Alan Pardew

[alpal78]

Obviously not reading the same threads as me. There were several people whining before the match about Pardew's comments of "keeping it tight until 70mins", apparently this was his "cowardly" way of giving up the tie before we'd even kicked off...

 

Benfica seemed to be set up to try and hit us on the counter (perhaps expecting us to do the 'British' tactic of pouring men forward at home to get level on the tie), they only introduced the 'better' offensive minded players once we'd scored (Cardozo, etc) so who is to say that if we had pushed to score earlier in the game, they wouldn't have brought out the 'big guns' sooner and made our task even more difficult? (either working harder to contain better players from scoring or working harder to score another goal or two if they score)

 

For all of the faults Pardew has, he's done reasonably well in these two legs and in the latter stages of the competition. Lets pick the bones from his carcass when he does things like Brighton (a) x2, rather than when he does a decent job.

 

I guess we have different interpretation then. When you see people complaining about "keeping it tight", it does not follow that they want us to go 'gung-ho from the off". In fact you're the first person in this thread that I've seen using such a phrase. Instead,  I suspect most would agree that we kept our shape but attacked so that we have more than one measly shot on target after 45 minutes. As I said we did not concede when we were attacking them from 70-90 minute (even with the introduction of the "better offensive players". We only conceded in minute 92 when we went all out and nobody is advocating that we do this from the start.

[mrmojorisin75]

Watched 70 minutes of bilge to add to the hundreds and thousands and minutes of bilge I've watched this season, a normal person would understand that frustation - however you're not a normal person, you're a very strange person who feels the need to feel superior to people at every opportunity.

 

I've got no desire to feel less or more superior than anyone else, so I'm not sure how you've gleamed that from my guff; I'm surprised that someone like yourself would have an issue with people being different from each other. It'd make for a very grey board if we were all sheep.

 

I'd love for us to play exciting, attacking, vibrant football that wins us trophies and plaudits.

 

However, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

 

If we're going to have a period of cutting our cloth accordingly, I don't see why we need to make a song and dance about it every time we don't play cutting edge football.

 

 

Stu, care to expand on the bits in bold, such as why you think we can't play attacking, passing football with the players we have in the squad (regardless of injuries)?

 

clearly i'm in the "pardew doesn't know how to coach it" camp but if it's something you yearn for, yet still retain some hope for pardew, you must think something else is holding us back

 

again genuine question, not looking for a bite or anything

[alpal78]

Disappointed he didn't gamble from the start but I see why. Really needed a creative spark as a result but defended the clean sheet. Pardew still thinks we can play defensively and grind out a result, we can't. This tactic is ironically more of a gamble than attacking one.

 

Surely this negative tactic only drags down the confidence in our defence. Makes it look like he has no confidence in our defenders to get the job done if we play attractive competitive football.

 

I'm not really ranting about pardew today I understand his reasoning for starting a more defensive line up. With fitness levels of marv and benarfa not likely to last the full game we would have been in the s*** had we conceded being hit on the break, but who knows if we had stuck early they might have folded.

 

Pardew has created a culture within the squad that genuinely plays for the shirt, fans and each other. I think the club is closer to the fans than it has been in a long time (definately safe house needed for that comment).A new manager is at risk of losing that..but pardew clearly has no tactical clue and I blame the coaching set up aswell as him.

 

I hope he gets replaced but I am scared at what would follow. At the bare minimum we need a tactical coach to work with pardew carver et al are obviously not up to it.

 

 

I don't think he'd have set up this way had we had Coloccini/Taylor and Santon fit. I think a lot of his thinking was not having a particularly strong back four, and not having his "door openers" available to play much more than half an hour each.

 

Haven't we set up the same way (defensive and hoping to grind out results) pretty much the whole season?

 

We see weaker squads play better football every week. It's all about psychology and inspiring players to push themselves to play better. Just because we have alot of international class professionals doesn't mean they don't need inspiration to push them from time to time or that arm around them to help.

 

That said the players are clearly united with pardew and have bought into what he feeds them. For me it just looks like it's easier for him to play defensive than try to inspire his players mentally to step up.

 

 

If Swansea play the way they do against someone like Benfica next season, I think they'd get ripped apart tbh. I think our best chance of winning the tie tonight with the players available, was the way we set out.

 

That, imho, is bollocks. Swansea may well get seen off for a variety of reasons but because they have the ball a lot more than the other team won't be one of them.

 

And if the only chance we had of winning the game tonight was the way it panned out, 10 mins of pressure out of 90, then we just had no chance, simple as.

 

That's bollocks like. No chance? When Cisse scored there wasn't a person in the ground who wasn't fairly confident we would win it. We were incredibly close.

 

Not for me. ON is of the opinion that the way we approached the game was the best tactically that we could have done. Don't agree with that and my point was, if that was the best approach possible then we weren't ever really in it.

 

Tell me how we could have been better tactically?

 

I wouldn't have started Bigi in the first 45 mins. Sissoko out wide and either Marveaux or Shola would have given us far more bite IMO.

 

I think it's clear Marveaux wasn't fit...and this place had Shola started.

 

Marveaux looked plenty fit to me - and Pardew really shouldn't give a toss about what this place would think about Shola starting tbh.

 

Pardew said post-match that Marveaux struggles with a lot of games in a short space of time, which is why he didn't start tonight.

 

Fine. But why replace him with an inexperienced defensive central midfielder? Do you think teams with no threat going forward are going to worry a team with a poor defence?

 

We didn't want to worry them in the first half ffs. Why poke the bear with a stick when you can get to the hour and try and shoot it instead?

 

What a s*** analogy.

 

We clearly didn't have enough time to beat them in that time, there was a lot of huff and puff and they looked a bit rattled but don't go on like we were unlucky.

 

I wouldn't say we were unlucky necessarily, they were really rattled for a good 15 minutes or so but we picked the wrong ball too often and made too many sloppy passes in good positions. I wasn't interested in being the better side tonight, only in getting through and I thought we gave ourselves the best chance of doing so by playing the way we did.

 

Scoring on 70 minutes was almost scripted, it fitted so perfectly. 2-0 up on 70 minutes with Benfica camped in our half, I'd have written us off, 1-0 up though with the onus on us, I really thought we would nick it late again and I bet so did everyone else. We needed to keep the ball in our court for as long as we could.

 

Although I can sort of see your logic Wullie, coming from you, it is really surprising, that you'd rather be 1-0 up than 2-0 up with 20 minutes to play. To me this reflects that you've  lost all faith in Pardew being able to organize a team to get the right result. If we were 2-0 up, why couldn't we sit deep with fast counter attacks through HBA and Marveux? Plus as many have said, I don't see why we can't defend and still attack at the same time, there has to be a balanced approach not an all or nothing. Had we attacked earlier, we could have got the first goal earlier say in the first half, which would have then given us more time to get the second goal. I don't quite get how anyone can think that the chances of getting a goal in 20 minutes is greater than doing so in 45 minutes. In terms of first half, we wasted the opportunity to attack and get the first goal early. It is also interesting to note that they only hit us on the counter when we were going all out in injury time. I have not seen anyone on this forum saying that we should have gone all out attack in similar fashion from the first minute.

 

Ultimately if this was such a great strategy, it's odd to me that I can't seem to remember any other teams losing 0-2 playing the way we did in the second leg, not in Europa and not in CL. For those defending this strategy, do you think that Pardew just uncovered a masterpiece strategy that eluded the other top managers before him who faced the same position?

 

Not really arsed about what other teams have or haven't done, most of them probably haven't got a load of injuries and a Tyne Wear derby on Sunday meaning extra time would have been extremely bad news (and probably fruitless anyway).

 

Why couldn't we sit deep and counter? Because we can't, we're hopeless at it, we sit deep and leather it as far from goal as we can when we lead. When a team really wants to get a goal, Pardew knows very few ways to stop a barrage of attacks because we can't retain possession. I'm not claiming I've had an epiphany here, simply that given the circumstances, annihilating the game in the first half was the right thing to do.

 

Well if you've accepted that we can't ever play on the counter or attack without conceding a goal, then of course the only thing left for us to do is nick a goal in injury time. That's a truism for me and self serving way of arguing though, plus chances of this strategy working out is very slim (we've been quite fortunate with all those last minute goals).

[cp40]

Think i'll get annoyed reading this thread tonight. Not sure how anyone can argue that tactics, were within a whisker or working perfectly.

 

Keep it tight for the first half, get the flair players on a bit later and have a real go at Benfica, while ensuring those players remain fresh for the arguably more important game on Sunday.

 

Anyone who disagrees must simply have an anti Pardew agenda.

 

 

its true

[Wullie]

Half an hour was more than enough time to get both goals, regardless of whether we did or not, we weren't reliant on injury time.

 

It's not about attacking without conceding, simply that the first half was basically golden goal but a golden goal that only applied to them. It was completely the right thing to do to try  extinguish any threat. The chance of going through was there right until injury time, which was what a sell out stadium wanted, not to be finished in the first half.

[Guest]

Half an hour was more than enough time to get both goals, regardless of whether we did or not, we weren't reliant on injury time.

 

It's not about attacking without conceding, simply that the first half was basically golden goal but a golden goal that only applied to them. It was completely the right thing to do to try  extinguish any threat. The chance of going through was there right until injury time, which was what a sell out stadium wanted, not to be finished in the first half.

 

[buzza]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

[Guest icemanblue]

Half an hour was more than enough time to get both goals, regardless of whether we did or not, we weren't reliant on injury time.

 

It's not about attacking without conceding, simply that the first half was basically golden goal but a golden goal that only applied to them. It was completely the right thing to do to try  extinguish any threat. The chance of going through was there right until injury time, which was what a sell out stadium wanted, not to be finished in the first half.

 

Yep, especially the bolded bit. It really got the crowd onside, and the atmosphere was electric for the last half an hour.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Half an hour was more than enough time to get both goals, regardless of whether we did or not, we weren't reliant on injury time.

 

It's not about attacking without conceding, simply that the first half was basically golden goal but a golden goal that only applied to them. It was completely the right thing to do to try  extinguish any threat. The chance of going through was there right until injury time, which was what a sell out stadium wanted, not to be finished in the first half.

 

Couldnt agree more with this(and your previous few posts)

[arnonel]

Half an hour was more than enough time to get both goals, regardless of whether we did or not, we weren't reliant on injury time.

 

It's not about attacking without conceding, simply that the first half was basically golden goal but a golden goal that only applied to them. It was completely the right thing to do to try  extinguish any threat. The chance of going through was there right until injury time, which was what a sell out stadium wanted, not to be finished in the first half.

 

100%

[Incognito]

I thought his gameplan made a lot of sense, I just thought we should have turned the screw sooner than we did. I also would have had Jonas and Anita as FBs a lot sooner than they actually were (if at all). The majority of our attacks were coming from the right, and Simpson's limitations held us back, even though he put in a decent shift. I was really annoyed when Anita went off, cos the ultra-attacking FBs were huge to us against Fulham. I also thought Bigi's inclusion on the right was needless and a hiding to nothing.

 

All of this.

[Incognito]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim is contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

[mattypnufc]

Honestly thought he got it spot on last night.  No complaints. 

 

If they had scored early, the game was finished imo.

 

Their coach even admitted that once we'd made our changes, they couldn't cope tactically. 

[broony]

Ben Arfa couldn't have played for longer than he did and Marveux can't do a full game Thursday and then play again on Sunday, so overall I think tactics and team selection were pretty much fine. We were just beaten by a better team.

[Incognito]

Ben Arfa couldn't have played for longer than he did and Marveux can't do a full game Thursday and then play again on Sunday, so overall I think tactics and team selection were pretty much fine. We were just beaten by a better team.

 

So what is wrong with starting Marveaux and replacing him with Hatem ?

[Guest icemanblue]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

[Wullie]

Not even sure we can say we were beaten by the better side really, we just shot ourselves in the foot big time in the first leg.

[broony]

Ben Arfa couldn't have played for longer than he did and Marveux can't do a full game Thursday and then play again on Sunday, so overall I think tactics and team selection were pretty much fine. We were just beaten by a better team.

 

So what is wrong with starting Marveaux and replacing him with Hatem ?

 

I think that would mean Marveaux having to do 60 minutes, which he musn't be able to do if he has to play Sunday.

[Incognito]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

 

An hour of Marveaux and half an hour of Hatem. Then perhaps do the opposite Sunday. Seems quite a basic concept to me.

[Guest icemanblue]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

 

An hour of Marveaux and half an hour of Hatem. Then perhaps do the opposite Sunday. Seems quite a basic concept to me.

 

What would be the point? Our gameplan was to contain, then scare them shitless with an onslaught after 60 mins. That was achieved by bringing on three attacking players, to completely transform the team. It wouldn't have had the same effect if we'd replaced on of our attacking players.

 

Hatem is nowehere near fit enough to be starting games. If you watched the game last night, you'd have seen that. Pardew has said we got all we could out of him last night, and it'll be the same again on Sunday.

[Incognito]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

 

An hour of Marveaux and half an hour of Hatem. Then perhaps do the opposite Sunday. Seems quite a basic concept to me.

 

What would be the point? Our gameplan was to contain, then scare them shitless with an onslaught after 60 mins. That was achieved by bringing on three attacking players, to completely transform the team. It wouldn't have had the same effect if we'd replaced on of our attacking players.

 

Hatem is nowehere near fit enough to be starting games. If you watched the game last night, you'd have seen that. Pardew has said we got all we could out of him last night, and it'll be the same again on Sunday.

 

Well the point would've been to actually worry them constantly and not for 20 minutes. The Bigi selection beggared belief.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Not even sure we can say we were beaten by the better side really, we just shot ourselves in the foot big time in the first leg.

 

Both teams created a lot of chances over the tie and could have went either way really. I would say they were better in their attacking play but we had the better chances for the most part. Like you said two individual errors effectively decided it.

[Incognito]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

 

An hour of Marveaux and half an hour of Hatem. Then perhaps do the opposite Sunday. Seems quite a basic concept to me.

 

What would be the point? Our gameplan was to contain, then scare them shitless with an onslaught after 60 mins. That was achieved by bringing on three attacking players, to completely transform the team. It wouldn't have had the same effect if we'd replaced on of our attacking players.

 

Hatem is nowehere near fit enough to be starting games. If you watched the game last night, you'd have seen that. Pardew has said we got all we could out of him last night, and it'll be the same again on Sunday.

 

Of course I watched the game. I'm not saying he should've started last night.  Half an hour last night. Start Sunday and increase that to an hour.

[Guest icemanblue]

I agree with the sentiment about "keeping us in the game" during the first half and going all out in the second but it still galls me that we don't first look at how to beat or score against the opposition but more the philosophy of negating them and then taking a chance at some point. I want us to stamp our "authority/style" in games and dictate to the opposition. Really frsutrating for me when we have players that can do this...

Also, Bigi's contribution left me totally apathetic, whether that was the fault of Pard's instructions or the poor kid is still a bit young to step up... who knows.

Yes, we played well with the crowd behind us for a 10-15 minute period, but Jesus H christ, we should be playing three or four spells of dominance like that every game.

Rant over, dissapointed and need to vent spleen etc...etc...

 

And all of this too. This nonsense about playing 4 -2 - 4 for 90 minutes isn't what the so-called haters are saying. With Cabaye playing so deep and totally ineffective for an hour, we had no flair on the pitch. Hence the Bigi selection was not only wrong,and always was going to be, but just a mental one. I actually felt sorry for the lad, who has hardly played for 3 months or more , is very raw and inexperienced anyway.

 

Marveaux , who with Hatem's hopeful recuperation, will not see much pitch time ,should obviously have played. Let them be wary of what we can do not vice versa.

 

However, as we all know, that maxim us contrary to Pardew's ethos, and though his  negative manner has been the catalyst for a quite successful European campaign, ultimately, it was one of the reasons we are now out.

 

 

So what would we do for creativity in that quite important game on Sunday? He was out of the game with cramp from about 75 mins on Sunday, what sense would there have been in having him play another 90 last night?

 

Honestly, I've read some absolute shite this morning, all on here. People are allowing their hate for the man, and their previously established extreme positions, to completely cloud their judgement of every game. We had a depleted squad last night, an entirely 'second choice' back four and a couple of half fit players on the bench. With what we had, and the opponents we were facing, we almost played a perfect game.

 

An hour of Marveaux and half an hour of Hatem. Then perhaps do the opposite Sunday. Seems quite a basic concept to me.

 

What would be the point? Our gameplan was to contain, then scare them shitless with an onslaught after 60 mins. That was achieved by bringing on three attacking players, to completely transform the team. It wouldn't have had the same effect if we'd replaced on of our attacking players.

 

Hatem is nowehere near fit enough to be starting games. If you watched the game last night, you'd have seen that. Pardew has said we got all we could out of him last night, and it'll be the same again on Sunday.

 

Well the point would've been to actually worry them constantly and not for 20 minutes. The Bigi selection beggared belief.

 

Do you think that would have worked, like? I don't. It's going in circles, but, as many have said, 2-0 was the best chance we had of going through. Our gameplan gave us the best possible opportunity of achieving that. If Hatem's shot is on target, we'd have done it. It was that much of a margin.

 

EDIT: Not sure why you've replied to me twice. I know you weren't saying he should have started, but he won't be fit to start a game three days later on the back of 30 mins, after months out.

[Lotus]

Thing about last night, we only needed to score another 3 goals to go through.

 

You see, if you leave it until the last to have a go, a shot even, then you start to get desperate, then you get picked off.

 

Personally i think we should have tried to attack (sensibley) the game early on rather than waitin until 70 minutes. Should have tried having a few shots on goal in the first half. That's what i honestly think. We just tried to not lose for the first hour. Bigi & Jonas were there to protect the the FBs, not test the opposition (the only time Bigi did was when he found himself central). I think we could have had a go at controlling the game a bit more. Would have picked a bit of different team for that but we had the players.

 

Anyway, we'll never know! I don't think we'll be back in Europe for a bit, i think deep down we all know that so i must say i did enjoy it while it lasted.