Guest orang Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Just watched his NUFCtv interview Hit the nail on the head about everything -pretty much said Simpson is gash. Santon not being helped because he is out only offensive fullback. Gives him chance to concentrate in defending more - Baines and Fellaini the difference - not right for a club as big as this to have that bench last night even though Bigi and Sammy did well - we need 3 players - spirit and effort were there, just lack experience and more 'good' players Just watched his NUFCtv interview Hit the nail on the head about everything -pretty much said Simpson is gash. Santon not being helped because he is out only offensive fullback. Gives him chance to concentrate in defending more - Baines and Fellaini the difference - not right for a club as big as this to have that bench last night even though Bigi and Sammy did well - we need 3 players - spirit and effort were there, just lack experience and more 'good' players I don't think our players were significantly worse than Everton's, far from it, actually. It's how they are used that's the problem. Everton were at full strength last night, they had no-one out Just watched his NUFCtv interview Hit the nail on the head about everything -pretty much said Simpson is gash. Santon not being helped because he is out only offensive fullback. Gives him chance to concentrate in defending more - Baines and Fellaini the difference - not right for a club as big as this to have that bench last night even though Bigi and Sammy did well - we need 3 players - spirit and effort were there, just lack experience and more 'good' players I don't think our players were significantly worse than Everton's, far from it, actually. It's how they are used that's the problem. Everton were at full strength last night, they had no-one out That makes a massive difference Everton were at full strength last night, they had no-one out That makes a massive difference Coleman/Hibbert would have replaced Heitinga and allowed Jagielka to play in his normal position. Mirallas would have played instead of Naismith who is a reserve. Gibson would have played instead of Neville who is also a reserve these days. In fact, Gibson is as important to EFC as Baines and Fellaini is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh74 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Is there any french managers out there,saying most of our team is french. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Hardly slept at all last night, fuming over this useless fraud of a man. Even had a go at my boss this morning. Fuck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He has to go in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Never once got the impression Pardew fears for his job. Not once. This. Says a lot tbh - not least the rather blasé attitude towards our current predicament. That said, I reckon he's reluctant to admit that we're in the shit - not least because it'll draw attention to the fact he's doing a piss poor job atm. That does bring with it it's own difficulties, however. Redknapp has admitted QPR are in a dog fight - its created a siege mentality among the players and giving them a sense of belief. We're not nearly as prepared if things don't turn our way over the next couple of games. This is why a reckon he should be binned now - before we sink further into the mire. Statistics, questionable tactics, results and style of play all suggest we're ever less likely to pick up. I'm not even confident that a few new faces through the door will result in us staving off a relegation scrap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He has admitted that we're in a relegation fight, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big bastard doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big bastard doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He has admitted that we're in a relegation fight, man. When? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He has admitted that we're in a relegation fight, man. When? http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2012/12/31/newcastle-united-s-aim-now-is-simply-safety-61634-32519062/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big b****** doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Just because Shola has similar physical attributes to Ba doesn't mean could replace his quality forward play. I really can't see how making this straight swap benefited us in any way last night. It was a defeatist move by the manager. As soon as Chelsea's bid was made, Pardew should have had an arm around Cisse to tell him "right, it's your time son - get out there and do what you do best". Probably ridiculous to say this in hindsight, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won last night if Cisse started in the middle. The amount of fouls and aimless headers by Shola was staggering and hindered us big style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He has admitted that we're in a relegation fight, man. When? Last night was the latest time: "We need some new bodies in, we need some bodies out of the treatment room and we need to get our best side back on the pitch because we won't hide from the fact that we are right in it now and we have got to get out of it." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Getting more angry I think about this fraud....... so our game our plan for last night was centered on a player who became unavailable due to his pending exit which was on the cards so he should have at least been thinking about maybe having a B plan in his back pocket but oh no, that messed everything up. Couldn't look at logically and make the obvious choice and put Cisse through the middle and re-jig the rest to supply him with the bullets. Fuck, he even made mention to it the pre-match interview that he'd be played centrally from now on, why the fuck couldn't he start playing him centrally at 8pm last night!!! Did he think the poor lad would 'need time to adjust'. I'm beginning to think Strolla got 90 mins as a thank you for ignoring calls from the Nigerian FA. Feck all else could explain it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big b****** doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Just because Shola has similar physical attributes to Ba doesn't mean could replace his quality forward play. I really can't see how making this straight swap benefited us in any way last night. It was a defeatist move by the manager. As soon as Chelsea's bid was made, Pardew should have had an arm around Cisse to tell him "right, it's your time son - get out there and do what you do best". Probably ridiculous to say this in hindsight, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won last night if Cisse started in the middle. The amount of fouls and aimless headers by Shola was staggering and hindered us big style. I've already said how I think the straight swap benefited us. I was annoyed when I saw the team, but calmed down when I realised why it had been done. Cisse scored and we had chances to win the game. I'm not reaching for the razor blades because a player I don't like got a game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big b****** doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Just because Shola has similar physical attributes to Ba doesn't mean could replace his quality forward play. I really can't see how making this straight swap benefited us in any way last night. It was a defeatist move by the manager. As soon as Chelsea's bid was made, Pardew should have had an arm around Cisse to tell