Alan Pardew

[quayside]

Under Hughton we got 2 points out of 15 in our home matches against Blackburn, Fulham, Blackpool, Stoke and Wigan. You have to look at those sorts of games as opportunities to stick points on the board. I always felt we would really struggle when key players were missing under CH as well. I've thought AP is an upgrade from fairly early on in his time here, although I would still admit that it is highly subjective.

[midds]

Absolutely delighted with the start we've made and I must admit I'm a bit surprised too. We've played really well in patches and the injection of a few pacey players has meant we've now got a Plan B and can play on the break, although I don't like it when we sit back and try to soak it up away from home.

 

15 points from 21 is superb no matter how you get them and Pardew deserves a lot of praise for beating the dross. The bigger tests are still to come and we need to avoid injuries in key positions as the cover we have simply is not adequate. That must be addressed in January with a couple of players being brought in to add a bit of depth.

 

No reason whatsoever why we shouldn't aim for 60 points as others have mentioned and if we can continue to beat the dross then we'll finish 7th. There will be ups and downs from now til May but we need to just keep on winning the winnable games and we'll not drop out of the top 10.

[nufc4eva]

We create a lot more chances under Pardew than we did under any manager for the last 5 years I reckon, certainly this season we always seem to cause problems (Although still not as many as we should). Other seasons I have seen us not trouble the other team whatsoever and it has given other teams confidence. They will start to think twice about attacking us when we are at home now. We may not have the strikers we would like, but we create twice as many chances as we did and therefore would expect to finish a few.

 

I can't believe we have got to this stage (9 Games in total unbeaten - 6 wins) and still have Ben Arfa, Marveaux and Santon to start in the league and they should up the creativity levels by some distance hopefully. We certainly appear stronger as a squad as Ferguson, Ameobi and Vuckic appear to be part of it now.

 

Our reserves are even playing well, still trying not to be to optomistic as it will come crashing down, always does

[Mick]

Hughton is more respectable, honest and much better tactically, a far better all-rounder in fact. You'll not see Pardew oversee a result such as the 1-0 win at the Emirates, the 5-1 over the mackems, the 6-0 over Villa nor the rise of an average talent like Carroll. As soon as Pardew took over the form of Nolan and Barton for example dropped below the standard they were performing at under Hughton. Hughton acheieved great things here for a rookie in such a short time under huge pressure too and the job he was doing, i.e. building a good side, was taken away from him not only in a really p*ss poor way but far too early too. He united the whole club which is no mean task, it took Sir Bobby a few years to do that. Fans believed in him, players did too. Hughton would have saw us kicking on and step up another level and long-term too. I guarantee as soon as a few results go against us, the wheels will fall off under Pardew, on and off the pitch. Even under a good start fans are split and that's because a good number don't like him or trust him and feel he lacks that bit extra bit class, something Hughton seemed to have. We always bounced back after a set back under him.

 

Until he was sacked after that deplorable game against WBA.

 

Much better tactically my arse. Hughton took a team with Carroll, Barton, Jonas, Ben Arfa, Tiote, Coloccini and Enrique, and had them losing 1-2 to Stoke at home. We created one single clear-cut chance all game with that team. Similiar can be said about games against Blackpool, Blackburn and Bolton.

 

Pardew took a team with Krul, Simpson, Perch, Coloccini, Williamson, Barton, Smith, Nolan, Ranger, Best, Routledge, Lovenkrands and Tiote to Stevenage and had them losing 3-1.

[Dr.Spaceman]

To say Hughton is much better tactically is just idiotic.

[johnnypd]

If they do, they mad.

 

Didn't you fear relegation during pre-season?

 

Hughton is more respectable, honest and much better tactically, a far better all-rounder in fact. You'll not see Pardew oversee a result such as the 1-0 win at the Emirates, the 5-1 over the mackems, the 6-0 over Villa nor the rise of an average talent like Carroll. As soon as Pardew took over the form of Nolan and Barton for example dropped below the standard they were performing at under Hughton. Hughton acheieved great things here for a rookie in such a short time under huge pressure too and the job he was doing, i.e. building a good side, was taken away from him not only in a really p*ss poor way but far too early too. He united the whole club which is no mean task, it took Sir Bobby a few years to do that. Fans believed in him, players did too. Hughton would have saw us kicking on and step up another level and long-term too. I guarantee as soon as a few results go against us, the wheels will fall off under Pardew, on and off the pitch. Even under a good start fans are split and that's because a good number don't like him or trust him and feel he lacks that bit extra bit class, something Hughton seemed to have. We always bounced back after a set back under him.

 

People are getting too wrapped up in big wins over consistently pulling in points, yes Hughton got us victories away to Arsenal and Everton as well as huge scores against Sunderland and Villa, but he also only managed to get us 2 points from home games against Blackpool, Blackburn, Stoke, Fulham and Wigan, he managed 19 points from 16 games in the Premiership which doesn't compare  to Pardew's 15 points in 7 he's already got on the board.

 

As for being a better all-rounder, he was a one trick pony that involved the long ball to Carroll and if that didn't work we were f***ed.

 

Yup people remember the 5-1 against Sunderland & 6-0 against Villa, 1-0 against Arsenal & Everton but they forget we were beaten 2-0 at home by Blackpool, beat 2-1 at home by Stoke, beat 2-1 off Blackburn at home, beat 5-1 away at Bolton & beat 3-1 away at West Brom, the latter two probably helped him get the sack

 

managers should get sacked based on a couple of results now? Incredibly deluded stuff, that.

 

FWIW we were looking to replace hughton with Pardew when we were 5th in the table having just beaten arsenal and sunderland, and long before those two away defears. i also think it was less to do with footballing reasons, and primarily stemmed from hughton's intransigence over signing a new contract, as well as his closeness to players being perceived, rightly or wrongly, by ashley as a stumbling block to clearing out high earners. Then you had some other secondary issues such as Hughton not going to the casino with mike and derek, refusing to play fantasy football against Ashley, not buying into the laddish culture of streaking across the pitch etc that all seem to be bigger motivations than on pitch performance. Pardew looked bored out of his skull in that casino pic that someone put up on here, but he's smooth operator who will play along with that nonsense.

 

I'd also argue that one or two poor results at the end of Hughton's reign stem from the fact our manager was being actively undermined by the board - we'd already drawn up pardew's contract to replace him, were telling all and sundry what was wrong with him (supposedly taking too much personal credit after the derby win even though he did nothing of the sort) and after calderwood left hughton was denied the opportunity to bring in an assistant, massively increasing his work load. i also think one of hughton's weaknesses was not being a natural motivator (hence he needed input from the likes of Nolan) and losing a firebrand like calderwood would harm the dressing room dynamics he'd built up. Hughton was also too afraid to lose at times, which is understandable when the owner is looking for the slightest slip up to get rid. no one can confidently work under those conditions, and having no clout in the board-room is probably a big reason why he tried to build up rapport with the players - otherwise his position would be untenably exposed.

 

Saying all that, and despite the fact i'll always respect pardew a bit less due to the way he got the job, he is a more experienced manager than hughton, has done a very good job and i like the way he's been able to re-model the squad, something hughton wasn't given a chance to do. he has a very good relationship with the board, which helps, but it would be interesting to see him manage under the same testing circumstances that hughton had to deal with, ie very poor relations with the board and having some out of work manager waiting in the wings to take over if he ever loses two away games in a row.

 

though pardew's been good for us, had it been danny wilson or martin allen who walked through the doors of that London casino instead, then we'd have them as manager. It's analogous to shepherd appointing bobby robson, how much credit did he deserve for that appointment? did he choose him because he'd objectively scoured europe for the best suited candidate and arrived at robson, or did he choose him because he was a Geordie? Would robson have gotten the job had he been from belgium? No, and when robson left shepherd immediately turned to Steve Bruce for the same daft reason. the right appointment made for the wrong reasons.

[Mr. Snrub]

Aye, I like Hughton but tactically we're far better off under Pardew.  We're so much more organised and look more stable as a unit.

 

8 points out of 12 on the road and only 2 goals conceded tells its own story.

[Dr.Spaceman]

Blaming the board for losing at Bolton

[johnnypd]

Blaming the board for losing at Bolton

 

nice try. 

[Tachikoma]

Aye, I like Hughton but tactically we're far better off under Pardew.  We're so much more organised and look more stable as a unit.

 

8 points out of 12 on the road and only 2 goals conceded tells its own story.

 

Some of that has to be attributed to us being massively lucky, though (dodgy ref decisions in our favour, etc). Pardew was basically playing the same system Hughton had setup when he took over in any case and only started changing it this season, so Hughton does deserve a little more credit for handing Pardew a team that was basically good enough to take care of itself.

