Alan Pardew

[Dave]

Football didn't used to be this boringly complicated 

 

I blame the manager that beat us at the weekend.

[Stu]

Why? We've got naturally talented attacking players, not so much with the defensive side.

 

It's in Pards interests to make us hard to beat before making us an attacking threat.

 

He's already made us a difficult side to beat though IMO (something that he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for), do you not think he should be pushing on and trying to build on that?

 

The next logical step seems to be to focus on our attacking play, which on the evidence if this season he either isn't doing at all or else he has no idea how to go about it.

 

True, but there's the added complication of squad rotation (cup games) and having the prep time for matches reduced. He's never had to deal with this before as a manager (European competition) IIRC, so he's got to cut his teeth too.

[Lotus]

Why? We've got naturally talented attacking players, not so much with the defensive side.

 

It's in Pards interests to make us hard to beat before making us an attacking threat.

 

He's already made us a difficult side to beat though IMO (something that he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for), do you not think he should be pushing on and trying to build on that?

 

The next logical step seems to be to focus on our attacking play, which on the evidence if this season he either isn't doing at all or else he has no idea how to go about it.

 

True, but there's the added complication of squad rotation (cup games) and having the prep time for matches reduced. He's never had to deal with this before as a manager (European competition) IIRC, so he's got to cut his teeth too.

 

He's very good about worrying about other teams but he doesn't seem to be very good about making other teams worry about us.

 

In any sport, when you haven't got much time to analyse and concentrate on your opponents strong points you do the next best thing, you concentrate on your own (of which we SHOULD have a shit load) and then enjoy watching THEIR arse fall out after 15 minutes.

 

We have no attacking momentum, no cut and thrust.

[Yorkie]

Hate to use a cliche, but attack is a form of defense. What's the point in focusing on defensive solidity and cohesion when our play is so garbage going forward, that it actually renders us defensively vulnerable? We're susceptible to counter-attacks at the moment, for example; we're so without-plan that we surrender possession easily and mess up our shape off the ball.

 

Those quotes aren't remotely surprising. It's clear as day that there is no focus on the attack whatsoever. I keep using this word - but it's plain opportunist. And if we're going to be so opportunist/reliant on flair players - it becomes totally negated by the likes of Ba and HBA receiving the ball 60 yards from goal.

 

Our attacking tactics this season have been a joke and it's damaging the whole team.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

maybe he just wants to get points on the board to preserve his job and he feels grinding out points is the best way of doing that.

 

That's what I think. There's probably some clauses in his contract about losing a certain percentage of games so he plays it safe.

 

Every manager must think about keeping their job though.

[TRon]

KK rarely mentioned the other team. [/canofworms].

 

Without delving into this can of worms too deeply, while it's true that Keegan's teams did lose games because he didn't set his teams up defensively and sometimes paid for it - we also used to beat the vast majority of mediocre teams through our superior firepower. Losing one game and winning two is better than drawing three.

[Mick]

 

 

He didnt have many chances did he. Hard to deal with a mishit shot going right to someones feet at that speed, especially with him jumping back onside at the last second. Was a bit of luck + clever play from him. We should've cleared it so the lad couldnt get the original shot in.

 

So, basically we're spending time on preparation which really is a waste of time and in doing so we're not very effective at the other end.  In that case, why are we doing it if all it takes is a lucky mishit shot to beat us?

 

You make your own luck in life and at the minute we're getting what we deserve as a team.

[madras]

 

 

He didnt have many chances did he. Hard to deal with a mishit shot going right to someones feet at that speed, especially with him jumping back onside at the last second. Was a bit of luck + clever play from him. We should've cleared it so the lad couldnt get the original shot in.

 

So, basically we're spending time on preparation which really is a waste of time and in doing so we're not very effective at the other end.  In that case, why are we doing it if all it takes is a lucky mishit shot to beat us?

 

You make your own luck in life and at the minute we're getting what we deserve as a team.

come off it mick, as the ball reaches the edge of the box, everybody knew a shot was coming in, you'd rather one of our defenders marked nolan instead of trying to get in between ball and goal ?

[Guest BooBoo]

Football didn't used to be this boringly complicated 

 

Very true.

 

I find the scrutinised and highly detailed stuff like Zonal Marking in turn fascinating and rather annoying in that the game has become some technically analysed to the nth degree. Sometimes I feel I'll scream if I see another chalkboard with 500 lines on it.

[Guest BooBoo]

KK rarely mentioned the other team. [/canofworms].

 

Without delving into this can of worms too deeply, while it's true that Keegan's teams did lose games because he didn't set his teams up defensively and sometimes paid for it - we also used to beat the vast majority of mediocre teams through our superior firepower. Losing one game and winning two is better than drawing three.

 

Yup. KK was one of the most simplistic managers around. 442 with players all over the pitch capable of scoring goals. Motivate and stand well back. If you've got quick witted and footed players then 442 works a treat.

 

Anytime he tried to be clever in his first spell such as the wretched attempts at the then fashionable 3-5-2 we usually lost.

[Parky]

KK rarely mentioned the other team. [/canofworms].

 

Without delving into this can of worms too deeply, while it's true that Keegan's teams did lose games because he didn't set his teams up defensively and sometimes paid for it - we also used to beat the vast majority of mediocre teams through our superior firepower. Losing one game and winning two is better than drawing three.

 

Yup. KK was one of the most simplistic managers around. 442 with players all over the pitch capable of scoring goals. Motivate and stand well back. If you've got quick witted and footed players then 442 works a treat.

 

Anytime he tried to be clever in his first spell such as the wretched attempts at the then fashionable 3-5-2 we usually lost.

 

Exactly.

[Hughesy]

Football didn't used to be this boringly complicated 

 

Very true.

 

I find the scrutinised and highly detailed stuff like Zonal Marking in turn fascinating and rather annoying in that the game has become some technically analysed to the nth degree. Sometimes I feel I'll scream if I see another chalkboard with 500 lines on it.

 

Some of those chalkboard analyses can be brilliantly informative, but there have quite a few I've seen where the conclusion is somewhat stretched from the actual evidence.  Usually to suit some sort of agenda.

[Guest BooBoo]

Ah man it's like all that pretentious waffle on twitter by one of the lads that does ZM. Eg,

 

"Watching Cluj v Galatasary. Dull game but tactically fascinating"

 

Sharrap man, a shit match is a shit match.

[Darth Crooks]

Football is a fairly simple game like. The technicalities come from finding the right combinations of your own squad and playing to strengths. Not shoehorning players into an overcomplicated deconstruction of the opposing team. All these dossiers etc on the other team is time better spent doing something else imo.

[BlueStar]

Ah man it's like all that pretentious waffle on twitter by one of the lads that does ZM. Eg,

 

"Watching Cluj v Galatasary. Dull game but tactically fascinating"

 

Sharrap man, a shit match is a shit match.

 

 

Maybe it's because I'm more into football because of the drinking and swearing than I am the intricacies, but sometimes I read stuff like Zonal Marking when they talk about why managers made certain choices and it fills me with a similar skepicism as when English teachers used to explain the hidden allusions behind every tiny detail in an author's work.  "He called her that because it's a similar name to an egyptian God with a dog's head, symbolising her loyalty." rather than just liking the name.  "He brought on his holding midfielder to adjust the pace of the game to further suit his modified peruvian Christmas tree formation and allow his goalkeeper to put additional pressure on the perpendicular channels." rather than because the guy he replaced looked a bit fucking knackered.

[Guest BooBoo]

[Disco]

I quite like some of the tactical stuff and it does explain some things but when everything is analysed to the Nth degree and people start using stats instead of their eyes it can be painfully shit.

[Guest BooBoo]

I quite like some of the tactical stuff and it does explain some things but when everything is analysed to the Nth degree and people start using stats instead of their eyes it can be painfully shit.

 

Same.

[Tooj]

I quite like some of the tactical stuff and it does explain some things but when everything is analysed to the Nth degree and people start using stats instead of their eyes it can be painfully shit.

 

[Parky]

Ah man it's like all that pretentious waffle on twitter by one of the lads that does ZM. Eg,

 

"Watching Cluj v Galatasary. Dull game but tactically fascinating"

 

Sharrap man, a shit match is a shit match.

 

 

Maybe it's because I'm more into football because of the drinking and swearing than I am the intricacies, but sometimes I read stuff like Zonal Marking when they talk about why managers made certain choices and it fills me with a similar skepicism as when English teachers used to explain the hidden allusions behind every tiny detail in an author's work.  "He called her that because it's a similar name to an egyptian God with a dog's head, symbolising her loyalty." rather than just liking the name.  "He brought on his holding midfielder to adjust the pace of the game to further suit his modified peruvian Christmas tree formation and allow his goalkeeper to put additional pressure on the perpendicular channels." rather than because the guy he replaced looked a bit fucking knackered.

 

 

Class.

[Jack Flash]

It always greatly amuses me when a "tactically astute" manager gets undone by a very simple, Sunday league goal. Barcelona passed the ball 10,000 times against Celtic and then a header from a corner and a long ball from the keeper did them in. Back to your chalkboards. Zlatan's 4th tonight sums it up. What can a machine tell us about that?

 

Embrace the chaos. It makes football fun.

[Guest firetotheworks]

What makes it fun is that it doesn't happen every week. That's also why there's nothing you can do about it. Insane goal.

[loki679]

Ah man it's like all that pretentious waffle on twitter by one of the lads that does ZM. Eg,

 

"Watching Cluj v Galatasary. Dull game but tactically fascinating"

 

Sharrap man, a s*** match is a s*** match.

 

 

Maybe it's because I'm more into football because of the drinking and swearing than I am the intricacies, but sometimes I read stuff like Zonal Marking when they talk about why managers made certain choices and it fills me with a similar skepicism as when English teachers used to explain the hidden allusions behind every tiny detail in an author's work.  "He called her that because it's a similar name to an egyptian God with a dog's head, symbolising her loyalty." rather than just liking the name.  "He brought on his holding midfielder to adjust the pace of the game to further suit his modified peruvian Christmas tree formation and allow his goalkeeper to put additional pressure on the perpendicular channels." rather than because the guy he replaced looked a bit f***ing knackered.

 

Someone kind of got exposed for this kind of bollocks on the FM forums a few days ago.  Guy fancies himself as a tactical genius and someone had posted asking for help.  A tactic screenshot had been posted up and he wrote a long, detailed tactical analysis explaining exactly what the defensive deficiencies were and why the guy was shipping goals, talking about high defensive lines and how he had the mentalities etc set wrong and the chaos it was causing in his defence.

 

Problem was it was another poster who'd posted the screenshot, not the OP and this guy had just won the league conceding something like fourteen goals.  What he posted sounded good but it was total bollocks.

[Tiresias]

Football is great because you can go as deep as you like tactically and it's still totally unpredictable, I see what people mean with skepticism of stuff like Michael Cox does but I think generally it's great, it just always comes with a big asterix, but if it was purely about these tactics would be much duller.

[buzza]

I feel a bit for Pardew as he's getting loads of stick on here (myself included at times). I don't think he would be asking the players to constantly wallop the ball up to the forwards. Whether it's a 442 or a 433, it's the fact that as soon as a bit of pressure is put on our defence when we are in possesion we buckle and resort to the long ball. This is most probably due to the fact our midfielders weren’t giving them passing options becuase the movement is virtually non-existant and too rigid.

The defence can really only bring the ball out fluidly on the left hand side when Colo and Santon are in the the back line, any attempts on the other side are flawed due to considerable lack of technique. I reckon if we signed a right back, a la Debuchy, we would improve drastically...