Sifu

Fucking hell. That's fucking disgusting. What a cunt.

I definitely think this is true. There is that argument that if you change a formula that has served you so well for most of the season then why change it? Such an argument has substance really - at the start of the season, with the emphasis being on defensive solidity, we were becoming harder to beat and that certainly worked in our favour. I guess any significant changes now could knack us between now and the end of the season. If this is Pardew's view then I can understand it tbh. In terms of the football we've played, it has been pretty at times and at other times, downright atrocious but sometimes a mix of a passing game and direct football can work to our benefit (see the Man U game at St. James'). From what we've heard, Pardew does have an attention-to-detail approach when it comes to deciding on the tactics and that can only be a good thing. Of course, he has got it completely wrong at times but with mistakes, comes experience and I hope Pardew is learning from them (he certainly learned from his mistakes from Stoke last season and set us up to a brilliant win this season). I also really think that Pardew had different plans for us during pre-season. I actually do believe that he wanted us to pass and play this season but because our pre-season turned out to be a terrible one (Ben Arfa getting injured, Tiote's visa problems), I reckon Alan had little choice but to throw his initial plans out the window and to work on something else (which has gone well tbh). If the next pre-season goes well (and if we finish this season strongly of course), can see us playing a different type of game next season, one which I think will be much better than some of this season's showings. Too many assumptions tbh. Even with the current formation and safe tactics we are employing right now, there is alot of space for improvement. Even for the typical crossing game, we can look more dangerous and efficient. Maybe there are improvements since the beginning of the season but i just dont see the translation on the pitch. There's always room for improvement really. I just think that, having thought it about it quite a bit, the "safe tactics" has somewhat worked wonders for us this season and I reckon we'll continue to reap the benefits from it imo. With the position we're in atm (and with our aim higher now than it was at the start of the season), I guess it's the case of "it's better to be safe than sorry".

As harsh as it would be to do it, Guthrie must make way for Cabaye and Tiote. Like Dave has said, they are simply a class above him. Cabaye gives us more of a motor in CM and Tiote gives us reinforced solidity in midfield too. I've said this before, Guthrie has proved to be a more than capable backup to both Yohan and Cheik so by that reckoning, I would very much like him to stay. I'm hopeful that he'll sign a new contract and I think he will. He will get his opportunities next year with us - Tiote will presumably be off to the ACoN again so there's always a chance for Guthrie to play. Having said all that, if he feels he needs to move, then it would be understandable.

Think Shearer would take a managerial position if he was given the financial backing. IIRC, the lack of funds was why Shearer didn't take the Cardiff job?

They all look horrible though if I had to give an award for the worst, it'll be the Man U one.

Indeed. Though seeing as Ba (and Cissé) weren't available to Pardew (and thus his "preferred system" couldn't be properly used) think Alan wanted to experiment a bit there and see if such a system had some merit and guess he also did it because he wanted to somehow integrate Ben Arfa into the team. The signs were a bit promising (the QPR game and the first half in the Fulham game being key examples) but with two consecutive defeats (Fulham and Brighton) in such a system and with Best and Shola playing, Pardew probably thought that he should stick to Best's and Shola's "strengths" and play two upfront (and hence use his previous system). preferred system or no the ploy of jonas in the middle with best wide left doesn't need 2 games. the QPR game we got the result, the performance had little to build a new startegy on. I really thought Jonas did well in the middle. It gave him a free licence to roam around which meant he had more influence on the game imo. Certainly linked up well with Ben Arfa.

Indeed. Though seeing as Ba (and Cissé) weren't available to Pardew (and thus his "preferred system" couldn't be properly used) think Alan wanted to experiment a bit there and see if such a system had some merit and guess he also did it because he wanted to somehow integrate Ben Arfa into the team. The signs were a bit promising (the QPR game and the first half in the Fulham game being key examples) but with two consecutive defeats (Fulham and Brighton) in such a system and with Best and Shola playing, Pardew probably thought that he should stick to Best's and Shola's "strengths" and play two upfront (and hence use his previous system).

So they're playing him up front? From what I've read, think he's being played in an advanced midfield role but the MK Dons fans want to see him upfront.....