 

Also I think Enrique would have stayed if Hughton stayed.

[Lush Vlad]

Aye, I like Hughton but tactically we're far better off under Pardew.  We're so much more organised and look more stable as a unit.

 

8 points out of 12 on the road and only 2 goals conceded tells its own story.

 

Some of that has to be attributed to us being massively lucky, though (dodgy ref decisions in our favour, etc). Pardew was basically playing the same system Hughton had setup when he took over in any case and only started changing it this season, so Hughton does deserve a little more credit for handing Pardew a team that was basically good enough to take care of itself.

 

Also I think Enrique would have stayed if Hughton stayed.

 

Why? 

[Dave]

Johnnypd.

[Ishmael]

Saying all that, and despite the fact i'll always respect pardew a bit less due to the way he got the job

 

Ridiculous

[Ishmael]

Also

 

managers should get sacked based on a couple of results now? Incredibly deluded stuff, that.

 

I don't think anyone has said this.

 

Heh, the whole of johnnypd's post has the stench of bias.  Best of the lot:

 

though pardew's been good for us, had it been danny wilson or martin allen who walked through the doors of that London casino instead, then we'd have them as manager.

 

fwiw There was more to the appointment of Pardew than him merely going into some Casino.  Do you think that Mike is so stupid as to just appoint a mate/associate?  Pardew has a track record that includes some strong success when the conditions are right and based on that there would be every belief that he could do a better job that Hughton.  He is.  Mike got the decision, albeit a risky one, right.

[Dave]

Why was Llambias appointed?

[Tachikoma]

Aye, I like Hughton but tactically we're far better off under Pardew.  We're so much more organised and look more stable as a unit.

 

8 points out of 12 on the road and only 2 goals conceded tells its own story.

 

Some of that has to be attributed to us being massively lucky, though (dodgy ref decisions in our favour, etc). Pardew was basically playing the same system Hughton had setup when he took over in any case and only started changing it this season, so Hughton does deserve a little more credit for handing Pardew a team that was basically good enough to take care of itself.

 

Also I think Enrique would have stayed if Hughton stayed.

 

Why? 

 

The twits he posted after Hughton's sacking + gut feeling.

[Ishmael]

Why was Llambias appointed?

 

Had he not had a long and successful career working in the entertainment industry before being appointed as our MD as well as being a close and trusted friend to Mike?  Makes sense to appoint somebody with that much experience who you know closely and can trust...

 

Fairly certain that Pardew wouldn't have got the job without his track record...

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

Why was Llambias appointed?

 

And Kinnear?

[ChezGiven]

Hughton wasnt appointed, he was the default option during a period when Ashley was considering cutting loose. When he decided to engage with a strategy for the club (an imperfect one but at least a strategy), he needed a man to help him implement that.

 

The existence of a relationship beforehand isnt a sign of dubious behaviour or snideness (its just business), its an example of good recruitment policy. Get to know the candidate on a personal level to test the dynamics how he/she will handle the distribution of power and decision-rights.

 

Hughton's treatment was unfair but life and business is not fair. Its clear that Pardew is aligned to club strategy which is where all of the problems have occured in the past, Allardyce's style, Keegan's ambition, Hughton's relationship with the players. Llambias + Pardew is no ones choice of chairman / manager but more success can come from the alignment of vision between these two than a better or more popular manager with a mis-aligned vision of the strategy for the club.

[wormy]

Hughton wasnt appointed, he was the default option during a period when Ashley was considering cutting loose. When he decided to engage with a strategy for the club (an imperfect one but at least a strategy), he needed a man to help him implement that.

 

The existence of a relationship beforehand isnt a sign of dubious behaviour or snideness (its just business), its an example of good recruitment policy. Get to know the candidate on a personal level to test the dynamics how he/she will handle the distribution of power and decision-rights.

 

Hughton's treatment was unfair but life and business is not fair. Its clear that Pardew is aligned to club strategy which is where all of the problems have occured in the past, Allardyce's style, Keegan's ambition, Hughton's relationship with the players. Llambias + Pardew is no ones choice of chairman / manager but more success can come from the alignment of vision between these two than a better or more popular manager with a mis-aligned vision of the strategy for the club.

 

Very good point. Also don't understand the point of 'Pardew wouldn't have been appointed if he wasn't casino buddies with Ashley and Llambias'. It's not like Hughton was a much more calculated appointment.

 

FWIW, I don't think there's much between the two of them. Both will make mistakes, both will get good and bad results, and ultimately, I think Pardew will just edge it in overall results for the reason Chez made, he's on the wavelength of the board, whether we consider it a good wavelength or not is a different question altogether.

[quayside]

Why was Llambias appointed?

 

And Kinnear?

 

Sheer desperation. Who else would take the job? One of Ashley's Spurs mates probably knew JFK and put him in touch.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Hughton wasnt appointed, he was the default option during a period when Ashley was considering cutting loose. When he decided to engage with a strategy for the club (an imperfect one but at least a strategy), he needed a man to help him implement that.

 

The existence of a relationship beforehand isnt a sign of dubious behaviour or snideness (its just business), its an example of good recruitment policy. Get to know the candidate on a personal level to test the dynamics how he/she will handle the distribution of power and decision-rights.

 

Hughton's treatment was unfair but life and business is not fair. Its clear that Pardew is aligned to club strategy which is where all of the problems have occured in the past, Allardyce's style, Keegan's ambition, Hughton's relationship with the players. Llambias + Pardew is no ones choice of chairman / manager but more success can come from the alignment of vision between these two than a better or more popular manager with a mis-aligned vision of the strategy for the club.

 

Spot on, I've been saying for months that as long as we have Ashley it's in our best interests to have a manager that is prepared to swallow whatever it takes to work with him.

 

Even if the fans think the club owner is often on the wrong path, it's even more harmful to have a manager that isn't aligned to the strategy. I'm not saying Hughton couldn't have continued, but Ashley and Llambias clearly trust and have faith in Pardew.

[Guest ykmkmdd]

I loved Hughton but personally think Pardew is on a different planet - has a presence and tactical awareness I think is superior, Hughton did very well with a group of players he inherited but the nature of his relationships with the senior players always meant evolving the squad and playing style would prove very difficult for him.

[quayside]

Hughton wasnt appointed, he was the default option during a period when Ashley was considering cutting loose. When he decided to engage with a strategy for the club (an imperfect one but at least a strategy), he needed a man to help him implement that.

 

The existence of a relationship beforehand isnt a sign of dubious behaviour or snideness (its just business), its an example of good recruitment policy. Get to know the candidate on a personal level to test the dynamics how he/she will handle the distribution of power and decision-rights.

 

Hughton's treatment was unfair but life and business is not fair. Its clear that Pardew is aligned to club strategy which is where all of the problems have occured in the past, Allardyce's style, Keegan's ambition, Hughton's relationship with the players. Llambias + Pardew is no ones choice of chairman / manager but more success can come from the alignment of vision between these two than a better or more popular manager with a mis-aligned vision of the strategy for the club.

 

I don't think much of Llambias but have to agree with you that it is better to have a set up where everyone in the tent is pissing out. I'm still not sure what evidence there is that Pardew was mates with Ashley or Llambias before he got the job. I've seen the Aspers photo but wasn't that recent? Also agree with you about those who blame him for taking the job, as you say business is not fair and anyway AP did not sack Hughton. At least the club had a replacement lined up when they did get rid, and that hasn't always been the case.

[Dave]

Hughton wasnt appointed, he was the default option during a period when Ashley was considering cutting loose. When he decided to engage with a strategy for the club (an imperfect one but at least a strategy), he needed a man to help him implement that.

 

The existence of a relationship beforehand isnt a sign of dubious behaviour or snideness (its just business), its an example of good recruitment policy. Get to know the candidate on a personal level to test the dynamics how he/she will handle the distribution of power and decision-rights.

 

Hughton's treatment was unfair but life and business is not fair. Its clear that Pardew is aligned to club strategy which is where all of the problems have occured in the past, Allardyce's style, Keegan's ambition, Hughton's relationship with the players. Llambias + Pardew is no ones choice of chairman / manager but more success can come from the alignment of vision between these two than a better or more popular manager with a mis-aligned vision of the strategy for the club.

 

Spot on, I've been saying for months that as long as we have Ashley it's in our best interests to have a manager that is prepared to swallow whatever it takes to work with him.

 

Even if the fans think the club owner is often on the wrong path, it's even more harmful to have a manager that isn't aligned to the strategy. I'm not saying Hughton couldn't have continued, but Ashley and Llambias clearly trust and have faith in Pardew.

 

Agreed.