Alan Pardew

[JH]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

[madras]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

[JH]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I shit myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

[Guest palnese]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I shit myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

 

You're joking right? Taylor is lightyears ahead of Williamson on the ball.

[Frazzle]

All Taylor did against Man City as well was to give it short to Tiote.

[madras]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I s*** myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

yet i'd say taylor gives the ball away less when in possession than williamson does as williamson often clears it where as taylor passes it.

 

ideally with taylor getting more games we may end up in a position where all the centre halves build rapports with each other and we can go horses for courses for example with all fit i'd have played taylor/williamson against bolton.

[JH]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I s*** myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

yet i'd say taylor gives the ball away less when in possession than williamson does as williamson often clears it where as taylor passes it.

 

ideally with taylor getting more games we may end up in a position where all the centre halves build rapports with each other and we can go horses for courses for example with all fit i'd have played taylor/williamson against bolton.

 

I agree that, when it works, what Taylor does can be better - but it's far more adventurous and can often blow up in our face. Williamson is steady and simple, which I prefer because it gives us less chance to fuck up. I've never really understood the whole pass it out of the box thing, it's what leads to alot of our defensive mistakes. Williamson is more reliable IMO.

[Mowen]

Central defence is all about partnerships rather than individuals and from what I've seen so far Colo/Willi is far and away the best partnership.

[madras]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I s*** myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

yet i'd say taylor gives the ball away less when in possession than williamson does as williamson often clears it where as taylor passes it.

 

ideally with taylor getting more games we may end up in a position where all the centre halves build rapports with each other and we can go horses for courses for example with all fit i'd have played taylor/williamson against bolton.

 

I agree that, when it works, what Taylor does can be better - but it's far more adventurous and can often blow up in our face. Williamson is steady and simple, which I prefer because it gives us less chance to f*** up. I've never really understood the whole pass it out of the box thing, it's what leads to alot of our defensive mistakes. Williamson is more reliable IMO.

my best mate who sits next to me at the match goes mad with the "pass it out,pass it back" thing  but it's all a question of pulling their players about and it all comes down to movement as in if their centre midfield moves up to pressure the ball then our wides or forward should drop into the gap left...we are organised defensivly but still too much we look like a subbuteo team with everyone standing still bar the man with the ball.

 

 

i'd also maintain taylor gives the ball away less and is thus more reliable.

[Mowen]

Taylor is physically better and should be a better defender... However, in terms of awareness, positioning and general defensive judgement, Williamson is streets ahead.

 

not based on what we've seen so far.

 

williamson reminds me a bit of andy o'brien in that he dropped no bramble like bollocks but overall wasn't as good as bramble. i see taylor as being as good defensivly thought with differing attributes but much better on the ball and offensivly.

 

Offensively, yeah, you can have that - but like I said in another thread, I'd rather we picked the best defenders than the best attacking defenders.

 

In terms of the ball at his feet, it's Williamson for me. I s*** myself when Taylor is on the ball, he just doesn't look comfortable at all whilst Willy looks very assured and confident, and keeps it simple. He doesn't set the world alight, but that makes him less prone to mistakes - Taylor tries to do too much IMO.

yet i'd say taylor gives the ball away less when in possession than williamson does as williamson often clears it where as taylor passes it.

 

ideally with taylor getting more games we may end up in a position where all the centre halves build rapports with each other and we can go horses for courses for example with all fit i'd have played taylor/williamson against bolton.

 

I agree that, when it works, what Taylor does can be better - but it's far more adventurous and can often blow up in our face. Williamson is steady and simple, which I prefer because it gives us less chance to f*** up. I've never really understood the whole pass it out of the box thing, it's what leads to alot of our defensive mistakes. Williamson is more reliable IMO.

my best mate who sits next to me at the match goes mad with the "pass it out,pass it back" thing  but it's all a question of pulling their players about and it all comes down to movement as in if their centre midfield moves up to pressure the ball then our wides or forward should drop into the gap left...we are organised defensivly but still too much we look like a subbuteo team with everyone standing still bar the man with the ball.

 

 

i'd also maintain taylor gives the ball away less and is thus more reliable.

 

My main problem with Taylor is that he backs off people too far. He always gives them 2 yards rather than one. I play at an awful level and it's something I've been working on (as a full back) - you can't overcommit but I think Taylor goes too far the other way and always gives them too much space to play in when they're running at him.

[Frazzle]

Well I think everyone goes too far with the backing off thing.  Against Man City Toure was sprinting upfield and all the fans started started going mental because Coloccini was backing off and backing off.  Coloccini then times his challenge perfectly and everyones happy...

 

Fair enough if you think he does it too much but when I played (as an attacker) I loved defenders committing themselves early.

[JH]

Well I think everyone goes to far with the backing off thing.  Against Man City Toure was sprinting upfield and all the fans started started going mental because Coloccini was backing off and backing off.  Coloccini then times his challenge perfectly and everyones happy...

 

Aye, we've been that way for a while. It's frustrating as hell. I know you can't commit yourself and go flying in, but the space we give players sometimes is ridiculous. We did it in the 2nd half against Chelsea too.

[Hughesy]

We did it quite a few times today actually.  Coloccini especially kept backing off.

[Yorkie]

Whilst Pardew's selection was bad, what was worse were his changes after they went a man down. They were pitiful, the sort of thing we'd come to expect from the Roeder/Souness days. Just clueless really.

 

Without trying to make every argument against Pardew a pro-Hughton one; one thing we would have definitely seen had Chris still had the manager's seat, was some coherent attacking football in that last twenty minutes. Today there was none. The team became even more imbalanced with the first sub, and the chief tactic was to pump it long from the back. Complete bollocks.

 

Obviously it's in our best interests to get behind Pardew and i badly want him to succeed with us, as i do with any other manager (cos i support the club)... but i honestly don't know how arsed i can be given that it's so blatantly obvious it'll end badly.

[Frazzle]

Backing off is needed though.  Everyone goes mental when our players aren't diving in but timing the challenge is part of the art of defending and backing off is part of that.  Obviously there's a time and a place.

[Mick]

My main problem with Taylor is that he backs off people too far. He always gives them 2 yards rather than one. I play at an awful level and it's something I've been working on (as a full back) - you can't overcommit but I think Taylor goes too far the other way and always gives them too much space to play in when they're running at him.

 

I can never understand backing off, as a defender I always wanted to win the tackle as far away from my own goal as possible.  Even if the tackle fails you'll have more time for somebody to cover you.

[Yorkie]

Taylor backs off cos he's generally poor in the tackle. He's shite from a one-on-one perspective; i'd back the attacker to get the shot away every single time. The fact he is so shoddy in the tackle (and his positional sense is somewhat erratic), i'd have Williamson in the side. Even though he's got a bit of the Bramble "doh i fucked dat up lol" compound.

[Mowen]

Well I think everyone goes too far with the backing off thing.  Against Man City Toure was sprinting upfield and all the fans started started going mental because Coloccini was backing off and backing off.  Coloccini then times his challenge perfectly and everyones happy...

 

Fair enough if you think he does it too much but when I played (as an attacker) I loved defenders committing themselves early.

 

I agree about overcommiting (which he does sometimes, once quite badly today), but that's not what I'm talking about - I don't want him diving in at all but you don't need to be 2 yards away to do that, the space can be closed more than that without going overboard. He stands too far away, I don't want him diving in at all but he stands too far off when people are running at him and gives them far too much space to get a shot in. It's nit picking but it's as frustrating as fuck to watch.

[Hughesy]

There clearly isn't a hard and fast rule on backing off or closing down.  It entirely depends on the situation.  However, I do think Colo has a tendency to be a bit indecisive in this regard.  Think it was Bale today who was running at goal and Colo was our only defender near him.  Colo just backed off until Bale got to the penalty area....

[madras]

My main problem with Taylor is that he backs off people too far. He always gives them 2 yards rather than one. I play at an awful level and it's something I've been working on (as a full back) - you can't overcommit but I think Taylor goes too far the other way and always gives them too much space to play in when they're running at him.

 

I can never understand backing off, as a defender I always wanted to win the tackle as far away from my own goal as possible.  Even if the tackle fails you'll have more time for somebody to cover you.

i was always taught that a man running is faster than a man facing so try to angle your oppo away till you get pace up.

 

i agree with you if the oppo is coming in at an angle but too often recently they've been coming head on when to just stand there and try and get a foot out is not only not not likely to get the ball but could also result in a sending off.

[JH]

Whilst Pardew's selection was bad, what was worse were his changes after they went a man down. They were pitiful, the sort of thing we'd come to expect from the Roeder/Souness days. Just clueless really.

 

Without trying to make every argument against Pardew a pro-Hughton one; one thing we would have definitely seen had Chris still had the manager's seat, was some coherent attacking football in that last twenty minutes. Today there was none. The team became even more imbalanced with the first sub, and the chief tactic was to pump it long from the back. Complete bollocks.

 

Obviously it's in our best interests to get behind Pardew and i badly want him to succeed with us, as i do with any other manager (cos i support the club)... but i honestly don't know how arsed i can be given that it's so blatantly obvious it'll end badly.

