Dr Venkman

Disagree. He's foreign, Shepherd didn't do them after Gullit. I did consider that as I wrote it but he may have made an exception due to his achievements/stature in the game. Plus I said a manager 'like' him.

So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else. Pardew was rightly criticized. In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement. But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality. Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality? You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily? Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement. Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination. If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you. I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer. Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league. Has he? Haven't the players just decided to do it because they feel more comfortable? Why is that line of argument acceptable sometimes and not others? The first step was taken at the end of last season when we played pretty well for about 6 games, Pardew shit himself and went back to what he's comfortable with. What makes you think he's suddenly going to change?

Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative? I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd. If that was point then why did he say 'Stoke sent Shola back 5 years ago....and he's still our best threat from the bench.'? He's clearly not our best threat. I said 'even Anita' in an advanced position would be more of a threat, even discounting the other options. This notion that Shola comes on to make the best of the long ball game our players have taken it upon themselves to play is just nonsense. Remember when we were lucky enough to hear Pardew on the side line at Anfield last season? 'Hit Ba, Hit Ba!'. That's just one example. Meh

So frustrating man. I've no doubt that Shepherd would have brought in a manager like Benitez given the opportunity, but would have bankrupted us with the funds he gave him. Now we've got someone who watches the till but his ambition doesn't extend beyond staying in the league. A happy medium would be great, somewhere between a reckless lunatic who genuinely wants us to win the league and a tight vindictive twat who doesn't care where we finish as long as we're in it and he sells some trainers.

Where's he gonna go then?

Of course it's not just about long ball. Just like it wasn't about using stats to prove that Pardew plays Jonas for his defensive work What it is about is him trying to look clever and deflecting any good questions by going down alley ways like this. He's even had the cheek to say that the conversation on here was JUST 'Pardew's shit' until he graced us with his presence and his mates turned up to tell us how enlightening he is. Many many well thought out arguments have been put on this board about Pardew over the last few years, in favour and otherwise. The last few days have just been an ego trip.

Or more than likely be ignored, just as I was when I pulled him up on his 'Shola's our best option from the bench' rubbish.

It's not a stats based argument. I never brought a stat into it. I said 3 times that Pardew is relying less on long balls...you can see that if you watch our games and have watched them all season. But saying this obviously means nothing to people with preconceived notions and I was told he is as bad as ever. So I had to go to defcon 3. The same Pardew who manages players that forget his instructions as soon as the game starts? You're off your tits.

You've basically posted what I mockingly said the response would be. Not sure if it's serious. If we've averaged less than 55 long balls per game for the last 3 months, that is one of the lowest in the league man, irrespective of whether they're pinpoint or wild hoofs. Why is it irrespective? its completely relevant. You can use stats to prove a numeric value, but the interpretation is always key. There is obviously a massive difference. I'm staggered you think its the same thing. The condescension is great considering your point is invalid Its the same with any stat. A player could have 100% passing success. Each pass being 2 yards square. See the post from Chez to Wullie about shots on goal. He explained it far better than I could. House!

Fuck off

5 Sorry

I feel like I've read enough of his shite to sum up the argument as such: 1) Pardew is bad but not as bad as loads of other managers we might get if he was sacked. 2) Most people on this board have at one time made a statement that is likely to be an exaggeration. I'm really glad he decided to post for a few days actually, I've learned plenty.

I'm sure this was said yesterday, but I'm not sure Tiote has ever been invisible. He's never hidden in any game I've seen. His problem is despite being solid for most of the game he makes errors that cost us dear. Certainly moreso this season. He's one of the internationals at the club being played where he is most comfortable though. There is an argument that Perch has had a better season when played, so he should play. If he made that selection choice though, the amount of grief given to Pardew on here would be unreal. Guaranteed. What's that based on? I'm still a fan of Tiote but his reputation on here has nosedived massively over the last 18 months. It's bullshit, there's been loads of calls for Perch to get that spot.

I'm not, he's a confused man.

If it's so obvious what Jonas offers, why do so many people say he's clearly wrong in playing him when fit? Think it's a question of whether people think the team needs his qualities or we would be better off sacrificing them for more attacking flair. The evidence is there that we aren't better off for it. When he's been forcibly sacrificed we have conceded by the bucket load. True, but it could be argued that the defensive solidity could be achieved elsewhere in the team and in other ways. I don't mind Jonas as an option and as long as we don't expect him to create or score much. He must be a nightmare to play against. Depends who you are, if I'm a full back playing at St James and I see I'm up against Jonas I'm happy. Pardew doesn't want our team to give the other teams defence nightmares. He's much more interested in us posing a problem to their attackers.

If it's so obvious what Jonas offers, why do so many people say he's clearly wrong in playing him when fit? Think it's a question of whether people think the team needs his qualities or we would be better off sacrificing them for more attacking flair. The evidence is there that we aren't better off for it. When he's been forcibly sacrificed we have conceded by the bucket load. Pardew is reliant on players like Jonas because of the way he sets the team up, it's a damning indictment.

If it's so obvious what Jonas offers, why do so many people say he's clearly wrong in playing him when fit? Because we shouldn't be deploying a player in an attacking position for his defensive duties, and because he's been utterly awful with the ball this year. We all know what his priorities are though don't we.

Our first 11 when all are fully fit would be the envy of 75% of the Premier league. Our second 11 would struggle to get out of the Championship. Stoke sent Shola back 5 years ago....and he's still our best threat from the bench. I think the injuries have helped Pardew's because in the fact, with everyone fit, I wouldnt trust him to select the right personnel. I don't think Sissoko or Cabaye have played in their natural positions since January, plus it seems he'll always find a spot for Jonas. He always will too. We've conceded less goals in the games Jonas plays. I hate to go back to the stats but I do like to back up what I say, so here goes.... If you look at how long each player has spent on the pitch, and how many goals were conceded when that player was on, then it's clear the value Pardew places in Jonas... Top 5 Gutierez - 58.9 minutes per goal conceded Cabaye - 57.9 Williamson - 55.9 S Taylor - 53.9 Ben Arfa - 53.6 When he got injured we immediately conceded 4 at Man U then 7 at Arsenal in the next 2 games The next time he missed any football was when he got dragged off against Liverpool. we were 2 nil down then....but we conceded 4 in the second half alone without him. Most would prefer our attacking players to be attacking of course, and Jonas has done nothing for us there. But it's clear where Pardew sees his value to the team, defensively. Seriously? That's your conclusion? Could you come round mine tomorrow morning and let me know why I'm eating breakfast? I think it's because I'm hungry but I need some stats to prove it.

Our first 11 when all are fully fit would be the envy of 75% of the Premier league. Our second 11 would struggle to get out of the Championship. Stoke sent Shola back 5 years ago....and he's still our best threat from the bench. Who's on the pitch? Cisse, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Marveaux, Sissoko, Goufrann? Of those, only Cisse and Cabaye appear in our starting 11 for the season http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Newcastle_United_F.C._season#Starting_XI I don't care. They're NUFC players now and they're all fit. You know as well as I do that those 6 would never all start a game under Pardew, so at least one of them is on the bench, and they're all a better option than Shola. So what you said was horse shit, and it's no surprise to see you try and back it up with some bollocks most used player stat. As is stands, right now, Shola isn't our best option from the bench. Someone intelligent would know that, and would only say it was true if it suited their agenda. edit - even Anita in a an advanced position would be a better option than Shola, he can pick a pass out. But that sort of move would involve Pardew having the desire and ability to make proactive offensive moves, rather than just bringing on Shola.

Our first 11 when all are fully fit would be the envy of 75% of the Premier league. Our second 11 would struggle to get out of the Championship. Stoke sent Shola back 5 years ago....and he's still our best threat from the bench. Who's on the pitch? Cisse, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Marveaux, Sissoko, Goufrann?

We're all here because you sent Christmas Tree back. Now that I can sympathise with.

He's informative. He's REALLY funny. No, no, YOU'RE really funny. Oh do stop it, YOU'RE the clever one, and you're so funny.

He didn't learn anything last season Ian, and the problems with the football were there for all to see.

Can you imagine the response on here if we somehow managed to get a copy of the dossier?

So stats are good because they allow you to refute criticism which is 'factually false'? But the BEST thing about them is that they make people angry? Righto. No-one's said they're irrelevant, and I'd bet nigh on everyone here would admit to making flippant statements. You're not really saying much.