Alan Pardew

[BottledDog]

Willing to put the Cabaye one down to a communication balls up. Have no problem with it.

 

It was the Marv sub that got on my tits. I can understand his reasoning, that we needed to get back on the ball as we weren't in control anymore. I still think it was a terrible decision though.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Ultimately the booing yesterday was a good thing.

 

If Pardew stays it's the slap in the face he needed tbh.

 

He'll at least think twice in future before those stupid subs he makes.

 

Do you not think it makes any difference that he thought Cabaye would be able to stay on?

 

Regardless of what he was thinking for the subs on Saturday, I just know that in future he will think a bit harder before making his subs, which are often silly.

 

That can only be a good thing. He needed a wake up call. Think the fans at the game on Saturday should be applauded.

 

Hopefully that will be the result, aye. I don't like the fans booing but it's understandable obviously.

[KaKa]

Pardew said he thought Cabaye was capable of playing the whole game. Then despite him saying the player told him he was struggling at half time, sent him back out and subbed him just after he attempted an overhead kick, and after having taken Marveaux off first, and after we'd conceded the equaliser. To claim it was obvious the crowd shouldn't have expressed anger at that decision is ridiculous.

 

Sure, at the time I was raging as well. But it seems the situation is a bit more complicated than Pardew just wanting to take all our creative players off.

 

 

Jonas and Shola played 90 mins. For that there is no excuse.

 

As long has there was life in Marveaux's body, he stays on ahead of Shola. You damn well put him on the right instead of that donkey.

[Guest neesy111]

The booing was also pure frustration as everyone in the crowd could see Reading scoring and how negative we had been 2nd half and it just felt like deja vu like so many times this season.  Fans can clearly see he isn't learning from the mistakes he is making time and time again.

[Guest tollemache]

Willing to put the Cabaye one down to a communication balls up. Have no problem with it.

 

It was the Marv sub that got on my tits. I can understand his reasoning, that we needed to get back on the ball as we weren't in control anymore. I still think it was a terrible decision though.

 

If it had simply seen Perch fill Cabaye's slot and Cabaye move forward to play the remainder of the game with more freedom, would it have been a terrible decision?

[Lotus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/20/newcastle-alan-pardew-reading

 

Looks like he was unlucky in that Cabaye decided his groin might go almost immediately after Marveaux went off.

 

You can look at that in a few ways - perhaps with Marveaux off the pitch but Cabaye involved in the game, we'd have been fine. It's still a slightly weird change to make so early on, at home, at 1-0 though.

 

Pardew said he thought Marveaux had drifted out of the game, but then the obvious thing to do would be to bring on someone like Obertan and keep the pressure on. I don't know - I don't remember if our shape changed for those few minutes between subs, for example. Was Cabaye noticeably further forward?

 

Didn't Pardew say earlier that Cabaye had told him at HT it was tight? He was never going to last the game and shouldn't have been expected to. You KNOW you have to bring him off after an hour or so. That's why you leave Marveaux on. Especially if you're only 1-0 up. It's so f**king obvious it's insulting to try to read more into it.  Just desperate to see some logic in a bad decision tbh.

[Guest tollemache]

I mean I'd have been all for leaving Marveaux on but.... did anyone else notice him drift out of the game? Because Pardew's take on it was that he'd lost his shit a bit and wasn't affecting the game anymore. I might have a little look at the chalkboards etc, see if there's anything in it

[Guest neesy111]

I mean I'd have been all for leaving Marveaux on but.... did anyone else notice him drift out of the game? Because Pardew's take on it was that he'd lost his shit a bit and wasn't affecting the game anymore. I might have a little look at the chalkboards etc, see if there's anything in it

 

What a surprise to see a midfielder drift out of the game after we launch it long.......

[Guest tollemache]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/20/newcastle-alan-pardew-reading

 

Looks like he was unlucky in that Cabaye decided his groin might go almost immediately after Marveaux went off.

 

You can look at that in a few ways - perhaps with Marveaux off the pitch but Cabaye involved in the game, we'd have been fine. It's still a slightly weird change to make so early on, at home, at 1-0 though.

 

Pardew said he thought Marveaux had drifted out of the game, but then the obvious thing to do would be to bring on someone like Obertan and keep the pressure on. I don't know - I don't remember if our shape changed for those few minutes between subs, for example. Was Cabaye noticeably further forward?

 

Didn't Pardew say earlier that Cabaye had told him at HT it was tight? He was never going to last the game and shouldn't have been expected to. You KNOW you have to bring him off after an hour or so. That's why you leave Marveaux on. Especially if you're only 1-0 up. It's so f**king obvious it's insulting to try to read more into it.  Just desperate to see some logic in a bad decision tbh.

 

You probably want to read the rest of the thread there

[Lotus]

I mean I'd have been all for leaving Marveaux on but.... did anyone else notice him drift out of the game? Because Pardew's take on it was that he'd lost his s*** a bit and wasn't affecting the game anymore. I might have a little look at the chalkboards etc, see if there's anything in it

 

I thought he drifted out of the game as the ball was going over his head a bit too often. Hardly his fault.

[Lotus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/20/newcastle-alan-pardew-reading

 

Looks like he was unlucky in that Cabaye decided his groin might go almost immediately after Marveaux went off.

 

You can look at that in a few ways - perhaps with Marveaux off the pitch but Cabaye involved in the game, we'd have been fine. It's still a slightly weird change to make so early on, at home, at 1-0 though.

 

Pardew said he thought Marveaux had drifted out of the game, but then the obvious thing to do would be to bring on someone like Obertan and keep the pressure on. I don't know - I don't remember if our shape changed for those few minutes between subs, for example. Was Cabaye noticeably further forward?

 

Didn't Pardew say earlier that Cabaye had told him at HT it was tight? He was never going to last the game and shouldn't have been expected to. You KNOW you have to bring him off after an hour or so. That's why you leave Marveaux on. Especially if you're only 1-0 up. It's so f**king obvious it's insulting to try to read more into it.  Just desperate to see some logic in a bad decision tbh.

 

You probably want to read the rest of the thread there

 

What did i miss?

[Guest tollemache]

I mean I'd have been all for leaving Marveaux on but.... did anyone else notice him drift out of the game? Because Pardew's take on it was that he'd lost his shit a bit and wasn't affecting the game anymore. I might have a little look at the chalkboards etc, see if there's anything in it

 

What a surprise to see a midfielder drift out of the game after we launch it long.......

 

Or maybe Pardew thought cause and effect were the other way round - that we were launching it long more because Marveaux wasn't as involved? I'm just guessing wildly there. There must be something in it though, unless he just hallucinated it which is possible even if mushroom season is long over

[Guest tollemache]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/20/newcastle-alan-pardew-reading

 

Looks like he was unlucky in that Cabaye decided his groin might go almost immediately after Marveaux went off.

 

You can look at that in a few ways - perhaps with Marveaux off the pitch but Cabaye involved in the game, we'd have been fine. It's still a slightly weird change to make so early on, at home, at 1-0 though.

 

Pardew said he thought Marveaux had drifted out of the game, but then the obvious thing to do would be to bring on someone like Obertan and keep the pressure on. I don't know - I don't remember if our shape changed for those few minutes between subs, for example. Was Cabaye noticeably further forward?

 

Didn't Pardew say earlier that Cabaye had told him at HT it was tight? He was never going to last the game and shouldn't have been expected to. You KNOW you have to bring him off after an hour or so. That's why you leave Marveaux on. Especially if you're only 1-0 up. It's so f**king obvious it's insulting to try to read more into it.  Just desperate to see some logic in a bad decision tbh.

 

You probably want to read the rest of the thread there

 

What did i miss?

 

A process of discussion during which someone mentioned he'd flagged it up at HT, which was news to me, and I kind of went, "Yeah, that was daft then". So I've already agreed with you on that one

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I mean I'd have been all for leaving Marveaux on but.... did anyone else notice him drift out of the game? Because Pardew's take on it was that he'd lost his shit a bit and wasn't affecting the game anymore. I might have a little look at the chalkboards etc, see if there's anything in it

 

What a surprise to see a midfielder drift out of the game after we launch it long.......

 

Or maybe Pardew thought cause and effect were the other way round - that we were launching it long more because Marveaux wasn't as involved? I'm just guessing wildly there. There must be something in it though, unless he just hallucinated it which is possible even if mushroom season is long over

 

Some people just think it's impossible that a midfielder could be playing worse though. It's always because "we're playing hoofball".

[Guest tollemache]

On the other hand I am still trying to see as much logic in it as I can, because I think that's how you get closest to the truth. Ie; I don't think it was just a question of him making a blindingly stupid decision with no tactical value because he's an idiot. If I can find evidence that Marveaux really had gone off the boil then I suppose I can see the validity in bringing him off instead of, say, Shola. I've already decided that a substitution at that point to bring Cabaye forward wouldn't be so bad, it's a question of why it had to be Marveaux that went off, and why Cabaye wasn't consulted

[Guest neesy111]

Because we are always playing hoofball at some point in every game this season and it usually happens after we go 1-0 up in a game.

