Alan Pardew

[mrmojorisin75]

In an ideal world, what Pardew should do is to play this open style against weaker teams and bring back his rigid direct approach against big 4 teams. Due to many factors, he somewhat did the opposite, and we are now in deep trouble.

 

the open style was forced on him due largely to injuries and his awful decision to approach the games against the shitter teams in such a cowardly way

 

last chance saloon for alan cowardew for me, if he reverts back to the direct game at any time now he can fuck right off like, unfortunately if the club support him with a couple of defenders i think that's exactly what he'll do

[Zero]

Mrmojorisin, let me clarify it here again, last season we didn't play an open style like now, we just continue our rigid approach with good integration of counter attack on ground base on Ben Arfa's talents. These few matches were the first time Pardew has adopted such an open style. Those counter attacks were good to watch but if you remember we didn't control the match but just sit back to wait for counter attack.

[High Five o]

The regression is mainly due to stagnation which is the fault, primarily, of the owner. The same owner you defend, mate.

 

Sometimes i think about this, the owner "we" defend.

I could go on about as much as i hate him, but we are in a position that we are owned by him, and there is little or nothing to do about it.

Remember when he bought us, i was fucking naive, thought we have won the lottery ffs. 

 

I have defended him, and criticized him, but it all ends up in the same, he is here, Some try to be positive, some negative.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Mrmojorisin, let me clarify it here again, last season we didn't play an open style like now, we just continue our rigid approach with good integration of counter attack on ground base on Ben Arfa's talents. These few matches were the first time Pardew has adopted such an open style. Those counter attacks were good to watch but if you remember we didn't control the match but just sit back to wait for counter attack.

 

so....?

[Dave]

Both Ashley and Pardew are here for the long term IMO, there's no point anyone concerning themselves about either changing any time soon. All we can do is call it as we see it.

[mrmojorisin75]

Both Ashley and Pardew are here for the long term IMO, there's no point anyone concerning themselves about either changing any time soon. All we can do is call it as we see it.

[Guest tollemache]

The regression is mainly due to stagnation which is the fault, primarily, of the owner. The same owner you defend, mate.

 

I don't think half a season is enough time to be talking about stagnation. The owner failed, in one transfer window, to bring in a defender and perhaps one other player, at a point where the team wasn't in horrendous shape and had just finished 5th, showing signs in the process of a burgeoning confidence and fluency in the first team. I / we don't really have enough information to know whether those one or two missed signings happened because he was at fault or whether it happened because he was unlucky. I will say that if it happened owing to having a sustainable transfer policy in place and being unwilling to ditch it, I don't think he was at fault. The idea that he should've just chucked more money at it and if he doesn't he lacks ambition I think is a bit daft.

 

 

[Zero]

So stop saying that we "invent" something great last season and suddenly Pardew wanted to fuck up himself and use the direct approach again.

[Ronaldo]

The regression is mainly due to stagnation which is the fault, primarily, of the owner. The same owner you defend, mate.

 

I don't think half a season is enough time to be talking about stagnation. The owner failed, in one transfer window, to bring in a defender

 

 

Since 2008 we've spent less than £2m on the central defence, man. That's not failing in one transfer window; it's perpetual madness across several.

[mrmojorisin75]

for me it comes down to this in judgement of pardew's mangerial performance this season: we have arguably the best attacking line-up outside of the big boys, certainly on paper, with some fine technical footballers, a good mix of pace and skill through the midfield to two top quality CF's albeit ones that don't necessarily complement each other

 

with all of that pardew has chosen to have the team play a cautious, direct game which for most of the season to date has nullified almost all of the strengths we do have in the squad

 

there isn't a manager out there bar 3-4 who could say they're 100% happy with their squads therefore i'm not buying injuries and/or ashley didn't but whoever to excuse pardew...he's got it massively, massively wrong to this point in the season and that's all their is to it for me

 

yes williamson is shit and so is simpson but a manager has to mitigate these things, the way you don't mitigate them is by playing a game that puts constant pressure on your defence and puts your attacking midfielders on the back foot every game...at least, as we've seen, if we go out and let the attackers play then we'll still concede but we'll be in with a chance of scoring and against weaker teams we'll be in with a strong chance of scoring more than them

 

he's out of excuses for me now, but as dave said, he ain't going nowhere baby

[Guest tollemache]

Last season's defence was pretty good? Williamson played out of his skin at times, ditto Taylor. You'd look at the centre of defence at that point and think, "one more would be nice". The main concern was depth - the idea that Williamson had been playing a bit above himself, Taylor was prone to injury and it'd be nice to have them in reserve and someone solid alongside Coloccini. Fact remains, we put out a back four for most of last season that acquitted itself very well, so I don't think it's particularly worth complaining that we didn't buy a star centre half in 2010.

 

It IS worth complaining that we didn't buy one this summer, but as I say, the owner and manager seem to be aware of that and tried to do otherwise. It's not like they've just seen a weakness in the defence and then chosen not to reinforce it.

[mrmojorisin75]

So stop saying that we "invent" something great last season and suddenly Pardew wanted to fuck up himself and use the direct approach again.

 

who me?  i didn't say anyone invented anything, in fact the opposite imo...HBA from the mackems game on more or less forced his hand to play the way we did at the end of last season..he made himself undroppable and built an understanding with cisse & ba...that in itself should have been built on by the manager

 

it was not

 

 

[Mick]

Last season's defence was pretty good? Williamson played out of his skin at times, ditto Taylor. You'd look at the centre of defence at that point and think, "one more would be nice". The main concern was depth - the idea that Williamson had been playing a bit above himself, Taylor was prone to injury and it'd be nice to have them in reserve and someone solid alongside Coloccini. Fact remains, we put out a back four for most of last season that acquitted itself very well, so I don't think it's particularly worth complaining that we didn't buy a star centre half in 2010.

 

It IS worth complaining that we didn't buy one this summer, but as I say, the owner and manager seem to be aware of that and tried to do otherwise. It's not like they've just seen a weakness in the defence and then chosen not to reinforce it.

 

We needed to replace the same 2 defenders in the last window as we do now, Williamson and Simpson.  On top of that we lost 2 forwards who made 43 appearances between them.  We've brought in Anita who has replaced Guthrie and a few kids who replaced other kids that the club let go.

[Guest tollemache]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

[Mick]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

 

We didn't try hard enough then did we, and at this time it's cost the club potentially £7,500,000 in prize money.  Also, the loss of not bringing in the two players we required will probably have a knock on effect and make it even more difficuilt to bring in the type of player that we want.  It's easier to bring somebody into a team who have just finished 5th than it is to bring players into a 15th placed team.

[samag]

Anyway I'm just desperately hoping Pardew is brave and doesn't step away from the setup and passing philosophy that has been much more present recently. To be fair to him he did that at Arsenal when I was expecting him to abandon it after shipping four at Old Trafford, but letting in another seven is something else entirely. It's to his credit that he's trying something different, but results aren't really improving. I'd much rather he stick with the principle of going after teams than trying to keep the ball in the air though, even if it takes a while longer to see the rewards.

 

 

I agree, if we can find some defenders in January i think we be ok.

[Guest tollemache]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

 

We didn't try hard enough then did we, and at this time it's cost the club potentially £7,500,000 in prize money.  Also, the loss of not bringing in the two players we required will probably have a knock on effect and make it even more difficuilt to bring in the type of player that we want.  It's easier to bring somebody into a team who have just finished 5th than it is to bring players into a 15th placed team.

 

Yep. It might prove to have been a cock-up long term. It might mean we end up slackening our transfer policy and being a little bit more willing to push the boat out. What it doesn't mean is that the owner doesn't know what he's doing. At worst it was a cock-up and our policy needs to be tweaked. At best it's a sign that we actually have a policy, which is a relief after the Shepherd days and will serve us a lot better than his approach did in the long run.

[mrmojorisin75]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

 

We didn't try hard enough then did we, and at this time it's cost the club potentially £7,500,000 in prize money.  Also, the loss of not bringing in the two players we required will probably have a knock on effect and make it even more difficuilt to bring in the type of player that we want.  It's easier to bring somebody into a team who have just finished 5th than it is to bring players into a 15th placed team.

 

Yep. It might prove to have been a cock-up long term. It might mean we end up slackening our transfer policy and being a little bit more willing to push the boat out. What it doesn't mean is that the owner doesn't know what he's doing. At worst it was a cock-up and our policy needs to be tweaked. At best it's a sign that we actually have a policy, which is a relief after the Shepherd days and will serve us a lot better than his approach did in the long run.

 

no, it means he's a gambler which we always knew...his gamble was to set his prices and not move on them based on the understanding that simpson and williamson (in particular) would have another decent season

 

the gamble failed, badly

[Guest tollemache]

Any transfer policy short of giving your manager a blank cheque represents a gamble of sorts. There will always be an element of stick-or-twist. Possibly this gamble didn't pay off, but that doesn't necessarily mean applying the same policy for the next 5 years wouldn't see us end up with a good team and in profit. I think it probably does go down as a slip but to read some of the posts on here you'd have thought it was symptomatic of some kind of chronic lack of ambition, which I just don't see.

[mrmojorisin75]

jesus dude, after promotion he gambled like shit and it paid off with us finishing 5th...people are understandably pissed off that the same gamble has seen us not push on from that but face a relegation battle

 

what the policy suggests to me is that if rigidly adhered to as it was last summer is that we'll more than likely make little progress over the length of time you're talking about, there will be ups and downs but ultimately we'll end up without the great team you speculate 'cause ashley will never pay for it

 

football presents opportunities to clubs at certain times, we've probably just missed one imo

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

jesus dude, after promotion he gambled like s*** and it paid off with us finishing 5th...people are understandably p*ssed off that the same gamble has seen us not push on from that but face a relegation battle

 

what the policy suggests to me is that if rigidly adhered to as it was last summer is that we'll more than likely make little progress over the length of time you're talking about, there will be ups and downs but ultimately we'll end up without the great team you speculate 'cause ashley will never pay for it

 

football presents opportunities to clubs at certain times, we've probably just missed one imo

 

Wouldn't say 'missed' necessarily but this window is crucial

[Beezeri]

Anyway I'm just desperately hoping Pardew is brave and doesn't step away from the setup and passing philosophy that has been much more present recently. To be fair to him he did that at Arsenal when I was expecting him to abandon it after shipping four at Old Trafford, but letting in another seven is something else entirely. It's to his credit that he's trying something different, but results aren't really improving. I'd much rather he stick with the principle of going after teams than trying to keep the ball in the air though, even if it takes a while longer to see the rewards.

 

 

I agree, if we can find some defenders in January i think we be ok.

 

We had the same defensive line last season and we did okay. It's the midfield which doesn't do their defensive job at all and especially Tiote I think. He keeps losing possession constantly in very dangerous areas. Can't really imagine some top clubs would be willing to pay over 15 million for him not that long ago. He's nothing but a liability at the moment! It seems that Pardew has realized that we can't defend so he has chosen to go all out attack tactics in recent matches which might be entertaining but doesn't change anything. WTF is Cisse being played at wide right?

 

It will get better when we get Cabaye back and Tiote off the pitch(unless he won't drop his horrible playmaking efforts).

[merlin]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

 

We didn't try hard enough then did we, and at this time it's cost the club potentially £7,500,000 in prize money.  Also, the loss of not bringing in the two players we required will probably have a knock on effect and make it even more difficuilt to bring in the type of player that we want.  It's easier to bring somebody into a team who have just finished 5th than it is to bring players into a 15th placed team.

 

Yep. It might prove to have been a cock-up long term. It might mean we end up slackening our transfer policy and being a little bit more willing to push the boat out. What it doesn't mean is that the owner doesn't know what he's doing. At worst it was a cock-up and our policy needs to be tweaked. At best it's a sign that we actually have a policy, which is a relief after the Shepherd days and will serve us a lot better than his approach did in the long run.

 

no, it means he's a gambler which we always knew...his gamble was to set his prices and not move on them based on the understanding that simpson and williamson (in particular) would have another decent season

 

the gamble failed, badly

 

It isn't the first time he has gambled and failed either...both with NUFC and in his oen financial dealings a few years ago...

[mrmojorisin75]

That's why we tried to sign Douglas (to supercede Williamson) and Debuchy (to supercede Simpson). It didn't happen. So there's no argument over what the club needs because the owner clearly agrees with you. It's just a question of the extent to which you splash the cash and I'm less inclined than most to deduce from the fact that we missed out on those two that we necessarily lack ambition, or that anyone is necessarily acting against the club's best long-term interests.

 

We didn't try hard enough then did we, and at this time it's cost the club potentially £7,500,000 in prize money.  Also, the loss of not bringing in the two players we required will probably have a knock on effect and make it even more difficuilt to bring in the type of player that we want.  It's easier to bring somebody into a team who have just finished 5th than it is to bring players into a 15th placed team.

 

Yep. It might prove to have been a cock-up long term. It might mean we end up slackening our transfer policy and being a little bit more willing to push the boat out. What it doesn't mean is that the owner doesn't know what he's doing. At worst it was a cock-up and our policy needs to be tweaked. At best it's a sign that we actually have a policy, which is a relief after the Shepherd days and will serve us a lot better than his approach did in the long run.

 

no, it means he's a gambler which we always knew...his gamble was to set his prices and not move on them based on the understanding that simpson and williamson (in particular) would have another decent season

 

the gamble failed, badly

 

It isn't the first time he has gambled and failed either...both with NUFC and in his oen financial dealings a few years ago...

 

well, obviously

[Guest tollemache]

The idea isn't that Ashley pays for it, it's that the club does. Which is fine.

 

What I'm seeing here - lapping it up when we overachieve and then going mental and attacking the club hierarchy at the first loss of momentum - isn't really support in my book. It's the mentality of a casual consumer who expects to be satisfied at all times or he rejects the product. I'll be quick to have a go if I see Ashley pointing the club in the wrong direction but I'm certainly not going to have a go over an unlucky transfer window, in the context of the progress we've made in the last two seasons. Perhaps it would've been better had we finished 10th last season, because the level of expectation I'm seeing now is more or less back to Shepherd-era levels. One of the best things about going down and coming back up was that it represented a reality check, with a general acceptance that the club would now have to rebuild for the future. They did, and did it very quickly indeed with a host of great signings, and now it's as though it never happened.