Mike Ashley

[Incognito]

That applies to the other clubs who rest their players too though

 

Other clubs have more strength in depth as they have owners who spend money on players. Thus they have better results when resting first teamers.

[Guest tollemache]

You think Newcastle have less strength in depth than every other team in the Prem and a few in the Championship?

[LRD]

Pardew played for the draw as he usually does.

 

When he's publically saying he'd take a draw before the game, you have to wonder if that attitude fed down to the players.

 

 

Too small a sample size to make any valid conclusions.

[mrmojorisin75]

That applies to the other clubs who rest their players too though

 

Other clubs have more strength in depth as they have owners who spend money on players. Thus they have better results when resting first teamers.

 

see i don't like this approach as it plays in the 'pardew can do nothing about it' viewpoint

 

having to play youngsters or reserves is nothing new in football, he just can't get performances out of them when he needs to play them, it all comes back to pardiola in the end

[Incognito]

That applies to the other clubs who rest their players too though

 

Other clubs have more strength in depth as they have owners who spend money on players. Thus they have better results when resting first teamers.

 

see i don't like this approach as it plays in the 'pardew can do nothing about it' viewpoint

 

having to play youngsters or reserves is nothing new in football, he just can't get performances out of them when he needs to play them, it all comes back to pardiola in the end

 

The squad is criminally under size and strength  though. That isnt saying that if it wasn't Pardew wouldn't make a pigs cock of it.

[mrmojorisin75]

That applies to the other clubs who rest their players too though

 

Other clubs have more strength in depth as they have owners who spend money on players. Thus they have better results when resting first teamers.

 

see i don't like this approach as it plays in the 'pardew can do nothing about it' viewpoint

 

having to play youngsters or reserves is nothing new in football, he just can't get performances out of them when he needs to play them, it all comes back to pardiola in the end

 

The squad is criminally under size and strength  though. That isnt saying that if it wasn't Pardew wouldn't make a pigs cock of it.

 

it's not like he's being asked to change 11 players out though is it?  he fails at integrating a few changes every fucking time

 

the man is a joke

[Incognito]

You think Newcastle have less strength in depth than every other team in the Prem and a few in the Championship?

 

Obviously.  If it wasn't the case, our cup teams would sail through when called upon would they not?

[mrmojorisin75]

You think Newcastle have less strength in depth than every other team in the Prem and a few in the Championship?

 

Obviously.  If it wasn't the case, our cup teams would sail through when called upon would they not?

 

there's much more to it than that, as i've been saying

[UV]

Since Ashley bought the club (6+ seasons) we have won a total of 11 domestic cup ties. Only 2 of those were against Premiership opposition - Blackburn the season they got relegated, and the 4-3 at Chelsea.

 

We went all out for that Chelsea game with a team of Krul, R.Taylor, Ferguson, Campbell, Coloccini, Smith, Vuckic, Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Gutierrez, Ranger. As we were on a cup run we put out an even better team for the next round against Arsenal - Krul, R. Taylor, Kadar, Perch, Williamson, Guthrie, Smith, Vuckic, Ranger, Routledge, Lovenkrands (only Krul & Williamson started in the preceding and following league fixtures).

 

Some are saying we are no different from other Premiership clubs in not prioritising the cups. Under Ashley's ownership, "concentrating on the league" seems to be one thing we excel at though.

 

Since this post we beat Leeds at home, so it's gone up to 12 wins in 7 seasons, 10 of those against lower league sides.

 

Our record against premier league sides (who are all resting players to the same level as we are of course) is: P12 W2 D1 L9

Translated to league form over a season = 22 pts

 

Yeah. We try just as hard as everyone else.

[sempuki]

In line for a £65m individual bonus! Poor sod must be down to his last few billion.

[Interpolic]

Since Ashley bought the club (6+ seasons) we have won a total of 11 domestic cup ties. Only 2 of those were against Premiership opposition - Blackburn the season they got relegated, and the 4-3 at Chelsea.

 

We went all out for that Chelsea game with a team of Krul, R.Taylor, Ferguson, Campbell, Coloccini, Smith, Vuckic, Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Gutierrez, Ranger. As we were on a cup run we put out an even better team for the next round against Arsenal - Krul, R. Taylor, Kadar, Perch, Williamson, Guthrie, Smith, Vuckic, Ranger, Routledge, Lovenkrands (only Krul & Williamson started in the preceding and following league fixtures).

 

Some are saying we are no different from other Premiership clubs in not prioritising the cups. Under Ashley's ownership, "concentrating on the league" seems to be one thing we excel at though.

 

Since this post we beat Leeds at home, so it's gone up to 12 wins in 7 seasons, 10 of those against lower league sides.

 

Our record against premier league sides (who are all resting players to the same level as we are of course) is: P12 W2 D1 L9

Translated to league form over a season = 22 pts

 

Yeah. We try just as hard as everyone else.

 

 

Also I'm not sure how people can say we rest exactly the same amount of key players as every other club.  There's no actual proof for this, it's simply finger-in-the-air stuff.  If there's proof, post it.  And before Sergeant Smug comes along to simplify the argument and act like everyone in the world but him is a fucking div, I'm aware other clubs rest players.  How do you know they rest the same amount as us?  Do they rest their top 3 or 4 players / only goal threats?  Do their players pick up mysterious injuries in the lead up to cup ties?  Do you know any of this for sure or is it finger-in-the-air?

 

That's not to say that there aren't indeed a multitude of factors contributing to cup success/failure, including but not limited to team selection.  However the mentality comes from the top and filters its way down into team selections, tactics and motivation.  7 seasons of unmitigated failure in the cups should tell you that, during which time countless "inferior" clubs to us have made a decent fist of winning one.

 

That's why people were pointing at results over the course of 7 whole seasons vs other clubs as an indication of how seriously we take the cups, it's a far sounder means of judging the situation than just going "All teams rest players in the cups, they all rest exactly the same amount of players as us, so what's going on?  Must be luck, (lack of) strength of the reserves, etc".

 

TLDR: Team selection's been at fault, so has loads of other stuff.  The bottom line is that our cup performances under Ashley have been unacceptable, even compared against all of those other clubs who apparently treat them exactly the same as us.  We seem to treat the cups with more contempt than any other club as there's no money in them and this is reflected in the facts, i.e. the results.

[Mattoon]

Since Ashley bought the club (6+ seasons) we have won a total of 11 domestic cup ties. Only 2 of those were against Premiership opposition - Blackburn the season they got relegated, and the 4-3 at Chelsea.

 

We went all out for that Chelsea game with a team of Krul, R.Taylor, Ferguson, Campbell, Coloccini, Smith, Vuckic, Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Gutierrez, Ranger. As we were on a cup run we put out an even better team for the next round against Arsenal - Krul, R. Taylor, Kadar, Perch, Williamson, Guthrie, Smith, Vuckic, Ranger, Routledge, Lovenkrands (only Krul & Williamson started in the preceding and following league fixtures).

 

Some are saying we are no different from other Premiership clubs in not prioritising the cups. Under Ashley's ownership, "concentrating on the league" seems to be one thing we excel at though.

 

Since this post we beat Leeds at home, so it's gone up to 12 wins in 7 seasons, 10 of those against lower league sides.

 

Our record against premier league sides (who are all resting players to the same level as we are of course) is: P12 W2 D1 L9

Translated to league form over a season = 22 pts

 

Yeah. We try just as hard as everyone else.

 

 

I'm not sure how people can say we rest just as many players as everyone else, or we take it just as seriously as everyone else either.  There's no proof for this, it's simply finger-in-the-air stuff.

 

What gets me is certain people trying to defend the clubs AND Pardews stance on the cups, at least one of those is responsible for that woeful record. Iyam they're both complicit in our total disregard to cup competition. That record is indefensible, but aye we put in the same effort and rest the same players as other teams.

[colinmk]

It's actually annoying me that yous have to go the trouble of finding all these stats to prove something that is so obvious. It's not a credible thing for people to argue against at all.

[midds]

It's actually annoying me that yous have to go the trouble of finding all these stats to prove something that is so obvious. It's not a credible thing for people to argue against at all.

 

One would think...

[Cronky]

Since Ashley bought the club (6+ seasons) we have won a total of 11 domestic cup ties. Only 2 of those were against Premiership opposition - Blackburn the season they got relegated, and the 4-3 at Chelsea.

 

We went all out for that Chelsea game with a team of Krul, R.Taylor, Ferguson, Campbell, Coloccini, Smith, Vuckic, Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Gutierrez, Ranger. As we were on a cup run we put out an even better team for the next round against Arsenal - Krul, R. Taylor, Kadar, Perch, Williamson, Guthrie, Smith, Vuckic, Ranger, Routledge, Lovenkrands (only Krul & Williamson started in the preceding and following league fixtures).

 

Some are saying we are no different from other Premiership clubs in not prioritising the cups. Under Ashley's ownership, "concentrating on the league" seems to be one thing we excel at though.

 

Since this post we beat Leeds at home, so it's gone up to 12 wins in 7 seasons, 10 of those against lower league sides.

 

Our record against premier league sides (who are all resting players to the same level as we are of course) is: P12 W2 D1 L9

Translated to league form over a season = 22 pts

 

Yeah. We try just as hard as everyone else.

 

 

Also I'm not sure how people can say we rest exactly the same amount of key players as every other club.  There's no actual proof for this, it's simply finger-in-the-air stuff. 

 

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

 

The idea that because we’ve not done very well means we must have weakened the team ‘more’ is naïve. Other factors come into play, including the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period.

 

We’ve consistently under-achieved in the Cups over the last 50 years – it predates Ashley by a long way.

 

The financial cost of getting relegated, and the gains of being promoted, mean that Premiership and Championship clubs regularly prioritise their league against the cup. At the top end, the risk of losing a CL place means that the biggest clubs do the same thing. That's all I've seen people point out.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

i think a better comparison pardew's case would be to look at our results when he doesn't have his first choices available across the competitions rather than just in the cups, that'd give you a more concrete idea of what the exact problem is imho

 

and we all know the answer anyway

 

 

[Interpolic]

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

 

Your mate said so:

 

I'm asking you specifically how you think that result happened. If we rested players to about the same extent as other clubs (which we did) then what is it that we did differently to bring it about?

 

Your other mate keeps on saying we treat the cups exactly the same as every other club, despite recent results suggesting the contrary.

 

The idea that because we’ve not done very well means we must have weakened the team ‘more’ is naïve. Other factors come into play, including the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period.

 

You haven't read my post properly, I've made it clear that I realise it's not as straightforward as team selection.  Our top 4 or 5 players do seem to repeatedly miss cup ties though, which can't help.

 

We’ve consistently under-achieved in the Cups over the last 50 years – it predates Ashley by a long way.

 

I must have dreamt 2 FA Cup finals, an FA Cup semi final, a UEFA cup semi final, and a few other quarter finals in the 10 years before Ashley bought the club.

 

The financial cost of getting relegated, and the gains of being promoted, mean that Premiership and Championship clubs regularly prioritise their league against the cup. At the top end, the risk of losing a CL place means that the biggest clubs do the same thing. That's all I've seen people point out.

 

19 Premier League teams that have done better than us in the cups, and various Football League clubs.  Why?

 

Many on here are arguing that it's because we in fact do not treat the cups the same as every other club, we treat them with less respect (in terms of team selection, tactics, mentality, effort, etc) than any other club and this is reflected in our results.  The only alternative reason I've seen from any of you is "the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period" which, although a novel one, is laughable.  As if any of our players give a fuck about that when they're getting smashed by Brighton or Stevenage.

[Hanshithispantz]

Since Ashley bought the club (6+ seasons) we have won a total of 11 domestic cup ties. Only 2 of those were against Premiership opposition - Blackburn the season they got relegated, and the 4-3 at Chelsea.

 

We went all out for that Chelsea game with a team of Krul, R.Taylor, Ferguson, Campbell, Coloccini, Smith, Vuckic, Lovenkrands, Ameobi, Gutierrez, Ranger. As we were on a cup run we put out an even better team for the next round against Arsenal - Krul, R. Taylor, Kadar, Perch, Williamson, Guthrie, Smith, Vuckic, Ranger, Routledge, Lovenkrands (only Krul & Williamson started in the preceding and following league fixtures).

 

Some are saying we are no different from other Premiership clubs in not prioritising the cups. Under Ashley's ownership, "concentrating on the league" seems to be one thing we excel at though.

 

Since this post we beat Leeds at home, so it's gone up to 12 wins in 7 seasons, 10 of those against lower league sides.

 

Our record against premier league sides (who are all resting players to the same level as we are of course) is: P12 W2 D1 L9

Translated to league form over a season = 22 pts

 

Yeah. We try just as hard as everyone else.

 

 

Also I'm not sure how people can say we rest exactly the same amount of key players as every other club.  There's no actual proof for this, it's simply finger-in-the-air stuff. 

 

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

That's not the point though isn't it? We rest players in the cups that we are heavily reliant on to win games, and then we lose. Seemingly not every club in the league suffers from this same problem. Whether it be that they just aren't as reliant on the players they choose to rest, they don't rest their key players at all, or some other reason, we appear to be the only club who consistently gets twatted from inferior opposition. We should probably stop resting our best players.

[BottledDog]

Your mate said so...

 

And so it begins. The uncross-able lines have been drawn.

 

 

 

/plus bonus grammar Nazi opportunity.

[Cronky]

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

 

Your mate said so:

 

I'm asking you specifically how you think that result happened. If we rested players to about the same extent as other clubs (which we did) then what is it that we did differently to bring it about?

 

Your other mate keeps on saying we treat the cups exactly the same as every other club, despite recent results suggesting the contrary.

 

The idea that because we’ve not done very well means we must have weakened the team ‘more’ is naïve. Other factors come into play, including the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period.

 

You haven't read my post properly, I've made it clear that I realise it's not as straightforward as team selection.  Our top 4 or 5 players do seem to repeatedly miss cup ties though, which can't help.

 

We’ve consistently under-achieved in the Cups over the last 50 years – it predates Ashley by a long way.

 

I must have dreamt 2 FA Cup finals, an FA Cup semi final, a UEFA cup semi final, and a few other quarter finals in the 10 years before Ashley bought the club.

 

The financial cost of getting relegated, and the gains of being promoted, mean that Premiership and Championship clubs regularly prioritise their league against the cup. At the top end, the risk of losing a CL place means that the biggest clubs do the same thing. That's all I've seen people point out.

 

19 Premier League teams that have done better than us in the cups, and various Football League clubs.  Why?

 

Many on here are arguing that it's because we in fact do not treat the cups the same as every other club, we treat them with less respect (in terms of team selection, tactics, mentality, effort, etc) than any other club and this is reflected in our results.  The only alternative reason I've seen from any of you is "the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period" which, although a novel one, is laughable.  As if any of our players give a fuck about that when they're getting smashed by Brighton or Stevenage.

 

So, on my point about the pressure that comes from not having won anything in such a long time - which the media harp on about all the time - are you saying that doesn't exist?

[Interpolic]

Exactly.  We're talking about exits to Stevenage, Brighton and Cardiff here FFS.  And as previously stated it didn't seem to affect our ability to get to quarters, semis and finals in the 10 years previous.

[Hanshithispantz]

Ofcourse it doesn't exist

 

Wigan won the FA Cup last year, Sunderland got to a final this year, it's pretty likely that at least one of Hull or Sheffield Utd will be in a final this year etc...

[Hanshithispantz]

 

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

 

Your mate said so:

 

I'm asking you specifically how you think that result happened. If we rested players to about the same extent as other clubs (which we did) then what is it that we did differently to bring it about?

 

Your other mate keeps on saying we treat the cups exactly the same as every other club, despite recent results suggesting the contrary.

 

The idea that because we’ve not done very well means we must have weakened the team ‘more’ is naïve. Other factors come into play, including the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period.

 

You haven't read my post properly, I've made it clear that I realise it's not as straightforward as team selection.  Our top 4 or 5 players do seem to repeatedly miss cup ties though, which can't help.

 

We’ve consistently under-achieved in the Cups over the last 50 years – it predates Ashley by a long way.

 

I must have dreamt 2 FA Cup finals, an FA Cup semi final, a UEFA cup semi final, and a few other quarter finals in the 10 years before Ashley bought the club.

 

The financial cost of getting relegated, and the gains of being promoted, mean that Premiership and Championship clubs regularly prioritise their league against the cup. At the top end, the risk of losing a CL place means that the biggest clubs do the same thing. That's all I've seen people point out.

 

19 Premier League teams that have done better than us in the cups, and various Football League clubs.  Why?

 

Many on here are arguing that it's because we in fact do not treat the cups the same as every other club, we treat them with less respect (in terms of team selection, tactics, mentality, effort, etc) than any other club and this is reflected in our results.  The only alternative reason I've seen from any of you is "the pressure that comes our way through being by far the biggest club not to have won any trophies for such a long period" which, although a novel one, is laughable.  As if any of our players give a f*** about that when they're getting smashed by Brighton or Stevenage.

 

So, on my point about the pressure that comes from not having won anything in such a long time - which the media harp on about all the time - are you saying that doesn't exist?

 

Tell me your not saying that has a legitimate effect on our cup performance? at a final perhaps. In the 3rd round literally not at all.

It's the worst thing I've heard on here since last night.

[mrmojorisin75]

aye, you can just imagine them bricking it at the thought of playing brighton in the 3rd round because the toon haven't won a cup in 40 years

 

there's probably an argument that the pressure is now justifiably on pardew and he's consistently failing to cope with it, see the mackems games for more details

[Guest tollemache]

Well it’s all ‘finger in the wind’ in that case, isn’t it? Unless someone has got a formula which compares exactly how different teams are weakened by the omission of particular players, then it’s all going to be vague. And I haven't read anyone claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players.

 

Your mate said so:

 

I'm asking you specifically how you think that result happened. If we rested players to about the same extent as other clubs (which we did) then what is it that we did differently to bring it about?

 

 

You realise that "claiming that we field 'exactly' the same number of key players" and saying "we rested players to about the same extent as other clubs" are not the same? How in the name of utter fuck can you put those two phrases right next to each other in your post and then claim to have made any kind of point?