Unbelievable Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. What don't you agree with? Well no, not quite, i also mentioned the return of Ben Arfa and Gosling. And that we now have someone with legs to partner Tiote. Look, we are going round in circles. Only time will tell. I for one, am looking forward to the new season and dont get all the pessimism. Yes we need a few more, and there is plently of time for that to happen. As it stands, our first 11 looks decent and should cause some problems. We looks like weve got a bit more pace and players that can do things with the ball. I agree, if we lose the players you mentioned we are going to be seriously lacking - if they arent replaced. We'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 How are we weaker in defence? All of our main defenders had a good season of experience, Simpson has improved drastically, Taylor is looking decent again, Colo has become the defender we thought we signed and Jose is now hot property. Williamson also stepped up to premiership level. Losing Campbell means absolutely nothing. To add to that if you want to widen the meaning of defending then we have Tiote now to cover the back four, and Krul had his breakthrough season as a goalkeeper as well, so defensively, not just the back line we are a much stronger unit for next season as it stands, selling Jose would blow all of that out the water though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. What don't you agree with? Well no, not quite, i also mentioned the return of Ben Arfa and Gosling. And that we now have someone with legs to partner Tiote. Look, we are going round in circles. Only time will tell. I for one, am looking forward to the new season and dont get all the pessimism. Yes we need a few more, and there is plently of time for that to happen. As it stands, our first 11 looks decent and should cause some problems. We looks like weve got a bit more pace and players that can do things with the ball. I agree, if we lose the players you mentioned we are going to be seriously lacking - if they arent replaced. We'll see. Fair enough. Still fail to see where Ben Arfa fits into your argument: he was available at the start of last season and he will be this season if things don't change in that respect. So he was injured for most of the season. Do you think none of our players will be injured next season? I would argue there are other players than Ben Arfa that would make us much weaker if they were out injured for a serious amount of time (Colo, Enrique).. But, as you say, we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Still don't understand why noone sees Ba as a credible replacement for Carroll. If we're planning to play on the floor I'm more than happy to have Ba taking up Carrolls role, admittedly Carroll was good with the ball at his feet but his movement wasn't great and he had no genuine pace. I actually think ba would be better to suited to how we intend to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TherealnorthernTOON Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Just give in Elliotman, Unbelieveable has made his mind up allready. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 How are we weaker in defence? All of our main defenders had a good season of experience, Simpson has improved drastically, Taylor is looking decent again, Colo has become the defender we thought we signed and Jose is now hot property. Williamson also stepped up to premiership level. Losing Campbell means absolutely nothing. To add to that if you want to widen the meaning of defending then we have Tiote now to cover the back four, and Krul had his breakthrough season as a goalkeeper as well, so defensively, not just the back line we are a much stronger unit for next season as it stands, selling Jose would blow all of that out the water though. Your argument essentially comes down to: we may have gone down in numbers, but the players left have just had a really good season, even better than we might have expected beforehand (something I actually kind of agree with). They are still the same players as last year though, aren't they? Also, what is to say they will exceed expectations again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Weaker without Campbell? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 How are we weaker in defence? All of our main defenders had a good season of experience, Simpson has improved drastically, Taylor is looking decent again, Colo has become the defender we thought we signed and Jose is now hot property. Williamson also stepped up to premiership level. Losing Campbell means absolutely nothing. To add to that if you want to widen the meaning of defending then we have Tiote now to cover the back four, and Krul had his breakthrough season as a goalkeeper as well, so defensively, not just the back line we are a much stronger unit for next season as it stands, selling Jose would blow all of that out the water though. Your argument essentially comes down to: we may have gone down in numbers, but the players left have just had a really good season, even better than we might have expected beforehand (something I actually kind of agree with). They are still the same players as last year though, aren't they? Also, what is to say they will exceed expectations again? We haven't gone down in numbers, we've lost one who we never really played, one who was shit and head not in it. If anything him not being here strengthens the defence. Continuity in defence is a essential ingredient we've lacked for years, don't underestimate what a constant settled back four brings to a team. They are not the same players that started the season, that's for sure, they've grown, they've improved and they've blended; which brings to the point 'Are we stronger now than at the start of last season' the answer defensively is yes we are. They'll not exceed expectations this season, but they will match last time out and in that alone is progression, sometimes standing still does you good and before anyone jumps on that look at spuds, I'm sure they'd have loved to stand still this season in the league and retain 4th position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheSummerOf69 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Continuity in defence is a essential ingredient we've lacked for years, don't underestimate what a constant settled back four brings to a team. I agree (and hopefully Mr Padieu does too after his unnecessary tinkering with the defence last year brought only ill results). As the rest of the team is going to be made up of unblended elements the defensive continuity becomes even more important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 In an ideal world last season Campbell was half the player he was two seasons before, motivated and head in the right place. In reality he came here for the money, might have bothered playing for Hughton (if he wasn't injured) but gave up after he was sacked. Campbell was as useless as Marcelino and possibly less willing to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Weaker without Campbell? Don't think anyone will rue his departure but I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season without another centre half, even if it was a promising kid. Maybe that's Kadar but he'll have to prove he can go more than five minutes without getting injured first. Dread to think what would happen if Coloccini got injured, thankfully that's as rare as an Alan Smith winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Weaker without Campbell? Don't think anyone will rue his departure but I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season without another centre half, even if it was a promising kid. Maybe that's Kadar but he'll have to prove he can go more than five minutes without getting injured first. Dread to think what would happen if Coloccini got injured, thankfully that's as rare as an Alan Smith winner. Well that's a broken leg in pre-season waiting to happen! Feel the same tbh. Sol was okay to call on at those desperate times. Wouldn't mind another like that as 4th choice, unless people think Kadar is ready to take that role? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Weaker without Campbell? Don't think anyone will rue his departure but I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season without another centre half, even if it was a promising kid. Maybe that's Kadar but he'll have to prove he can go more than five minutes without getting injured first. Dread to think what would happen if Coloccini got injured, thankfully that's as rare as an Alan Smith winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheSummerOf69 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Dread to think what would happen if Coloccini got injured, thankfully that's as rare as an Alan Smith winner. Which is one of the reasons he's worth the money. To get top class players without a troublesome injury record and without any attitude problems costs top dollar. (And even then you need to give them a year or two to settle, especially if they've never played in England before). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So we're back to square one. We've lost Nolan, Campbell and Carroll, and brought in Cabaye, Marveaux and Ba. I said it was debatable that those changes have made us stronger and explained why, player for player and position for position. My conclusion is we are stronger in midfield, but weaker in defense and attack. What don't you agree with? Weaker without Campbell? Don't think anyone will rue his departure but I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season without another centre half, even if it was a promising kid. Maybe that's Kadar but he'll have to prove he can go more than five minutes without getting injured first. Dread to think what would happen if Coloccini got injured, thankfully that's as rare as an Alan Smith winner. Agree with you about getting another centre half. I guess we'll be assessing Kadar over the pre-season but I still would feel far more comfortable with a 4th option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I thought Pardew had mentioned looking out for and wanting a CB that can play fullback. Might well be in my head though. Alot of responsibility on Kadars shoulders if we don't bring anyone in. Its a make or break year for him imo, his injuries have been unlucky but If he doesnt make an impression this year I can see us getting rid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Tavernier seems highly rated, he can play CB can he not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yeah he can play RB or CB, think he prefers the middle but played RB when he was on loan. RB: Tavernier, Raylor, Simpson (Saylor if needed) CB: Colo, Willow, Saylor, Kadar, Tavernier LB: Enrique, Ferguson, Kadar, possibly Naylor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yeah he can play RB or CB, think he prefers the middle but played RB when he was on loan. RB: Tavernier, Raylor, Simpson (Saylor if needed) CB: Colo, Willow, Saylor, Kadar, Tavernier LB: Enrique, Ferguson, Kadar, possibly Naylor We need another cb of quality imo. An injury to Colo and we'd be in big trouble. Preferably someone who could cover rb too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Alan Pardew - "Pre-season is a planned program which will involve the balls and a lot of football." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 SimonPryde Simon Pryde Attention #NUFC fans! Alan Pardew will be #totalsport guest tonight from 5.30. Back with a bang! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 SimonPryde Simon Pryde Attention #NUFC fans! Alan Pardew will be #totalsport guest tonight from 5.30. Back with a bang! Can't wait for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliMag Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 We know that Pardew's contract is largely based on the financial performance of the club. What we don't know for certain are the exact details of his contract. He is clearly willing to shield Ashley of blame from not spending money in the transfer window because he benefits from this financially. Did Pardew do the math in his head regarding Carroll's sale? Something along the lines of "I really don't want to sell him but since I get X% of any transfer positive balance at the end of the fiscal year I would earn X million." This is one of the things that worries me about the current set up. Buying cheap, selling high and making money has worked for Arsenal, but we're not Arsenal (no matter how many french players we sign) and Pardew is definately not Wenger. Also I doubt Wenger has the same type of contract that Pardew has. With Ashley and Llambias involved I would hazard a guess that Pardew's contract is a bit more cynical (naked greed). We just have to wait and see if this works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 We know that Pardew's contract is largely based on the financial performance of the club. What we don't know for certain are the exact details of his contract. He is clearly willing to shield Ashley of blame from not spending money in the transfer window because he benefits from this financially. Did Pardew do the math in his head regarding Carroll's sale? Something along the lines of "I really don't want to sell him but since I get X% of any transfer positive balance at the end of the fiscal year I would earn X million." This is one of the things that worries me about the current set up. Buying cheap, selling high and making money has worked for Arsenal, but we're not Arsenal (no matter how many french players we sign) and Pardew is definately not Wenger. Also I doubt Wenger has the same type of contract that Pardew has. With Ashley and Llambias involved I would hazard a guess that Pardew's contract is a bit more cynical (naked greed). We just have to wait and see if this works. Absolute fantasy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts