Memphis

DVD-worthy for Wigan.

The fact remains that only 4 sides get into the Champions League no matter what. If we are in that mix of 6-7 teams (Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs, us) next year, it means we're a legitimately top team and one which would be attractive to our own players as well as others. We're never going to escape the constant, grinding, tedious speculation of BIG MASSIVE CLUB X wants NEWCASTLE PLAYER for HUGE MONEY but if we can stay in that group of teams, it means we've got an awful lot to offer. The fact that we extended Colo's deal means we are willing to pay top wages for top players, even those who might be out of our preferred policy - that will mean a lot to players in the changing room. We attracted the likes of Cisse, HBA, Tiote, Cabaye, Santon, Colo, Ba, etc without any attraction of Europe or even paying particularly high wages. All of those players will have had varying personal reasons for making the move, but the point remains we built an excellent side without the attraction of even the Europa League; we can continue in that vein and then some with it. As long as we can keep the majority of our best players and bolster the squad appropriately, I see no reason why we can't be in the Top 7 mix, which is all any sane person can ask given our lack of financial clout compared with the other teams in that group.

Excellent system yet again - we've used 3 different systems in the run of 6 straight wins. The 4-4-2 wasn't great, but the 4-3-3 and today's 4-2-1-3 are both brilliant. Pardew's talked a lot about the flexibility he has to deploy the front 6 in different ways, and we are seeing it pay dividends now. It must be very difficult for opposing managers to figure out how we're going to play - even if we use a 4-3-3, there's so much movement and fluidity, it can change shape very quickly. We've bought not only gifted players, but intelligent players who can adapt. And Pardew's allowing them that flexibility now, when we need to see it the most. The fact we're playing with such a small squad and we're actually playing our best, most fluid football in April when the pressure and fatigue should be hitting us hardest shows the quality of his management this season.

I really like this system - looks like a 4-2-3-1 with Jonas and Tiote in the holding roles but the front four are all so fluid it makes it difficult for Stoke to track any of the runners. The workrate of Tiote and Jonas also effectively means we've got 6 at the back when needed. Hope for a third to settle it but that was a quality, composed 1st half.

Subs: Elliot, Ferguson, Perch, Gosling, R.Taylor, Best, Shola Ameobi.

Looks like 4-4-2.

I think that's the line they peddle, but I can't say I've ever been hugely convinced. In the US they often have local "blackouts" on games if the stadium doesn't sell out / reach x% attendance. They do use local blackouts in the NFL if the stadium isn't 98% sold out 48 hours before kickoff (although sometimes they allow exceptions). The NBA and MLB also use your IP address to determine your locality, then restrict you from viewing your local team's games online. It's their way of trying to encourage people to either attend in person or watch it on the respective local cable channel. It's much easier to do this in the US, of course, with the spread-out geography. I can imagine it might be much tougher to implement in England. Probably not a viable option. But the blackout thing, maybe.

It is about tradition and ostensibly attendance as well, although the anemic attendances at some grounds tells you it doesn't matter a bit about TV. If the football is compelling and the match worth watching and the tickets reasonably priced), people will go. There is nothing like a matchday atmosphere. You might have to lower ticket prices, but people will show up. It is in their blood. Clubs will have to adapt to the changing reality of easy online availability. If you give your customers options to view legally, reliably, and easily (rather than illegally, unreliably, and difficult), you will make money. Streaming video is never going away. So you can accept it and use it to your advantage or you can fight it, have it cannibalise your business, and lose money in the process.

I do think it's a situation like music where if professional leagues don't get out in front as quickly as possible, people will become accustomed to finding free ways to stream a premium product and won't go back. It's not like that isn't already happening... The NBA and MLB have done very well in promoting their products and getting them available to as many different devices and formats as possible (although they still restrict viewership of local teams if you are within the local television viewing area). And they're aggressive in getting their highlights out - whether through a YouTube deal or through a league-branded embeddable video player. The Premier League could certainly do that at the very least. But the ridiculous restrictions on things as simple as fixture lists tells me they've got a long way to go to be progressive enough to see the value in legal online viewership. Why they wouldn't want as many people to print and discuss the upcoming matches is totally beyond me.

They'll show all of them except perhaps the Fox Soccer game and the ESPN game (obviously) on FS2Go. And the ESPN one will be on ESPN3 also, so theoretically it's only the one match you could miss.

http://t.co/lRUoPj7b Hard to believe they'll be showing all 10 final day matches simultaneously live on 10 separate TV networks. When I first started following, if we got a several-days-delayed match at midnight or later, we considered it a blessing. This is pretty extraordinary.

Here's the link to the full interview from The Manager magazine: http://www.themanager-magazine.com/issue11/#/32/ Definitely worth a read.

That's exactly right. Oakland is perennially one of the lowest-attended, lowest-spending teams in baseball, so their General Manager Billy Beane tried to identify weaknesses in the market that would allow them to find undervalued players. Slight baseball aside - they used on-base percentage and walks to help figure out players who were more productive than their stats would have indicated, and they signed college players as opposed to high school prospects because they were more of a sure thing. What Ashley is doing isn't Moneyball in any sense other than finding players whose perceived value by Carr and the scouting staff exceeds their market value. That's not Moneyball, that's just smart buying. I suppose there is an element of Moneyball in focusing on leagues which continue to produce talent that's undervalued in the market, but that's not nearly the same thing. Incidentally, Oakland's strategy was found out, other teams started doing the same things they did, and they're back in the shit. If you have a scouting staff you believe in and an ability to sniff out bargains, that's all you need for Ashley's approach. Most teams have one but not the other - or neither at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17730352 Newcastle set for Europe after Liverpool reach FA Cup final

http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/hawksbee-and-jacobs/120410/auclair-ben-arfa-was-seen-unmanageable-france-169344? Ben Arfa talk begins at the 3:25 mark - high praise for the club, Pardew, and the fans in the handling of Ben Arfa.

From the Guardian website: http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4057/hbaz.jpg They got Ben right, at least. Maybe a few more decent goals like yesterday and they'll be bothered to work on Hatem or Arfa.

Such a strange game. They're passing, controlling it, but doing very little. Their pressure, though, is causing us problems on the ball. It took some seriously quick, beautiful passing to get Cisse's chance, and a moment of magic from Ben Arfa for his. It's a tough one to call - think we need to press a bit more aggressively to have some possession at some point.

I don't understand why the presenters seem so shocked Carr watches players multiple times before buying. What else would you do?

I didn't enjoy watching that second half one bit. First half was fine, beautiful finish by Cisse, certainly could have had two more. We were well in control if not spectacular. Second half was awful. Norwich were much the better side and could certainly have gotten a goal or two. Guthrie's fitness is atrocious. Cabaye looks knackered as well. Our whole side looked so slow and bereft of ideas. No invention, no real inspiration. The buildup is so slow and the play so predictable that teams find it quite easy to overload one side or the other, and we almost inevitably give it away. It was three points, I'll take it, but the performance still leaves me wanting much more.

Pardew wants very badly to be a Brendan Rodgers-type, perceived as a bit Continental while retaining his English charm, but when push comes to shove, Pardew simply doesn't seem to have the balls to actually, you know, PLAY that style. Swansea yet again set a perfect example over the weekend, playing their style - a legitimate passing, ball retention style - against fucking MANCHESTER fucking CITY and they won. Not only did they win, they won going away, deservedly so. At one point they had 69% possession against a team with talent worth 100m+ more than their starting XI. That is commitment to your principles. For all Pardew's talk preseason and during the season, as we've been more and more successful, and edge closer and closer to a European place, it's clear he's scared shitless. When we were in the months of August-November, just starting out, there was no pressure, the expectation was lower, the wins came easier against opposition that didn't know enough about us. Now they do. As a result, you see Pardew revert back to his true self - hoof, hoof, lump, lump, direct ball, bypass the midfield, don't worry about passing it around, just get the result any way you can. He's far more concerned now with the opposition - as evidenced by the disgraceful last 70+ minutes against Wolves and the first 45 against the mackems - than with letting his very good team simply play. It is frustrating. I like Pardew and think he has done well but it is clear he has his limits and we are seeing them quite clearly.

As I understand it, it's the practice of accounting for an asset over the life of its contract - a 10m fee for a player on a 4 year deal would be amortized at 2.5m per year, for example. More knowledgeable people than myself will be able to provide better details.

Sewelly's said it best. If he's a squad player/cover player going forward, I'm fine with it. If he's seen as a first XI regular, no matter where on the pitch that may be, it's a problem. He is certainly good enough to be a squad player in the Premiership but he should be nowhere near a top 6 quality starting XI. Surely Pardew knows this, right? (Don't answer that)

Not sure why it's so imperative that Ryan Taylor be on the pitch all the time. On merit, he should be dropped. No pace, no creativity, just an occasional set piece which Cabaye and/or HBA could also provide. If Pardew's serious about dropping players who don't perform, that should be it for him. Ben Arfa was fantastic from the very start and needs to get 90 minutes. And if you're going to play Cabaye and Tiote together, it's Tiote who needs to be dropping deep and protecting the back 4, not Cabaye.

"But for us I'm not overly disappointed. It could be a lot worse. After Spurs we needed to just get ourselves back to something like our normal selves, which we were today. But we still should have won." Staggering quote.

Very clearly. Has espoused a philosophy that he himself is unwilling to deploy even against a bottom 3 managerless team when we're at home. That alone tells you how little he believes in his "A" team's ability to play his allegedly preferred brand of football. Mind you, with Williamson as a central defender, I'd be scared too. Should have bought someone else.