[segalno9]

The Cabaye one doesn't even warrant discussion. He's injured, wants to come off, so you take him off. The fact that there was any booing whatsoever, from anyone, at that point beggars belief. It was very, very blatantly a fitness issue. Reminds me of when we had people complaining on here about Ben Arfa coming off against Fulham, like there was any chance whatsoever it was a tactical change.

 

The Marveaux sub on the other hand was genuinely weird.

 

I guess if the Cabaye one was unexpected, rather than a planned withdrawal, then the Marveaux one is a bit unlucky. If Cabaye had lasted we might not be having this discussion.

 

If the Cabaye sub was just because he's generally not up to speed, then the Marv one is crazy.

 

I thought he felt his groin and asked to come off?

 

Yeah, some reports suggest he did. In which case I suppose Pardew was unlucky to have already subbed Marveaux.

 

How is it unlucky?

Cabaye has been out injured about 3 months. Did hid first apparence last week for about 20 min. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he most likley wont last for 90 min.

It's not unlucky it just plain stupidity to take Marveaux off.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Go on, I'll have a go

 

The thing that the media don't seem to grasp, or are ignoring is:

 

1. We were booing Pardew, not the players.

Still changing the atmosphere to one that is full of boos and not very nice to play in. I think to a certain extent a booing is a booing and none of the players will have enjoyed it.

 

The boos stopped once Perch's name was announced, who was cheered. Same with Bigirimana. There were boos for the subs and at full time. It's perfectly reasonable and was aimed at a manager that has lost the crowd. No one but no one will put Pardew's feelings above the preservation of NUFC.

 

2. The Marveaux sub was booed because it was telling in that we were going to hold on to 1-0, with something like 30 minutes to go, at home, to f***ing Reading.

 

See above diagram. I don't think it necessarily says that, if you assume it'd mean Cabaye playing further forward.

 

It does say that to me. If Cabaye moved up the field, you're still down one creative player when you replace Marveaux with Perch.

 

3. The Cabaye sub was booed in isolation for the same reason as above. Except this time, most tellingly, it was done at 1-1 as what was seen as a result of taking Marveaux off, and it also removed all of our creativity, thus removing any logical thinking in taking Marveaux off.

 

There is no reason to boo the Cabaye sub at all if he's injured. If it's a question almost of re-booing the Marveaux sub and pointing out how foolish that had been, then there is something to it but if Cabaye had apparently been ok to play 90 minutes at that point, it looks a lot less bad / negative.

 

No one knew he was injured. He was subbed immediately after almost scoring from an overhead kick! Again, I understood that Cabaye might not last the full much, but taking Marveaux off gave the impression that Cabaye would stay on. When he didn't it made him look clueless, especially when prior to the match he said Cabaye could play 90 minutes and that Cabaye had said he felt something at half time. If that was the case then take Cabaye off instead of Marveaux.

 

4. Pardew complained that he shouldn't have had to play the midfield that he did against Brighton and said that Tiote had been out of form. He then proceeded to change the midfield that was 1-0 up at home to Reading to the one that lost 2-0 away to Brighton.

 

...but it was supposed to be that midfield with Cabaye in it.

 

I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

 

My opinion now kind of rests on how the team was set up between those first two subs I think

 

Yeah, I should have also added:

 

5: Those subs were made with Shola and Jonas on the field, both of which have no creativity, no pace, no skill, and both of which played for 90 minutes. That in isolation is bad, but coupled with the subs of Marveaux and Cabaye is completely f***ing insane.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The Cabaye one doesn't even warrant discussion. He's injured, wants to come off, so you take him off. The fact that there was any booing whatsoever, from anyone, at that point beggars belief. It was very, very blatantly a fitness issue. Reminds me of when we had people complaining on here about Ben Arfa coming off against Fulham, like there was any chance whatsoever it was a tactical change.

 

The Marveaux sub on the other hand was genuinely weird.

 

I guess if the Cabaye one was unexpected, rather than a planned withdrawal, then the Marveaux one is a bit unlucky. If Cabaye had lasted we might not be having this discussion.

 

If the Cabaye sub was just because he's generally not up to speed, then the Marv one is crazy.

 

I thought he felt his groin and asked to come off?

 

Yeah, some reports suggest he did. In which case I suppose Pardew was unlucky to have already subbed Marveaux.

 

How is it unlucky?

Cabaye has been out injured about 3 months. Did hid first apparence last week for about 20 min. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he most likley wont last for 90 min.

It's not unlucky it just plain stupidity to take Marveaux off.

 

Fair point, I'm just saying that if he believed that Cabaye could finish the game then the Marv sub isn't quite as bad. Overall it was obviously still a nightmare for Pardew.

[Guest bimpy474]

Pardew has said that Cabaye told him he was struggling at half time.

 

Which made subbing Marv first an even dumber decision.

[Guest neesy111]

The Cabaye one doesn't even warrant discussion. He's injured, wants to come off, so you take him off. The fact that there was any booing whatsoever, from anyone, at that point beggars belief. It was very, very blatantly a fitness issue. Reminds me of when we had people complaining on here about Ben Arfa coming off against Fulham, like there was any chance whatsoever it was a tactical change.

 

The Marveaux sub on the other hand was genuinely weird.

 

I guess if the Cabaye one was unexpected, rather than a planned withdrawal, then the Marveaux one is a bit unlucky. If Cabaye had lasted we might not be having this discussion.

 

If the Cabaye sub was just because he's generally not up to speed, then the Marv one is crazy.

 

I thought he felt his groin and asked to come off?

 

Yeah, some reports suggest he did. In which case I suppose Pardew was unlucky to have already subbed Marveaux.

 

How is it unlucky?

Cabaye has been out injured about 3 months. Did hid first apparence last week for about 20 min. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he most likley wont last for 90 min.

It's not unlucky it just plain stupidity to take Marveaux off.

 

Even without the Cabaye stuff, the Marveaux sub was absolutely stupid and a decision from a bloke that is only bothered about the defensive side of the game.  It was clear we needed to actually to attack more at that stage as Reading got zero pressure from us for the 1st 30 mins of the 2nd half.

[The College Dropout]

We had 1 goalscorer and 2 creative players on that pitch.

 

 

Cabaye rarely plays 90 minutes anyway, let alone after a 2 month absence. Taking off Marv for Perch fully gives Reading the initiative.

 

The crowd knew if Reading scored at 1-0 without Marv, we would struggle to score again. At 1-1 bringing off Cabaye.... the boo's rightly rang out. We wasn't going to score.

 

It's the Marv sub more than anything, it was just that Cabaye's sub was the climax of the situation.

 

 

IMO Pardew had no intention of letting Cabaye play the 90. And that's okay. But he cocked by subbing Marv and going too defensive too early.

 

The crowd are sick of his conservative nature. Nobody boo'd Perch but the decision. Taking off Marv indicated a change in tactic/philosophy. If this was FM it would be "contain". It's Reading FFS. I#m not a big fan of Sammy but bring him on to keep them on the back foot ffs.

[Guest tollemache]

I think hoofball is a symptom of being unable to cope with pressure, not a game plan. It happens when we try to play out but can't. Then you get closed down, then you cut your losses and go long. In a way it'd be more reassuring if we were genuinely just giving it to Williamson to boot up the pitch every time as that'd suggest some kind of Pulis-esque game plan. As it happened, Reading came out and pressed and we were frequently unable to play round them, at which point you either risk being dispossessed in your own backyard, or you get rid of it.

 

There were some early balls into the box in the first half even when we were playing quite well, but those were delivered from inside their half and seemed to have some kind of purpose to them.

[Varadi]

I think he fucked up the subs, and he knows it. The circumstances mean the mistake was highlighted even more, but there was a lot more behind us losing this game than Perch coming on for Marv.

[Guest firetotheworks]

We had 1 goalscorer and 2 creative players on that pitch.

 

 

Cabaye rarely plays 90 minutes anyway, let alone after a 2 month absence. Taking off Marv for Perch fully gives Reading the initiative.

 

The crowd knew if Reading scored at 1-0 without Marv, we would struggle to score again. At 1-1 bringing off Cabaye.... the boo's rightly rang out. We wasn't going to score.

 

It's the Marv sub more than anything, it was just that Cabaye's sub was the climax of the situation.

 

 

IMO Pardew had no intention of letting Cabaye play the 90. And that's okay. But he cocked by subbing Marv and going too defensive too early.

 

The crowd are sick of his conservative nature. Nobody boo'd Perch but the decision. Taking off Marv indicated a change in tactic/philosophy. If this was FM it would be "contain". It's Reading FFS. I#m not a big fan of Sammy but bring him on to keep them on the back foot ffs.

 

[glow=red,2,300]Weren't.[/glow]