Ronaldo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. Because it's boring and unattractive perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Passing it straight to the opposition is far more attractive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Having an extra option is boring? It certainly wouldn't have been unattractive on Sunday when it's what we needed to negate the pressure in the first half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Sorry, I missed that you had said option. Many people don't accept that there's ever a place for the long ball, they insist on possession to relieve pressure. Not that we seem capable of retaining possession, but in theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. As long as its effective i couldn't care less if i'm honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Basically, if you're not playing football like Barcelona, or Spain, you're doing it wrong. Of course, that's only until a team that plays differently begins to dominate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 It's not a long ball, it's a long pass, a pass that is accurate and has a purpose. Not a hoof in the hope you win something. That's the difference for me, i have no problem with mixing things up, but that's not what Pardew does. We just hit and hoof. Every good team mix things up, we mix things brilliantly, it's just brilliantly means shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. As long as its effective i couldn't care less if i'm honest. Me neither, I just want us to be a good team. I'd PREFER to keep it on the deck but it's not a deal breaker. A long ball, flick on, finish is very beautiful in it's own way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Basically, if you're not playing football like Barcelona, or Spain, you're doing it wrong. Of course, that's only until a team that plays differently begins to dominate. Spain are boring. Do not want. Only Barcelona please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Celebrating goals is boring unless they are walked in to the net, just ask arsenal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I'm just sceptical that the stuff we would get if Carroll arrived would be any different from the periods of 'hoof ball' that Pardew has been slaughtered for in the past. If your argument is that you don't care about style as long as it's effective, then that's different and fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Having an extra option is boring? It certainly wouldn't have been unattractive on Sunday when it's what we needed to negate the pressure in the first half. Bit naive if you think it'd only be used as an 'extra option' imo. It'd be used all the time. We're already lazy enough with our passing/crossing as it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I'm just sceptical that the stuff we would get if Carroll arrived would be any different from the periods of 'hoof ball' that Pardew has been slaughtered for in the past. If your argument is that you don't care about style as long as it's effective, then that's different and fair enough. I don't want Carroll back but it's more to do with the fact that he's been injured/rubbish for ages. I don't think we should go back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. Because it's boring and unattractive perhaps? don't even think it has to be, pardew's wasn't that exciting 'cause of the rigid shape he employed...you could still play direct football up to a big man like carroll and have the fullbacks and midfielders flooding forward to support him sure it'd be a canny watch myself if they were drilled to do it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember all those boring days under bobby where we'd just aim at Shearers head. Awful times, hated the winning as well. Glad those days are long gone and carpet football is present throughout the squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember all those boring days under bobby where we'd just aim at Shearers head. Awful times, hated the winning as well. Glad those days are long gone and carpet football is present throughout the squad. Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I don't get why people are so ardently opposed to the long ball option if we had the players to facilitate it. Because it's boring and unattractive perhaps? don't even think it has to be, pardew's wasn't that exciting 'cause of the rigid shape he employed...you could still play direct football up to a big man like carroll and have the fullbacks and midfielders flooding forward to support him sure it'd be a canny watch myself if they were drilled to do it We have players who would work in either system, direct with Carroll or short, which would be great as we could adapt for different matches/scenarios. Unfortunately, as it stands, Pardew is incapable of adapting the team and it's fully down to him. At Reading (f***ing Reading) we brought on 2 defensive mids and rocked the formation 3-4 times in attempt to close it up at 1-0. It was an utterly appalling, mind-boggling attempt to 'adapt the formation'. Then, when we go 2-1 down, he brings off Anita for Obertan and tries to attack again but after bringing off Cabaye and Marveaux we had no-one left to create. IIRC we ended with Perch Bigi Jonas Cisse Shola Obertan It will always be one of the strangest managerial performances I've witnessed. Anyway, I have no faith in Pardew having different implementations of the formation if Carroll came. It would be balls to Carroll with everyone else shoehorned around him. The fact our comeback record is so bad is evidence enough that he has one plan and one plan only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Carroll not much good at dropping deep? Not true. Its definetely one of those 'big man' striker cliche's, for us he was everywhere linking up the play really well. Now, especially with the fact he's playing under Allardyce, people forget he showed in his time here theres more to him than just standing upfront waiting to flick the ball on with his head. Tbh i think Carroll and Cisse can work and one thing that makes the Ba and Cisse not even close to being comparable is at least Carroll can hold the ball up. I just worry with how Pardew will use them and the rest of the team for that matter, but i do think he's coming back so it looks like we will find out. Well we know that Cisse has to play in an advanced position, so basically we’d be buying Carroll and asking him to drop deep and/or wide. We can debate how good or bad he might be in that role, but that’s not playing to his strength and therefore it doesn’t make sense. Relying on long balls and one striker getting hold of another one’s flick-ons as your basic strategy won’t get us anywhere. It’s good to have the option when certain situations arise, but it’s not the route to success. That’s aside from the issue of whether Cisse is the right man for that kind of style (and I don’t think he is) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember all those boring days under bobby where we'd just aim at Shearers head. Awful times, hated the winning as well. Glad those days are long gone and carpet football is present throughout the squad. Nice one. If Carroll comes at the right price, I'd sign him. At least we might be decent at attacking corners again. I agree he hasn't been worth the money at Liverpool, but I think he would be decent with us. The motivation of the black and white shirt does have a bearing in this case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Did we launch it long to Shearer as Plan A? Of course we didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember all those boring days under bobby where we'd just aim at Shearers head. Awful times, hated the winning as well. Glad those days are long gone and carpet football is present throughout the squad. I don't remember that no, probably because it didn't happen. Before you respond with something like "so we didn't ever hit it long for Shearer?", I'm saying we didn't just do that, we mixed it up at times but its complete bollocks to claim that we "just aimed it at Shearers head" under Robson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember all those boring days under bobby where we'd just aim at Shearers head. Awful times, hated the winning as well. Glad those days are long gone and carpet football is present throughout the squad. I don't remember that no, probably because it didn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 One thing's for sure if we bring Carroll back, we need to get a couple of wingers in too. The only existing width we have in Debuchy and Haidara will not bring out the effectiveness for employing Carroll in the system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnonel Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 dont be daft. Cisse will play on the wing. you know its true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts