Alan Pardew

[Tooj]

Decent selection imo.

 

You're wrong.

 

Out of interest did you say this before the game?

 

I did.

[Cajun]

Did you also predict all 3 goals were either individual mistakes and a fluke?

[Tooj]

Did you also predict all 3 goals were either individual mistakes and a fluke?

 

[Mick]

Out of interest did you say this before the game?

 

Yes.

[wormy]

Same. Was surprised at the amount of people that considered it a good formation tbh. I think that's why I'm not so pissed off at the result, as I was expecting the worst, and ended up mildly impressed we managed to control the game as much as we did in such a formation (no matter what the circumstances were).

[alpal78]

Out of interest did you say this before the game?

 

Yes.

 

proof?

[Cajun]

So we performed badly overall, man city were the much better side and we just didn't compete at all.

 

The goals wouldn't have happened in a 4-4-2 and we would have won.

 

This management thing is a piece of piss really

[Tooj]

So we performed badly overall, man city were the much better side and we just didn't compete at all.

 

The goals wouldn't have happened in a 4-4-2 and we would have won.

 

This management thing is a piece of piss really

 

No.

 

We just looked a better team when we played 4-4-2. That's not hard to argue with tbh.

[Cronky]

So we performed badly overall, man city were the much better side and we just didn't compete at all.

 

The goals wouldn't have happened in a 4-4-2 and we would have won.

 

This management thing is a piece of piss really

 

No.

 

We just looked a better team when we played 4-4-2. That's not hard to argue with tbh.

 

It looked to me like a 4-4-2 throughout. Whenever Nolan gets picked in that advanced position, it tends to get labelled 4-5-1, but in practice he was playing alongside Carroll just like any other pair of strikers.

 

The difference was that Ranger had the pace and mobility to link with Carroll, whereas Nolan didn't.

[Tooj]

Aye, you're right.

 

It just never felt like a 4-4-2, more of a 4-4-1 as Nolan was invisible.

[Cajun]

It's far too simplistic to say "well we didn't win so it was wrong" as if there was some fool proof style to beat them.

 

They are a much better squad than us and we did well apart from individual mistakes and a fluke. We created enough of our own chances and scored.

 

 

[TheGuv]

So we performed badly overall, man city were the much better side and we just didn't compete at all.

 

The goals wouldn't have happened in a 4-4-2 and we would have won.

 

This management thing is a piece of piss really

 

No.

 

We just looked a better team when we played 4-4-2. That's not hard to argue with tbh.

 

It looked to me like a 4-4-2 throughout. Whenever Nolan gets picked in that advanced position, it tends to get labelled 4-5-1, but in practice he was playing alongside Carroll just like any other pair of strikers.

 

The difference was that Ranger had the pace and mobility to link with Carroll, whereas Nolan didn't.

 

Nolan was just a nuisance up front. Stick him in midfield

[Mick]

proof?

 

 

[Disco]

Nolan up front is too easy to mark. It negates almost all of the positives about his play.

 

Indeed. Looked far better toward the end of the game IMO.

[Mick]

It's far too simplistic to say "well we didn't win so it was wrong" as if there was some fool proof style to beat them.

 

They are a much better squad than us and we did well apart from individual mistakes and a fluke. We created enough of our own chances and scored.

 

 

 

The proof was that when we brought Ranger on we looked far more dangerous and actually scored one of our chances.  Something we were unable to do when Nolan was playing off Carroll.  We had plenty of chances which were falling to Nolan that went to shit as soon as the ball went anywhere near him.  Playing a different formation may not have stopped them getting the 2 goals but it would have given us a greater chance of pulling the deficit back.  Once we made the change we have movement up front and two targets, instead of one. 

[Frazzle]

I don't think our play changed that much when Ranger came on.  It wasn't as noticeable as against Liverpool and in the first half we still played well and created a couple of decent chances.

[Parky]

Again for me a good honest post match interview and identifying mistakes at the back and very open about the fact that he has to stop it.

[Tooj]

It's far too simplistic to say "well we didn't win so it was wrong" as if there was some fool proof style to beat them.

They are a much better squad than us and we did well apart from individual mistakes and a fluke. We created enough of our own chances and scored.

 

 

It's not that at all. It's more to do with the fact that as soon as Barton went out wide, Ranger was brought on and Nolan dropped back, we looked a much better team.

 

As I said, it's hard to argue with that.

[David28]

Again for me a good honest post match interview and identifying mistakes at the back and very open about the fact that he has to stop it.

 

Wonder what Hughton would have said instead?

 

'Re the mistakes we've made today in the first 10 minutes, that's still very much specualation.'

[alpal78]

proof?

 

 

 

Don't quite see what is funny, if you claim that you made the point before the game, then surely you can back it up. If this is the case, fair play to you coz I would have picked the same formation that Pardew did. It's all good to say that Barton should have retained his position on the right but who is gonna play alongside Tiote. A static Nolan (or God forbid Guthrie) plus Tiote would have been murdered by Barry, Yaya Toure and De Jong.

[Benwell Lad]

Again for me a good honest post match interview and identifying mistakes at the back and very open about the fact that he has to stop it.

 

Wonder what Hughton would have said instead?

 

'Re the mistakes we've made today in the first 10 minutes, that's still very much specualation.'

 

I don't think any manager/coach in the world could have said much else.

You start with a game plan, you go 2-0 down to a world class team after 5 minutes, you no longer have a game plan.

Having had to take the game to a team as good as them for 85 minutes meant it was quite an achievment to only concede 3.

[alpal78]

It's far too simplistic to say "well we didn't win so it was wrong" as if there was some fool proof style to beat them.

They are a much better squad than us and we did well apart from individual mistakes and a fluke. We created enough of our own chances and scored.

 

 

It's not that at all. It's more to do with the fact that as soon as Barton went out wide, Ranger was brought on and Nolan dropped back, we looked a much better team.

 

As I said, it's hard to argue with that.

 

even if that was true, not sure I would have picked Ranger for 90 minutes. For what it was worth I thought Routledge had a 'decenish' game on the right.

[Mick]

Don't quite see what is funny, if you claim that you made the point before the game, then surely you can back it up. If this is the case, fair play to you coz I would have picked the same formation that Pardew did. It's all good to say that Barton should have retained his position on the right but who is gonna play alongside Tiote. A static Nolan (or God forbid Guthrie) plus Tiote would have been murdered by Barry, Yaya Toure and De Jong.

 

I was at the match when I heard the team, not everybody is an internet fan, how the hell can I back it up.  I don't see why I have to back it up anyway as I wouldn't say that I did if I didn't.

[Dr Venkman]

It's far too simplistic to say "well we didn't win so it was wrong" as if there was some fool proof style to beat them.

 

They are a much better squad than us and we did well apart from individual mistakes and a fluke. We created enough of our own chances and scored.

 

 

 

nah, i'm sorry. recently we've looked good in a 4-4-2 with barton on the right and williamson at the back, pardew got this wrong.

[JH]

For what it's worth, with Shola out, I think Hughton would have done the same.