 

Without wanting to turn this into "OMG!!1 You suck off Hughton and I hate him, he's Hitler!" argument, I don't think we'd have seen much different from Hughton in charge.

 

In fact, I think this past couple of games is starting to show that the quality of some of our players/backups is the problem, rather than the manager - Pardew is facing the same problems that Hughton had in terms of defensive mistakes and lack of final third quality, and whilst his tactics and starting lineup were a bit suspect, we'd never have got any points today with Smith out of the team and a 4-4-2 adopted from the start.

 

It's ridiculous that we don't even look like scoring when Nolan isn't on the pitch. We're desperate for another goalscoring striker and a winger who can produce some quality - unfortunately Barton and Carroll can't do it all by themselves.

[madras]

Whilst Pardew's selection was bad, what was worse were his changes after they went a man down. They were pitiful, the sort of thing we'd come to expect from the Roeder/Souness days. Just clueless really.

 

Without trying to make every argument against Pardew a pro-Hughton one; one thing we would have definitely seen had Chris still had the manager's seat, was some coherent attacking football in that last twenty minutes. Today there was none. The team became even more imbalanced with the first sub, and the chief tactic was to pump it long from the back. Complete bollocks.

 

Obviously it's in our best interests to get behind Pardew and i badly want him to succeed with us, as i do with any other manager (cos i support the club)... but i honestly don't know how arsed i can be given that it's so blatantly obvious it'll end badly.

 

Without wanting to turn this into "OMG!!1 You suck off Hughton and I hate him, he's Hitler!" argument, I don't think we'd have seen much different from Hughton in charge.

 

In fact, I think this past couple of games is starting to show that the quality of some of our players/backups is the problem, rather than the manager - Pardew is facing the same problems that Hughton had in terms of defensive mistakes and lack of final third quality, and whilst his tactics and starting lineup were a bit suspect, we'd never have got any points today with Smith out of the team and a 4-4-2 adopted from the start.

 

It's ridiculous that we don't even look like scoring when Nolan isn't on the pitch. We're desperate for another goalscoring striker and a winger who can produce some quality - unfortunately Barton and Carroll can't do it all by themselves.

does that mean you now class barton as a winger when he plays wider ?

[Mick]

i was always taught that a man running is faster than a man facing so try to angle your oppo away till you get pace up.

 

i agree with you if the oppo is coming in at an angle but too often recently they've been coming head on when to just stand there and try and get a foot out is not only not not likely to get the ball but could also result in a sending off.

 

You'll give nothing away if you keep your eye on the ball and win it, too many players stick a foot in without knowing where the ball is.  Another wicket down. 

[Yorkie]

I can't remember the last time the centre-backs we're specifically the focal point of our attacks when we're chasing a game. Allardyce/Kinnear stuff right there. That was the plan today, after they'd gone a man down.

 

What's daft is that it might not have been the instruction. Just forced by the ridiculous substitutions.

[JH]

Whilst Pardew's selection was bad, what was worse were his changes after they went a man down. They were pitiful, the sort of thing we'd come to expect from the Roeder/Souness days. Just clueless really.

 

Without trying to make every argument against Pardew a pro-Hughton one; one thing we would have definitely seen had Chris still had the manager's seat, was some coherent attacking football in that last twenty minutes. Today there was none. The team became even more imbalanced with the first sub, and the chief tactic was to pump it long from the back. Complete bollocks.

 

Obviously it's in our best interests to get behind Pardew and i badly want him to succeed with us, as i do with any other manager (cos i support the club)... but i honestly don't know how arsed i can be given that it's so blatantly obvious it'll end badly.

 

Without wanting to turn this into "OMG!!1 You suck off Hughton and I hate him, he's Hitler!" argument, I don't think we'd have seen much different from Hughton in charge.

 

In fact, I think this past couple of games is starting to show that the quality of some of our players/backups is the problem, rather than the manager - Pardew is facing the same problems that Hughton had in terms of defensive mistakes and lack of final third quality, and whilst his tactics and starting lineup were a bit suspect, we'd never have got any points today with Smith out of the team and a 4-4-2 adopted from the start.

 

It's ridiculous that we don't even look like scoring when Nolan isn't on the pitch. We're desperate for another goalscoring striker and a winger who can produce some quality - unfortunately Barton and Carroll can't do it all by themselves.

does that mean you now class barton as a winger when he plays wider ?

 

I still wouldn't say he was a 'winger' because of his tendencies to still drift inside from time to time. I mean't we need a winger to replace Jonas, because he doesn't produce any quality and Barton can't be the only quality attacking midfielder in the team.