I definitely think this is true. There is that argument that if you change a formula that has served you so well for most of the season then why change it? Such an argument has substance really - at the start of the season, with the emphasis being on defensive solidity, we were becoming harder to beat and that certainly worked in our favour. I guess any significant changes now could knack us between now and the end of the season. If this is Pardew's view then I can understand it tbh. In terms of the football we've played, it has been pretty at times and at other times, downright atrocious but sometimes a mix of a passing game and direct football can work to our benefit (see the Man U game at St. James'). From what we've heard, Pardew does have an attention-to-detail approach when it comes to deciding on the tactics and that can only be a good thing. Of course, he has got it completely wrong at times but with mistakes, comes experience and I hope Pardew is learning from them (he certainly learned from his mistakes from Stoke last season and set us up to a brilliant win this season). I also really think that Pardew had different plans for us during pre-season. I actually do believe that he wanted us to pass and play this season but because our pre-season turned out to be a terrible one (Ben Arfa getting injured, Tiote's visa problems), I reckon Alan had little choice but to throw his initial plans out the window and to work on something else (which has gone well tbh). If the next pre-season goes well (and if we finish this season strongly of course), can see us playing a different type of game next season, one which I think will be much better than some of this season's showings.

That's good news but I wouldn't start him tbh. Bench duty please. On the day, we need to attack Wolves (their defence is woeful really) and Raylor, simply put, isn't the man to petrify their defence. Sure, bring him on if we're struggling, his set-piece deliveries would be valuable. One thing which I might go with though is that in future games, if we want to be "conservative", Raylor could be a good choice for a starting role hmmm. only way he should play is if we tell cabaye to push on all the time (wont happen) The way I see it is that if Pardew goes with a defensive-type plan for a certain game, I think Raylor could be a good choice to start on the right in that: - Firstly, he'll offer Simpson some much needed protection; - Secondly, when he decides to push forward when he has the ball, he'll be able to provide the odd great cross and; - Finally, his proficiency from set-pieces would be an asset. Having said that, Jonas on the right would be a good option too (and probably a better one in fact). I do sometimes forget that Raylor is actually a limited player but I really think that he has looked decent on the right (mainly for his role as protection for Simpson though).

That's good news but I wouldn't start him tbh. Bench duty please. On the day, we need to attack Wolves (their defence is woeful really) and Raylor, simply put, isn't the man to petrify their defence. Sure, bring him on if we're struggling, his set-piece deliveries would be valuable. One thing which I might go with though is that in future games, if we want to be "conservative", Raylor could be a good choice for a starting role hmmm.

looking unlikely Having looked at the table, I'd say they are still in a position to be promoted automatically. You never know what could happen, the Sheffield teams could hit a bad run of form between now and the end of the season but we shall see. its possible, i'd say similar chance of us getting champions league though.. Indeed but I reckon one thing that is safe to say is that Huddersfield will be in the playoff places come the end of the season. Although admittedly, that would depend on who they bring in as manager. If the "wrong" manager comes in, they could tail off badly but if the "right" one comes in (imo Simon Grayson), they could cement their place in the playoffs or even make a strong (final) push for the automatic place.

Has he made his West Ham debut yet? I'm actually quite interested to see how he does with regular first team football....

looking unlikely Having looked at the table, I'd say they are still in a position to be promoted automatically. You never know what could happen, the Sheffield teams could hit a bad run of form between now and the end of the season but we shall see.

Well, I did not see this coming like. Thought Clark was doing a decent job for them - after all, he got them to the brink of promotion last season and I really think he would have got them promoted automatically come the end of this season. He got the club to go on a nice unbeaten run at one point which itself is a great achievement but drawing one too many games (which seems to have been the case for Huddersfield) can be a detriment at times imo - we saw that with us in the 2003/04 season. We drew too many games on the road that season and that ultimately cost us 4th place. Mind you though, sacking him now is a bit odd - guess it's automatic promotion or bust for them. Hmmm. If Clark does end up going to Leeds, then best of luck to him (even though it is a shitty club with scummy fans).

Spurs have signed Bruno Uvini on loan from Sao Paulo.

This too from the other games thread: Well, looks like nothing's changed.

Nice

So many draws that season. That was probably the key factor really.

Was a decent loan signing on FM all those years ago though

I wonder if Carroll's like that at Liverpool.

This smiley is starting to grate. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,91677.0.html

Happy Birthday Kev

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. FWIW, I reckon that if Ben Arfa had started against Spurs, he would have made some sort of difference. A difference from an attacking perspective anyway, I'm sure Hatem would have given BAE a rough time down the right wing and guess that would have meant more chances for us. But, not sure if Ben Arfa's presence would have changed the overall outcome. We still would have lost imo as Spurs were simply too good - they exploited our weaknesses in CM (Guthrie/Perch were overwhelmed) and defence well. Whilst it could have been a different scoreline, it still would have been a Spurs win. Bringing Ben Arfa for Obertan in the first half wouldn't have made much difference either, the game was lost as soon as the second goal went in.

Anyone? I find it very hard to believe that the club will cease to exist. Same here, I honestly think that a club of Rangers' stature will be able to find an investor to buy them. Though I guess it's really not that simple, we'll see. Can't see them going under unless the HMRC want to make an example out of them.