Happy Face

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball. You are contradicting each other while being in agreement. Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

I still don't understand. Do the players ignore everything Pardew has said through the week and play more positively early in the game.....but then take great heed of everything he has to say at half time and come out ready to play his negative brand of football? It defies logic. Much more sensible to view it from the perspective that players lose concentration, they forget their instructions, they panic after a bit of pressure and resort more and more to methods that they had not been asked to use when in training for the game.

Ad hominem. Doesn't engage any of my points. Just says I'm mad. There is evidence that Alan Pardew is capable of getting Newcastle united to finish in the top 5. There is evidence of awful injury issues hindering that this season, of our main goal threat being sold and not replaced adequately. There is evidence of improved results since he was given extra bodies to fill some of the gaps in January. What evidence is there that Mike Ashley can find a more accomplished manager?

This is what HappyFace actually believes. Why does Pardew set us so differently in the first half of games to the second half of games in your opinion?

Gemmil is taking the piss. He is excellent at it and a very funny man. Don't believe I've been at all impolite. I've tried engaging people in discussion about Pardew's real flaws, the predicaments that were out of his hands and what people envisage Ashley being capable of replacing him with. The only responses to either approach seem to be "mong", "WUM" etc. Feel free to get back to the content of any of my posts rather than ad hominem attacks though.

They must have been confident of a better replacement eh?

Just one last thing to add to this....I think the difference between 1.3 goals per game and 1.1 can be dismissed as negligible. But the margins are small on a number like that. I've put it in a graph to show the teams we were outscoring with Ba, and those outscoring us without him. http://i41.tinypic.com/5f3pz4.jpg# Basically, only the top 7 had a better strike rate until Ba went the journey.

Aye. At a basic level though 26/20(with Ba) > 19/17(without Ba). The pro rata calculation just allows us to compare with the average for the whole season in the table and with previous seasons.

whoscored and statto

I'm interested to see what our conversion rate was this season, prior to Ba departing, even during the really poor run, and since then. Unfortunately I don't have numbers for shots up until 04/01/203, so I'll have to do a pro-rata split for those. However.. Up to 01/01/2013 Played 20 Goals scored 26 Pro rata shots = 526/37 * 20 = 284.3 Conversion rate with Ba = 26/284.3 = 9.14% since 01/01/2013 Played 17 Goals 19 Pro rata shots = 526/37 * 17 = 241.7 Conversion Rate without Ba = 19/241.7 = 7.86% EDIT: Because he didn't play against Everton on the 2nd

Conversion rate in 10/11 was 11% too. Over the course of 38 games I don't think it's a stat that can be explained away against flukes. Basically we don't have the quality up top to put chances away. Ba was a massive loss and Gouffran/Shola aren't big enough for his boots.

Conversion rate was 11.5 % last season (56/489) . Would have been the 4th best this season and equated to 60 goals rather than 45. All those players were here then too.

It's sad enough I've took the time to do Newcastle, I'm not deeing 20 other clubs. Nah, I meant for and against us.. Not sure how i would do against us, but you got me excited you slag...here you are... http://i41.tinypic.com/90qd52.jpg Fucking woeful, as you'd expect. Credence to the fact that the system creates enough, the players just don't convert them.

It's sad enough I've took the time to do Newcastle, I'm not deeing 20 other clubs.

Player confidence perhaps? Aye, I think so. Last season we got a rolll going, no injuries and some good squad additions. Everyone was excited and we turned draws into wins with our endeavour. This season it started on more of a knife edge. There was a real downer at the close of the window when there was no quailty added. We still drew 5 of the first 10 games ....then we lost Coloccini to a 3 game ban and went on a downward spiral, lost 4 on the bounce...which turned into 10 out of 13. Confidence is massive.

Oh aye, forgot the most basic numbers.... http://i39.tinypic.com/zk4rvs.jpg

Is that aimed at me like? I've got twice as many posts on here as you Part timer indeed. Not sure who else has come back.

It's a totally confused approach from the top. It's like they want to try all methods at once. They clearly stated that they must put an end to big pay-outs for managers being sacked...but moreso for the massive restructuring job required on the squad every time a manager goes. It makes good business sense to have a coach independent of recruitment. Have a club policy on transfers and an interchangeable manager that can be jettisoned and replaced with out too much distruption. Kepp him on his toes. But then, they've got the notion that a manager needs stability and support, irrespective of his performance he should get a long term contract and be entrusted to build...despite not having any say on transfers. Totally shambolic and contradictory policies. The second one only works for an empowered Manager, able to build his vision of a squad. The former only works if you actually replace underperforming managers.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2444n52.jpg We shoot from inside 6 yards only one third as much as we did 2 years ago. Even though we take more shots, we fashioned 61 shots within the 6 yard box then, compared to 21 now. http://i43.tinypic.com/33c2q7d.jpg http://i43.tinypic.com/xly23k.jpg http://i40.tinypic.com/231b3n.jpg *Premier League only http://i42.tinypic.com/2v0coox.jpg http://i40.tinypic.com/4ihngg.jpg

Carr doesn't watch the games Doesn't he? That's incredible if true. He's a scout. Why would he scout our own players?

Been looking into this. I thought 4 % was awful. I compared it with previous seasons. 12% in 10/11. 6% in 11/12. Very damning of Pardew. But then, how did we manage so many shots within 6 yards back then? We pumped balls into Carroll, and he knocked them down for people to follow up at close range. It's the same tactic that Allardyce is using at West Ham now....and they sit top of the chart for "shots from within the 6 yard box" this year. I don't think Allardyce's brand of football is particularly easy on the eye. Then you can compare us to Spurs. People are very impressed with Villas Boas this year, aren't they? But they manage a similarly paltry 5% of THEIR shots from within 6 yards. You might think that means they just create more within the 18 yard box, but no.....we take 50% of shots from outside of the box...they take 55% of theirs from outside the box.

One of the longest serving managers in history has retired. One of the longest serving in PL history has moved to take over from him. 3 teams are being relegated out of the league so if we appointed someone new today he'd be longer serving than a quarter of the league immediately ffs. Let's not make out 2 years is some kind of outrageous dedication. He's not finished lower than 12th yet has he? Don't think anyone under ashley before Pardew had finished above 12th.

"Alan Alan Alan, I dont give a flying fuck if you're playing Shola Ameobi and Mike Williamson, what I want to know is why haven't you utilised Mbabu or Amalfitano more?" I think the problem has been Carr's remit is totally separate to Pardew's desires, by design. Not that Pardew hasn't asked for the players he needs.

How many examples are there of us paying more for a replacement than we got for the player sold? With players Ashley can justify a few quid more too, as he can potentially recoup it. He knows whatever he pays a manager he's not getting back. Shouldn't the question be how many have been replaced with better, rather than how much we paid for them? It would be if there were better cheaper managers available. A new manager wouldn't be financed by sacking Pardew, it would be additional cost. I always wondered about the confused message of our transfer policy (keep the manager out, makes it easier to sack him) and then giving the manager an 8 year deal, making it harder to sack him. Are there not like? Not sure why you think being cheaper is an essential requirement - notice you ignored Dave's question about Ashley spending £20m in January. When has he done that before? I've not seen any more recent salaries since this... http://www.trophy4toon.co.uk/index.php/premier-league-salaries/ You tell me who's be willing to come for less pay than Chelsea's fitness coach gets. I hadn't seen Dave's question before you asked. Ashley's never spent £20m in January before. That suggests to me that he took the vblame for the lack of spending in the Summer though...or he would have sacked Pardew rather than give him that cash. He had to do one or the other to ensure the windfall next seasons TCV deal will bring. So why did he buy Cisse last January? He didn't need to do that did he? He spent £8m on a player who they had asked £14m for in Summer and we had walked away from despite having £35m to replace the player sold. Got a bargain. What do you want Ashley to do? how can he win. He buys a player you dig him out, he doesn't, you dig him out. It's ludicrous I never criticized him for it. Willie asked. Christ I feel like Pardew the way ever utterance is turned into a negative.

How many examples are there of us paying more for a replacement than we got for the player sold? With players Ashley can justify a few quid more too, as he can potentially recoup it. He knows whatever he pays a manager he's not getting back. Shouldn't the question be how many have been replaced with better, rather than how much we paid for them? It would be if there were better cheaper managers available. A new manager wouldn't be financed by sacking Pardew, it would be additional cost. I always wondered about the confused message of our transfer policy (keep the manager out, makes it easier to sack him) and then giving the manager an 8 year deal, making it harder to sack him. Are there not like? Not sure why you think being cheaper is an essential requirement - notice you ignored Dave's question about Ashley spending £20m in January. When has he done that before? I've not seen any more recent salaries since this... http://www.trophy4toon.co.uk/index.php/premier-league-salaries/ You tell me who's be willing to come for less pay than Chelsea's fitness coach gets. I hadn't seen Dave's question before you asked. Ashley's never spent £20m in January before. That suggests to me that he took the vblame for the lack of spending in the Summer though...or he would have sacked Pardew rather than give him that cash. He had to do one or the other to ensure the windfall next seasons TCV deal will bring. So why did he buy Cisse last January? He didn't need to do that did he? He spent £8m on a player who they had asked £14m for in Summer and we had walked away from despite having £35m to replace the player sold. Got a bargain. I never asked you if it was a bargain. You've argued that he never spends money unless absolutely necessary (hence why he won't pay any more for a new manager). Why did he buy Cisse when the team could obviously get by? Why did he buy Anita when the team could obviously get by? I never said that. I said he buys cheaper players than the ones he sells.