Alan Pardew

[Guest icemanblue]

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/

[themanupstairs]

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.

[Rich]

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."

[ScottishMagpie]

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!

[Guest icemanblue]

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.

[themanupstairs]

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.

[Guest icemanblue]

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.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

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.

[Wullie]

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.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

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.

[themanupstairs]

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.

 

[Fenham Mag]

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

[Hanshithispantz]

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.

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

@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

[themanupstairs]

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.

[toon25]

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/

 

Cheers. Missed this.

[Guest icemanblue]

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.

 

I understand why we were set up this way. No, it probably wasn't the best system with the players available. I'm sure even Alan would admit to that. However, we'd obviously geared our whole gameplan around the formation and personnel in training. Shola for Ba was the change that would cause the least disruption to the rest of the team, and I can understand that.

 

Last time I'm typing any of that.

[Mr Logic]

Not only is the man a charlatan he doubles as a clown.

[johnnypd]

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.

 

The excuses trotted out by some that we had to put Shola in there due to the way we'd prepared for the game in advance is fucking idiotic.

 

There were 3 spare days between the Arsenal and Everton games, and i imagine one was just resting after a hectic schedule. So that's two full days of training. And Ba met with fucking Chelsea the day after the Arsenal match for christ's sake so if Pardew's honestly preparing to use him during this game the man is off his rocker.

 

What's more, if he's looking to play 4-3-3 - guess what - we already have a perfect tailor made replacement ready who can play down the middle in that formation and score shedloads - his name is Papiss Cisse. He's played that role many, many times - the idea that he can't due to lacking preparation is nuts. Remember when he signed? Newly returned from ACON, and Pardew put Best in the starting lineup (lol), he got injured, Cisse came on with no preparation, looked the dog's bollocks and scored.

 

On top of that, while Shola has his uses as an impact sub, he's good for 25 minutes tops in a game - starting him and keeping him on til the end is madness.

 

The only slight glimmer of sense i can see to it is that he was brought in to cope with Everton's aerial prowess - in which case you've just picked your main striker as, let's face it, a goddamn defender, while keeping your best striker - one who has wished to play centrally all season - stuck out in purgatory on the wing. And if we're led to believe this horseshit theory about Ba intending to play that role - he was also planning to use him as a battering ram, another mis-use of his talents to go along with how he's wasted others or turned them into crap this season.

 

It's another one of those Souness-esque moments for me and there's been too many recently.

[Dokko]

Can't believe people are defending him for building his team around a player in talks with another club. 

 

That's some deeply entrenched fucked up shit right there. 

[Hanshithispantz]

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.

 

I understand why we were set up this way. No, it probably wasn't the best system with the players available. I'm sure even Alan would admit to that. However, we'd obviously geared our whole gameplan around the formation and personnel in training. Shola for Ba was the change that would cause the least disruption to the rest of the team, and I can understand that.

 

Last time I'm typing any of that.

But we knew there was a big chance of Ba fucking off on Sunday, so even if it was absolutely vital that we caused as little disruption the set-up we had been working on in training, we still wasted 2 days basing our game plan around someone who potentially wasn't going to be here

 

And then this whole rigid and 'meticulous' process is contradicted when he starts making random substitutions in the 60th and 70th minutes.

[themanupstairs]

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.

 

The excuses trotted out by some that we had to put Shola in there due to the way we'd prepared for the game in advance is f***ing idiotic.

 

There were 3 spare days between the Arsenal and Everton games, and i imagine one was just resting after a hectic schedule. So that's two full days of training. And Ba met with f***ing Chelsea the day after the Arsenal match for christ's sake so if Pardew's honestly preparing to use him during this game the man is off his rocker.

 

What's more, if he's looking to play 4-3-3 - guess what - we already have a perfect tailor made replacement ready who can play down the middle in that formation and score shedloads - his name is Papiss Cisse. He's played that role many, many times - the idea that he can't due to lacking preparation is nuts. Remember when he signed? Newly returned from ACON, and Pardew put Best in the starting lineup (lol), he got injured, Cisse came on with no preparation, looked the dog's bollocks and scored.

 

On top of that, while Shola has his uses as an impact sub, he's good for 25 minutes tops in a game - starting him and keeping him on til the end is madness.

 

The only slight glimmer of sense i can see to it is that he was brought in to cope with Everton's aerial prowess - in which case you've just picked your main striker as, let's face it, a goddamn defender, while keeping your best striker - one who has wished to play centrally all season - stuck out in purgatory on the wing. And if we're led to believe this horseshit theory about Ba intending to play that role - he was also planning to use him as a battering ram, another mis-use of his talents to go along with how he's wasted others or turned them into crap this season.

 

It's another one of those Souness-esque moments for me and there's been too many recently.

 

Fuck me. More eloquent and spot on than anything I could drum up in my posts.

 

[Varadi]

The only slight glimmer of sense i can see to it is that he was brought in to cope with Everton's aerial prowess - in which case you've just picked your main striker as, let's face it, a goddamn defender, while keeping your best striker - one who has wished to play centrally all season - stuck out in purgatory on the wing.

 

That's the point I made when I first saw the lineup - Shola was picking up Distin at set pieces (of which they had shitloads) and did a decent job - you've left him out to put Cisse up top and Bigi in midfield and you've got a big potential problem.

 

Could be an issue in a few games actually - looks like our preferred front 6 will be Anita, Cabaye, Tiote, Marv, Cisse and HBA - not much height there at all.

[Guest icemanblue]

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.

 

I understand why we were set up this way. No, it probably wasn't the best system with the players available. I'm sure even Alan would admit to that. However, we'd obviously geared our whole gameplan around the formation and personnel in training. Shola for Ba was the change that would cause the least disruption to the rest of the team, and I can understand that.

 

Last time I'm typing any of that.

But we knew there was a big chance of Ba fucking off on Sunday, so even if it was absolutely vital that we caused as little disruption the set-up we had been working on in training, we still wasted 2 days basing our game plan around someone who potentially wasn't going to be here

 

And then this whole rigid and 'meticulous' process is contradicted when he starts making random substitutions in the 60th and 70th minutes.

 

As recently as Tuesday, he'd been saying that Ba would play against Everton. If it was that likely he wasn't going to be available, I don't think he'd have been saying that. The general feeling on here was that Chelsea had been put off by Demba's agent posse.

 

Substitutions are what they are. Reactive changes based on the needs of the team at that point in the game. I don't really think they can be entirely planned for in advance, although teams may have a 'go to' substitution for when they're losing, or winning and want to shut up shop. Obviously, these are entirely dependent on the personnel available.

[B-more Mag]

Last year, then, was just the case of having enough good players who were able to stay healthy long enough and were played in comfortable enough positions to paper over Pardew's faults? That what it seems like now. I can only hope that we get enough good players in this window to pull off a similar trick to keep us up.