 week in week out. Even a 1-0 win can be "dominating" if we keep good possession and create loads of chances (only to miss). As it is, our wins is mostly down to having one of the most efficient (if not the most efficient striker) in the league who is putting away whatever little chances coming his way. That is actually good except that if he is injured or sold in the summer, then unless we change the way we play to create more chances, we're basically f***ed.

That's mature, so you're not allowed to question the mighty Barcelona on a forum even though none of the fan boys can really say what team of the century means...ok, just as I thought never said anything of the sort, and i've just quantified the only meaning team of the century can have haven't i? now go about trying to tell me why they're not You didn't need to say it but bringing the discussion to personal insult proves my point. It was immature and unnecessary. To be fair to you, ya you did try to quantify the meaning of "team of the century", that's a very loose definition though given that we're only 12 years into the century and once again highlight the hyperbole and over-hype of Barcelona. At best they are the best team of the century, so far. It's not my job to prove that they are not, if you wanna give them a title, then you should be the one to prove why they deserve it. To see more examples of over-hyping Barcelona, just see Pip's and Neesy's posts above on "best team ever". These two probably have not seen football for more than 40 years and with scant respect to the great teams of the past, just throw away such accolades to Barcelona just based on their success over the lst 8-10 years. If anything such extreme positions devalues the praise that Barcelona get (when given in moderation which they rightly deserve). For record sake, I have not watched football for 40 years either, which is why I would not use labels such as "team of the century" or "best team ever" until I've gone through the history books.

Offensively....which doesnt matter that much in Pardews ( or Cajuns..) book..I mean - who cares right? Ba will take care of that feeding off scraps. As long as you sell yourself in as a grafter thats a hall pass for 20 games with pardew.. Yeah we have done s*** this season so far to be fair, I shouldn't argue though because this one player starting would have definitely lead to better results and we would more than likely be challenging Spurs for third I honestly don't get this mentality/retort used whenever anyone has any criticism that we've done well so far, implying that we therefore must have done everything right. If we assume that we've done well already and it will stay this way till the end of the season, then let's just all jump hip hip hooray and not bother analyzing or commenting anymore on this forum. Why is it not possible to appreciate that yes we have done well so far whilst also suggesting that we could do better if we make some positive changes which quite frankly is staring us right in the face.

That's mature, so you're not allowed to question the mighty Barcelona on a forum even though none of the fan boys can really say what team of the century means...ok, just as I thought

Depends on how you cut it right, Man United has been in the final 3 out of the last 4 years including winning in 2008. My point is that it will take a lot more for Barcelona to be super hyped as team of the century. What does that mean anyway given that we are only 12 years into the new century?? People just use such hyperbole loosely without even knowing what it means

Of course its all conjecture, but I think playing HBA instead of Obertan gainst Spurs would have at least kept their defenders on their toes. With Obertan, their fullback was overlapping and we were under wave and wave of attacks. Another intelligent response...well done!

Pity it must have taken some time to post such a long post too

How does their fantastic achievement for the last 3 years (they lost to Inter in the CL final of 2010 btw) make them the invincible team of the century? They were not even invincible in those 3 years? Name me another club side that has had as incredible a run as they have. Running away with league again and again, wiping away teams in Europe, playing superb football and dominating every match they play, regardless of the result. No team has ever done what they did. None. MJ's Bulls went 72-10 once, and they're considered an invincible team, even though they lost ten games that season. Individual losses don't matter when you win everything in the style and way that Barca did. They didn't sneak 1-0 wins to win the title, they smashed teams right, left and center. They is the sort of post that proves the Barca overhype. They were not smashing teams left right and centre, they were fantastic aye but there were also many wins with just the one goal margin. I don't know bout MJ Bulls being called invincible let alone team of the century, but to me Barca need to do much more to get such hyped up titles like team of the century. Team of the decade maybe, even then teams like Man Utd and Milan would give them a close run for the money. Do you even know teams that played say before the 1970s?

How does their fantastic achievement for the last 3 years (they lost to Inter in the CL final of 2010 btw) make them the invincible team of the century? They were not even invincible in those 3 years? Semi final. thanks

How does their fantastic achievement for the last 3 years (they lost to Inter in the CL final of 2010 btw) make them the invincible team of the century? They were not even invincible in those 3 years?

Better put your tin hat on,you're gonna get a hammering for even daring to question the credentials of the (not so) invincible team of the century Barcelona!

Of course its all conjecture, but I think playing HBA instead of Obertan gainst Spurs would have at least kept their defenders on their toes. With Obertan, their fullback was overlapping and we were under wave and wave of attacks.

my mistake then, should be offence is the best defense and I think the meaning is obvious, the more pressure we put on opposing teams or the more they think that they are opened to counter attack, then the less players they commit forward which helps us defensively. The other point I was making which you seem to ignore is if we want to have a defensive winger against managerless Wolves at home, then what does that say of our style of play and commitment to play attacking football.

good debate and intelligent points...well done, give yourself a pat on the back

I'll be livid if he plays Taylor ahead of HBA for the home Wolves game. Against strong teams away I can sort of understand the need to provide more defensive cover on the wings especially to support Simposon, but he wants to be defensive against team ranked 18th who just lost their manager, then he is fucking loony and would lose my respect. Don't give me this tosh about we're 6th so Pardew can't be criticize. No manager is immune from criticism, Mancini is criticized all the time and Man City have been holding the 1st position for a long time now. A manager can be doing a good/decent job whilst still getting some decisions wrong that would have otherwise made him do an even better job

This exactly proves what I said in the HBA thread. Pardew doesn't understand that offence is the best attack, that if we threaten the opposition, maybe their full backs would not be overlapping so much, maybe their midfield would not push up so high knowing that if they did, they would be opened to a counter attack. For him being defensive just means loading the team with defensive players...fuck it we might as well just play with 11 keepers then!

Madrid with 10 points lead now, is there a way back for Barca?