him "right, it's your time son - get out there and do what you do best". Probably ridiculous to say this in hindsight, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won last night if Cisse started in the middle. The amount of fouls and aimless headers by Shola was staggering and hindered us big style. I've already said how I think the straight swap benefited us. I was annoyed when I saw the team, but calmed down when I realised why it had been done. Cisse scored and we had chances to win the game. I'm not reaching for the razor blades because a player I don't like got a game. Dafuq man, I love me some Shola! On as a 70th minute sub to hold on to a lead or to try and win a game. He's not a 90 minute player by any stretch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big b****** doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Just because Shola has similar physical attributes to Ba doesn't mean could replace his quality forward play. I really can't see how making this straight swap benefited us in any way last night. It was a defeatist move by the manager. As soon as Chelsea's bid was made, Pardew should have had an arm around Cisse to tell him "right, it's your time son - get out there and do what you do best". Probably ridiculous to say this in hindsight, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won last night if Cisse started in the middle. The amount of fouls and aimless headers by Shola was staggering and hindered us big style. I've already said how I think the straight swap benefited us. I was annoyed when I saw the team, but calmed down when I realised why it had been done. Cisse scored and we had chances to win the game. I'm not reaching for the razor blades because a player I don't like got a game. Dafuq man, I love me some Shola! On as a 70th minute sub to hold on to a lead or to try and win a game. He's not a 90 minute player by any stretch. No, he's not. He should have been taken off as soon as we went behind, I'm not going to argue that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Pardew is an idiot. Against the likes of QPR at home he deploys a weird 4-5-1/4-4-2 system with 3 anchor type players in the middle yet away to Arsenal and Man Utd he goes all out attack and when we get hammered, reverts back to type at home to Everton. The man doesn't have a clue and has cost us this season basically and unless we replace Ba and his goals and wise up sharp we could even go down. I was livid with him against Arsenal. To replace our best player in Bigi for Shola was shambolic and showed a complete and utter lack of tactical ability and understanding of the situation. Even if Bigi was tired he should of brought on Tavenier for him, place him at RB and then push Perch into the centre and if you want Shola on, bring him on for Cisse or even Ba who despite his two goals, by the Shola substitution stage, he was completely shagged. That one substitution killed us and our shape. Honestly, at least 20 posters on here have a better understanding of tactics then this clown. He has wrecked our entire season. Yes injuries, Europe and lack of spending haven't helped our course but the main reason we have lost 9 in the last 11 is because of the idiot in the dugout and his f***ing coaches too. He has to go in the summer because if he doesn't, more will follow Ba out the door. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 For a manager who regularly goes through 3 or 4 formation changes per game because he's set us up incorrectly to say that he couldn't find a way at any point in the 90 minutes to have Cisse up front is completely laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 For a manager who regularly goes through 3 or 4 formation changes per game because he's set us up incorrectly to say that he couldn't find a way at any point in the 90 minutes to have Cisse up front is completely laughable. Its laughable isn't it. Well, actually its not because we are fucking shambolic as a result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 For a manager who regularly goes through 3 or 4 formation changes per game because he's set us up incorrectly to say that he couldn't find a way at any point in the 90 minutes to have Cisse up front is completely laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Pardew: 'Money's tight here. We're trying to get the best deal for club. But we're under no illusions we're battling for PL status.' #nufc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The stick that he is getting for straight swapping Shola for Ba is way over the top. He had prepared the formation all week to include Ba in the center and Cisse on the right, an hour before kick-off he can be forgiven for not wanting to switch too many player roles for this week. If he cant switch things in a couple of hours what chance has he got during a game, explains his s*** subs etc He could have changed it, but what about the players? Would they be comfortable with an entirely different set of instructions, for a different position, a couple of hours before a game? He made the right, if unpopular, call last night. That's laughable, how long do you think it would have taken to tell and coach Cisse to play in his usual position? Yeah, and the others? What others? Sammy, Obertan or Marveaux would have played in Cisse's place. And? Obertan had been playing on the left, in this formation. Marveaux had been playing as part of the midfield three. Sammy is Sammy. If we'd taken Marveaux out of the midfield three, someone would have had to replace him. That would have been Perch. But, wait, Perch was playing right back. So, who do we play there? Santon, and bring Fergie in? Who knows. My point is that Shola for Ba was a straight swap, and the work in training could be retained. If we'd went for Cisse up top, then we'd have had to make at least three other changes. I'd agree that Shola was a straight swap for Ba had he been a player of similar quality. Being a big b****** doesn't justify the straight swap however. Shola's movement (lack of) up front dictated our forward play. The only time he got into a good position he fluffed his shot wide. And? Just because Shola has similar physical attributes to Ba doesn't mean could replace his quality forward play. I really can't see how making this straight swap benefited us in any way last night. It was a defeatist move by the manager. As soon as Chelsea's bid was made, Pardew should have had an arm around Cisse to tell him "right, it's your time son - get out there and do what you do best". Probably ridiculous to say this in hindsight, but I'm pretty confident we'd have won last night if Cisse started in the middle. The amount of fouls and aimless headers by Shola was staggering and hindered us big style. I've already said how I think the straight swap benefited us. You can honestly say looking back at that game that we benefited from playing Shola upfront by himself? The only times we looked like getting on the end of anything was when Cisse threw caution to the wind and dropped into the centre when we were attacking from the left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 @milesstarforth: Pardew: 'Money's tight here. We're trying to get the best deal for club. But we're under no illusions we're battling for PL status.' #nufc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Hope these quotes mean that things have come to a head between Pardew and his superiors. Money is there to be spent, and he'll keep saying it's tight so as to get good deals. Staring down the barrel if we don't bring in 3 this window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts