alpal78 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So why do you believe they made the change, given that there's nothing official? Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that one of the reasons is because they think Pardew will be better in the transfer market? possible, but that's strawman argument, you create it as a possible reason based on nothing concrete then argue against it. For the record I think Hughton was pretty decent in the transfer market, he just wasn't able to get those players performing against lesser opponents, an area that Pardew has greatly improved on (Stevenage aside) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So why do you believe they made the change, given that there's nothing official? Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that one of the reasons is because they think Pardew will be better in the transfer market? possible, but that's strawman argument, you create it as a possible reason based on nothing concrete then argue against it. For the record I think Hughton was pretty decent in the transfer market, he just wasn't able to get those players performing against lesser opponents, an area that Pardew has greatly improved on (Stevenage aside) Were they not playing lesser opponents last season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Golfmag said from the start the reasoning was that pardew would be less pally with the players and so would make it easier for the club to cash in on players. everything he's said has materialised so far so i'll stick with his info. as for knowing pardew before he was appointed, pardew himself said he'd met llambias 8 or 9 times at various events so they were certainly acquainted with one another. you think that kind of networking had nothing to do with why he got the job? Golfmag was just lucky that his random guesses which were on a par with guessing the winning numbers on the Euro Lottery have come true, noting more. [/sarcasm] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Were they not playing lesser opponents last season? That doesn't count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Were they not playing lesser opponents last season? That doesn't count. Best erase those memories then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Best erase those memories then. Just pretend they didn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So why do you believe they made the change, given that there's nothing official? Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that one of the reasons is because they think Pardew will be better in the transfer market? possible, but that's strawman argument, you create it as a possible reason based on nothing concrete then argue against it. For the record I think Hughton was pretty decent in the transfer market, he just wasn't able to get those players performing against lesser opponents, an area that Pardew has greatly improved on (Stevenage aside) better in the transfer market = 35m for carroll without a peep out of the manager in reply. i remember him saying he 'advised' them to turn down the bid though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So why do you believe they made the change, given that there's nothing official? Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that one of the reasons is because they think Pardew will be better in the transfer market? possible, but that's strawman argument, you create it as a possible reason based on nothing concrete then argue against it. For the record I think Hughton was pretty decent in the transfer market, he just wasn't able to get those players performing against lesser opponents, an area that Pardew has greatly improved on (Stevenage aside) Eh? I didn't argue against anything. Where's this straw man you're on about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 take your fucking time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So why do you believe they made the change, given that there's nothing official? Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that one of the reasons is because they think Pardew will be better in the transfer market? possible, but that's strawman argument, you create it as a possible reason based on nothing concrete then argue against it. For the record I think Hughton was pretty decent in the transfer market, he just wasn't able to get those players performing against lesser opponents, an area that Pardew has greatly improved on (Stevenage aside) Eh? I didn't argue against anything. Where's this straw man you're on about? ok but I think it's kind of obvious (even more so after today's game) that Pardew is to be blamed for not bringing in a striker and that was before we even sold Carroll Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So you were talking shit then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 6 games without a win. Acceptable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 6 games without a win. Acceptable? Not worried at all. And I'd never admit Pardew is doing well apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Incredibly acceptable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 6 games without a win. Acceptable? Not worried at all. And I'd never admit Pardew is doing well apparently. I'm not worried either, just trying to stimulate discussion. I've been relatively impressed by Pardew so far it must be said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Got it spot on today but waiting far too long to make the subs, strikers were at least getting chances in the first, completely ineffectual in the second. Played some decent stuff but we should be celebrating a win the performance deserved like we got at WHU, Wigan and Everton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 He's done great IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Getting into a decent habit of not losing to the sides below us (Fulham, aside ). Hope it continues on Tuesday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Getting into a decent habit of not losing to the sides below us (Fulham, aside ). Hope it continues on Tuesday. Would take a point on Tuesday. Birmingham are on a bit of a run at the moment and Zigic seems to have found his feet. Hope we dick them like. Absolutely despise Birmingham City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 We look far more solid under Pardew, which is something that will easily keep us up hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Where did I say that? He was to blame for sticking with two forwards for 76 minutes who were having poor games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 He's doing really well tbh. I would go as far to say that today he maybe shouldn't have brought Ranger on. The game died when we made the subs, which is suprising cos I'm no fan of Lovenkrands, but I think his movement did cause problems today. Are you seriously saying that Ranger had a negative effect on us? That's laughable if you are as he did nothing wrong at all but we gave him very little to work with. I think we went slightly off the boil when Simpson went off a few minutes earlier as Perch made no effort to get forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think he was the difference between 1 and 3 points today although you can't fault him for leaving Best and Lovenkrands on for so long when you consider how much they cost us. So the manager is to blame for the poor finishing of his side, laughable. Why didn't he buy a striker? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts