Alan Pardew

[JH]

For me, the gameplan would have been perfect if we'd scored early/there was only a 2-1 deficit from the first leg. I just think 2 goals without conceding in less than half an hour was always too big of a challenge.

[Stu]

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

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Strange that, because you were supporting him starting  before and after his comeback game in Russia after a couple of months out.

[Lotus]

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

 

 

[Dinho lad]

Easy to forget we basically had half a Championship standard defence out tonight, and two young lads who've been here 3 months across the back four, one of which is lucky to be playing at the moment.

 

Pardew has his faults, but I don't think he got a lot wrong in this tie home and away.

 

Not giving them something to think about for the first 45 minutes is something that I would consider as a huge f***-up..... more so when you you're 3-1 down from the first leg.

 

Cowardly. Simple as.

 

Trying to protect the average defence he had out, keep us in the tie, then go for it when he had two of his big players coming off the bench who could damage them very nearly worked. 89th minute, if HBA cuts in and smashes that shot into the top corner then Pardew's played the perfect game imo.

 

You're thinking like Pardew now, that's your problem. He's gotten into you.

 

Benfica were very clever first 10-15 minutes. They kept the ball well, took the sting out of us and the crowd. They're a better side than us and any hopes of us getting at them from the start were denied. If we'd just went all guns blazing, they'd have picked us off and it would have been dead and buried by about 20-30 minutes.

 

As it was, the way we set out, and the changes we made second-half and way we played, took us to within a goal of winning it really.

 

What sting? We never had it in the first place, for goodness sake. It was our usual cautious, flat start.

 

Once again, no one here (Or I certainly wasn't) advocating going out "all guns blazing".

 

I don't buy all this crap about "had it not being for HBA firing over the bar" etc, that was probably our only "missed opportunity" since we scored the goal.

 

You make it sound as if we've battered them all 2nd half but, in fact, it was for no more than a 15-20 minutes spell that we put them under any real pressure. Is that good enough? Maybe if you're at Reading, West Ham, Charlton and Southampton, I would say!

[TRon]

I don't have any problem with Hatem or Marveaux being on the bench, but starting Bigi was the customary Pardew over-defensiveness which to my mind was unnecessary. We could easily have played Shola up front and put Sissoko wide right which would hardly have been ultra attacking, but would have given us better balance and another goal threat.

[David Icke - Son of God]

FYI I've done some research on that there interweb and this is the only reputable Newcastle website I can find where the majority aren't giving Pardew credit for his tactics.

 

Basically you're all wrong'uns.

[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.

 

Strange that, because you were supporting him starting  before and after his comeback game in Russia after a couple of months out.

 

I'm assuming you've trawled through my posts, so you'd know better than me. I can't remember what my opinion was at the time.

 

However, he looked a lot 'fitter' in the run up to that Anzhi match, which he started and got through 60 mins. Bit different to coming off the bench with 30 mins to go, and the manager saying that's all we can get out of him.

[Dr Venkman]

FYI I've done some research on that there interweb and this is the only reputable Newcastle website I can find where the majority aren't giving Pardew credit for his tactics.

 

Basically you're all wrong'uns.

 

That's fair enough. It's the fact that the tactics weren't much different than usual that irritates me. We simply need to be a more balanced team than Pardew has made us.

[Benwell Lad]

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.

 

Our "A" Team would have won the tie, and even with what we had on the pitch I'm not sure they were better than us over two legs. Slicker on the ball at times perhaps but in both games we had them rattled for periods.

FWIW with a "reserve" back four and the tie poised the way it was I thought we did it the right way last night amd at 1-0 our game plan looked right on course. It wasn't to be.

 

[ScottishMagpie]

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. 

 

If this bit is true then I'm just thinking how much they would have been shitting themselves at the prospect of being got at for a period longer than 30 mins. 

 

It's so infuriating to watch us play like we did in that 'purple' period of the match compared with the first half.  It's like two different teams.  To take 40 mins to have our first shot on goal is inexcusable in my eyes.  If we had scored 1 or god forbid (letting my mind run wild now) 2 goals in the first half the crowd would have been a fucking bear pit and they'd be passing the andrex round in the second half.  Point is the crowd played a big part last night but only when we decided to try and attack them, could have got the crowd factor involved a lot sooner.

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Strange that, because you were supporting him starting  before and after his comeback game in Russia after a couple of months out.

 

I'm assuming you've trawled through my posts, so you'd know better than me. I can't remember what my opinion was at the time.

 

However, he looked a lot 'fitter' in the run up to that Anzhi match, which he started and got through 60 mins. Bit different to coming off the bench with 30 mins to go, and the manager saying that's all we can get out of him.

 

No need for trawling through, you towed the Pardy line as you always do. Sad really.

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Easy to forget we basically had half a Championship standard defence out tonight, and two young lads who've been here 3 months across the back four, one of which is lucky to be playing at the moment.

 

Pardew has his faults, but I don't think he got a lot wrong in this tie home and away.

 

Not giving them something to think about for the first 45 minutes is something that I would consider as a huge f***-up..... more so when you you're 3-1 down from the first leg.

 

Cowardly. Simple as.

 

Trying to protect the average defence he had out, keep us in the tie, then go for it when he had two of his big players coming off the bench who could damage them very nearly worked. 89th minute, if HBA cuts in and smashes that shot into the top corner then Pardew's played the perfect game imo.

 

You're thinking like Pardew now, that's your problem. He's gotten into you.

 

Benfica were very clever first 10-15 minutes. They kept the ball well, took the sting out of us and the crowd. They're a better side than us and any hopes of us getting at them from the start were denied. If we'd just went all guns blazing, they'd have picked us off and it would have been dead and buried by about 20-30 minutes.

 

As it was, the way we set out, and the changes we made second-half and way we played, took us to within a goal of winning it really.

 

What sting? We never had it in the first place, for goodness sake. It was our usual cautious, flat start.

 

 

 

That's my point. The opening 10 minutes they barely gave the ball away. Sometimes when you play teams with good technical ability and can keep the ball that happens, no shame in that.

[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.

 

Strange that, because you were supporting him starting  before and after his comeback game in Russia after a couple of months out.

 

I'm assuming you've trawled through my posts, so you'd know better than me. I can't remember what my opinion was at the time.

 

However, he looked a lot 'fitter' in the run up to that Anzhi match, which he started and got through 60 mins. Bit different to coming off the bench with 30 mins to go, and the manager saying that's all we can get out of him.

 

No need for trawling through, you towed the Pardy line as you always do. Sad really.

 

 

That's absolutely pathetic.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I really detest this "you always post X, Y or Z" bullshit. It's the worst type of debate. You may as well just ignore the post completely.

[Flip]

Reading the rest of these pages this morning I have to say that I do understand with those who thought Pardew did right, but I don't like or agree with his approach to the game last night and in general. I understand he's thinking o of containing them and then hoping to get a goal for then to push for a 2-0 goal. Problem for me is that it basically leaves it down to luck. I for the world don't understand why Ameobi got 45mins while Marv got not even half of that? (he doesn't seem to have carried a knock or been injured). Or why we had to contain them for 50-60 minutes instead of trying to maybe push for a goal in the end of the first half? I think he played his cards wrong, but I understand why many think he might have gotten it right since we got very close. But I think Dave has for once been absolutely spot on in this debate, not having a shot on goal for 40minutes and trying to contain a left-back who showed he isn't a very good footballer was the two biggest faults.

 

On the other hand I don't understand those that say Benfica should've been a mid-table team in our league yet are far superior than us and those who said it would've almost been impossible to beat them 2-0 because only Barcelona beat them by more than two goals. Some take all kinds of measure to defend Pardew and I understand that, I like the guy too, I just don't like him as a football manager.

[Benwell Lad]

I really detest this "you always post X, Y or Z" bullshit. It's the worst type of debate. You may as well just ignore the post completely.

 

Probably the worst topic/thread on here. Just the same old regurgitated and prejudiced opinions week after week.

[Stu]

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. 

 

If this bit is true then I'm just thinking how much they would have been shitting themselves at the prospect of being got at for a period longer than 30 mins. 

 

It's so infuriating to watch us play like we did in that 'purple' period of the match compared with the first half.  It's like two different teams.  To take 40 mins to have our first shot on goal is inexcusable in my eyes.  If we had scored 1 or god forbid (letting my mind run wild now) 2 goals in the first half the crowd would have been a fucking bear pit and they'd be passing the andrex round in the second half.  Point is the crowd played a big part last night but only when we decided to try and attack them, could have got the crowd factor involved a lot sooner.

 

 

They expected us to go for them in the first half, that's partly why the first half was so turgid as they sat back expecting pressure. If we'd gone a goal or two up, they would have brought Cardozo on a lot sooner and gone back to their 'normal' style of play. Whether this would have been enough to get an away goal (or two, or three) is debatable but not beyond the realms of probabilities.

[merlin]

What is ridiculous and childish about the Pardew debate is the fact that some of those who are firmly in his camp start accusing those of us who are not as being 'haters'.

 

This is pathetic nonsense - how can anyone hate a person unless they know them personally and have had bad experiences with them ? I couldn't give a toss about Pardew as a person and don't have any personal feelings towards him one way or the other but I DO care about his performances as manager of NUFC.

In that respect, I think he is lacking in the qualities necessary to bring any sort of success - and that especially includes entertaining football - to the club.

 

I believe him to be a lower PL/upper Championship manager who has demonstrated his limitations not just at this club, but at the others where he was employed - that is the ONLY basis on which I judge him and I suspect that most of us who are not fans feel the same way.

 

If the board are happy to see us middle/lower part of the table most years and scraping results through negative football, then he'll stay - whether many fans will put up with that over an extended period is another question...

We still need 4 points to be reasonably safe from relegation - if we achieve that it will be interesting to see what happens in the summer both on the transfer front and the manager's position...if we were by any chance to go down, he's out..end of.

 

My ONLY fear about his being sacked is the board's intentions afterwards but I believe that they have done enough in January to allay at least some of the questions a prospective manager would have. They have also given him enough rope to hang himself with the new players......

 

We shall see, but this thread needs to revert to an adult debate about a serious question.

 

Tricky season to judge him on, since we have had our best XI in 1 or 2 games (if at all?) We began the season with a seriously under-strength squad which wasn't his fault and by the time he got the players in the season was gone. The new players also didn't have a pre-season yet some expect them to be playing their best football right away. There are so many examples of top players who took a while to get going after a January transfer, yet people blame this all on Pardew "making them worse" which seems equally childish to me. Much of the criticism for our problems should be directed at the board, who completely f*cked up last summer. I think any manager would have struggled to some extent with that squad, with that many fixtures, and that many injuries.

 

Last season was incredible, with a good slice of luck, and that perhaps landed more praise at his door than was due. But this season has gone the other way; much of it has not been his fault, and I'm not sure all of the criticism is deserved.

 

One excellent season and one terrible one. The jury is still out in my mind. Honestly though, changing manager is a major gamble. Could we do better? Yes. Could we do worse? Definitely. There are loads of iffy managers out there like Souness, Allardyce etc who would be lining up for the post. How many in that line would really be able to take us forwards? Keeping in mind they will be working with the same board who in my view are to blame for most of the current mess.

 

Long story short I think he's worth another season based on his track record, but I am not blind to his shortcomings (negative tactics etc). I just don't think sacking him is worth the gamble, having seen some of the managers we've had in the last 10 years.

 

I agree with much of what you say - there is no question that the board failed miserably in not strengthening the side for a tougher campaign last summer. I also agree that Pardew - and the side - had more than their share of luck last season but that doesn't hide the shortcomings in our play that were evident even then. We scraped results in some games where we didn't deserve to and in many cases, it was like watching paint dry as far as entertainment was concerned. Most of us were prepared to cut him spme slack on the grounds that the end justified the means, but this year, there have been examples - Swansea and Southampton among them - of teams who have patently worse squads than ours and yet are performing well and more easily on the eye. This, to me, has highlighted Pardew's limitations as a coach and manager although I accept that we have had a lot of injuries - one has to ask whether these injuries are partly as a result of lack of proper fitness in the players as other teams do not seem to be as badly affected....Di Canio has already said that he considers the Sunderland squad are below-par fitness-wise and this can make a differnence in players being injured.

 

As you say, one good season, one bad, but in the first we had a lot of luck, in the second too many injuries and too few players. Overall though, I look at Pardew's history and it doesn't give me any confidence that he can take the club where it should be, or get us playing attractive football that has more successes than failures. He is NOT a young manager any more, being over 50, so it is hard to see a pattern of success emerging in future years but he suits the board - or HAS done up to now. I also agree that there are bad managers out there, but that is the responsibility of the board to sort out - if they have any sort of acumen they should be able to find out which manager who would take the job has both the past record and the qualities to take the club forward.

When Liverpool took on Shankly, they were a second division side in decline - they looked at his record at his previous clubs - and were impressed by his personality and rapport with his previous clubs' fans. They hit the jackpot, but no manager at Newcastle would be allowed the leeway Shankly had at Liverpool, OR the support he got from Peter Robinson, who was way ahead of his time as a CEO/Secretary.

 

Pardew may well survive as manager if we stay up but eventually, this thread will be a hot topic within a few months of next season starting...and then there will be far less choice for the board to pick from if they DO decide to bullet him.

[Skeletor]

This thread is just going in circles now. Some people liked the approach, some didn't. No-ones going to budge and its becoming cliquey. No-one's saying any thing new. Time to give it a rest.

[Flip]

This thread is just going in circles now. Some people liked the approach, some didn't. No-ones going to budge and its becoming cliquey. No-one's saying any thing new. Time to give it a rest.

 

 

Anyways, what do you guys think his approach will be against Sunderland? The old same or do you think he might try and get at them from the beginning?

[SEMTEX]

Still lost as to how having a reserve team back line means that we should play more defensively? Surely it'd be advisable to take the pressure off them by being more bothered about keeping possession?

 

I guess pardy at least recognises his limitations. He's not coached a cohesive passing team, so it's either all attack or all defend. And I know which one were going to see more of in the future.

[Stu]

On the other hand I don't understand those that say Benfica should've been a mid-table team in our league yet are far superior than us 

 

Who has been saying this? They're a very good team with some exceptional players.

 

Ask SAF.

[Flip]

Still lost as to how having a reserve team back line means that we should play more defensively? Surely it'd be advisable to take the pressure off them by being more bothered about keeping possession?

 

I guess pardy at least recognises his limitations. He's not coached a cohesive passing team, so it's either all attack or all defend. And I know which one were going to see more of in the future.

 

Semtex, like Skeletor said there's no point in talking about it anymore, some just don't agree with our mindset. My fear is we'll see exactly the same tactics adopted in the weekend...

[Flip]

On the other hand I don't understand those that say Benfica should've been a mid-table team in our league yet are far superior than us 

 

Who has been saying this? They're a very good team with some exceptional players.

 

Ask SAF.

 

I find them an absolute class side offensively but quite weak defensively, but you look in the pre-game thread and there are tons saying they are nothing more than a midtable PL side.