Alan Pardew

[Stifler]

Is anyone else looking at that photo and finding it hard not to think "ooooh, polystyrene ceiling tiles, how vile"?

I think it looks like student accommodation.

[Stifler]

Did you get that off the estate agent who is challenged with selling Pardew's house once he's sacked?

[littlelunchbox]

FYI that's not my bedroom.

 

http://oi41.tinypic.com/33vyd7a.jpg

 

You shouldn't have graffitied it imo.

 

haha

[Chris_R]

Much though I hate Pardew, I don't see the problem in doing this if you're a capable artist yourself, and I assume the person whose house this is did it himself rather than employ someone at great expense.

 

If you can do this yourself, it's just your time and a few materials as the cost. If you want to repaint it and do something else, you can do easily. It's just a bit of fun and a chance to practice your art.

[littlelunchbox]

Much though I hate Pardew, I don't see the problem in doing this if you're a capable artist yourself, and I assume the person whose house this is did it himself rather than employ someone at great expense.

 

If you can do this yourself, it's just your time and a few materials as the cost. If you want to repaint it and do something else, you can do easily. It's just a bit of fun and a chance to practice your art.

 

No one is criticising the expenditure or the quality of artistry, it's just surprising why someone would paint a huge turd on their wall.

[Chris_R]

Well fair enough, in that regard you're right, he's a complete fucknugget.

[Deuce]

It is good artwork.  Though I personally wouldn't dare do it about football etc.

Aye, even looking past the whole Pardew thing I've never been a one to decorate overly with football stuff. Just looks shit imo.

If I had my own house with a spare room I would have some NUFC pictures and stuff, though nothing tacky.

 

It's possible to create a tasteful, non-wanker man-cave. Some NUFC memorabilia, lush carpeting, a big comfy chair and a mini-fridge. That's the dream.

[Hanshithispantz]

Aye true, I would love a man-cave. Pathetically I've had the perfect one in my mind for a few years now.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Aye true, I would love a man-cave. Pathetically I've had the perfect one in my mind for a few years now.

 

Aye same, never actually get round to it though such is life 

[Deuce]

 

It's possible to create a tasteful, non-wanker man-cave. Some NUFC memorabilia, lush carpeting, a big comfy chair and a mini-fridge. That's the dream.

 

And a TV of course. Not just sitting in my chair, wanking in a room of Toon gear.

[Mike]

 

Even wall Pardew subs Gouff off.

[Hanshithispantz]

 

It's possible to create a tasteful, non-wanker man-cave. Some NUFC memorabilia, lush carpeting, a big comfy chair and a mini-fridge. That's the dream.

 

And a TV of course. Not just sitting in my chair, wanking in a room of Toon gear.

http://i.imgur.com/RrtgK3D.jpg

[Vinny Green Balls]

the room from a different vantage point

 

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q117/mannitoujr/ZedAndTheGimp.jpg

[Darth Crooks]

i have a mran cave. Toon shirt and scarf up. Every thing is canvases of the beatles/ bowie and stuff. My place of zen.

[Happy Face]

As I missed the last few pages i'll just say the best thing about stats is how angry they make people whose agenda is compromised by them.

 

I dont use stats to defend Pardew. I use them as evidence where the criticism is factually false.

 

You will not find me suggesting for one second that the football is has been good. I was criticising his footbsll when we came 5th.  But people like to go over board, where Pardew is to blame for one thing he is to blame for all things...even imaginary criticisms with no basis in fact.

 

Pages of this thread can be defined as

 

 

#

"OMG we don't create any chances"

 

"In comparison to the rest of the league we actually create a good deal of chances but our conversion rate is poor"

 

"OMG you're a wum the football is shit"

 

Return to #

 

Creating chances and the football being shit aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I wasn't here much when Money ball was a hot topic. But if you think stats are irrelevant in the multi billion pound world of sport you are ignorant.

 

[Wullie]

Football's simply not a stats game as much as some other sports are. That's not to say that they don't have their place but there's too many variables. A simple stat saying the team had a shot at goal tells me nothing - did the shooter have any better options or were they all holding their positions? How many other people were in the box trying to create space for him?

 

Using a measure of shots at goal to represent chances created, for example, is a blatant misrepresentation of how the game works.

[Happy Face]

I've never seen Arsenal pumping it into the box from a free kick in their own half like.

 

Arsenal goal from a corner.

 

"Woeful" says Happy Face.

 

Shambolic defending from Wigan. 

 

Worse than against Swansea. 

 

Lord knows what Martinez would do with Simpson, Williamson, Taylor and Santon.

 

[Happy Face]

Football's simply not a stats game as much as some other sports are. That's not to say that they don't have their place but there's too many variables. A simple stat saying the team had a shot at goal tells me nothing - did the shooter have any better options or were they all holding their positions? How many other people were in the box trying to create space for him?

 

Using a measure of shots at goal to represent chances created, for example, is a blatant misrepresentation of how the game works.

 

That would suggest you view the number of shots we've somehow contrived to spawn as an anomaly.  It could be.  It's higher than in the previous 2 seasons.

 

It can all be contextualised. 

 

Someone raised the damning stat that only 4% of our shots came within the 6 yard box.

 

Someone else that we've average 69 long balls per game.

 

It's written into folklore that we've gone a year and a half without scoring from a corner.

 

Seems to me people find a view and then are happy to hear facts that support their view...but will dismiss facts that challenge it.  It's probably best to look for the reasons behind the facts rather than instantly dismiss them as anomalies....which they could well be.

[Beren]

Football's simply not a stats game as much as some other sports are. That's not to say that they don't have their place but there's too many variables. A simple stat saying the team had a shot at goal tells me nothing - did the shooter have any better options or were they all holding their positions? How many other people were in the box trying to create space for him?

 

Using a measure of shots at goal to represent chances created, for example, is a blatant misrepresentation of how the game works.

 

That would suggest you view the number of shots we've somehow contrived to spawn as an anomaly.  It could be.  It's higher than in the previous 2 seasons.

 

It can all be contextualised. 

 

Someone raised the damning stat that only 4% of our shots came within the 6 yard box.

 

Someone else that we've average 69 long balls per game.

 

It's written into folklore that we've gone a year and a half without scoring from a corner.

 

Seems to me people find a view and then are happy to hear facts that support their view...but will dismiss facts that challenge it.  It's probably best to look for the reasons behind the facts rather than instantly dismiss them as anomalies....which they could well be.

 

You're ignoring the starting point though, aren't you? People don't "find a view" walking down the street. They come before statistics enter the equation. Their view is based on what they see before their eyes on a regular basis.

 

As such, it's only natural for people to believe certain statistics are distortive of the truth and unfaithfully represent what they've seen, and to accept those that correlate with what they've seen. It's just a sign of a curious brain that they would want to explain how/why a statistic can be factually accurate but not correlate with a wider truth.

 

Our terrible record on corners for example. People only took the time to look at when we last scored a corner because they formed an opinion, having watched us match after match, that they were shite. The starting point wasn't to randomly trawl for damning statistics and stumble across Demba Ba's goal vs Wolves as being the last time we scored from a corner.

 

We do play horrible, negative football. We don't create nearly enough chances.

[loki679]

Football's simply not a stats game as much as some other sports are. That's not to say that they don't have their place but there's too many variables. A simple stat saying the team had a shot at goal tells me nothing - did the shooter have any better options or were they all holding their positions? How many other people were in the box trying to create space for him?

 

Using a measure of shots at goal to represent chances created, for example, is a blatant misrepresentation of how the game works.

 

That would suggest you view the number of shots we've somehow contrived to spawn as an anomaly.  It could be.  It's higher than in the previous 2 seasons.

 

It can all be contextualised. 

 

Someone raised the damning stat that only 4% of our shots came within the 6 yard box.

 

Someone else that we've average 69 long balls per game.

 

It's written into folklore that we've gone a year and a half without scoring from a corner.

 

Seems to me people find a view and then are happy to hear facts that support their view...but will dismiss facts that challenge it.  It's probably best to look for the reasons behind the facts rather than instantly dismiss them as anomalies....which they could well be.

 

If we shot from the halfway line every time we had the ball we'd clock up loads of shots.  It wouldn't be effective and I wouldn't want to watch it. 

[Happy Face]

You're ignoring the starting point though, aren't you? People don't "find a view" walking down the street. They come before statistics enter the equation. Their view is based on what they see before their eyes on a regular basis.

 

As such, it's only natural for people to believe certain statistics are distortive of the truth and unfaithfully represent what they've seen, and to accept those that correlate with what they've seen. It's just a sign of a curious brain that they would want to explain how/why a statistic can be factually accurate but not correlate with a wider truth.

 

Our terrible record on corners for example. People only took the time to look at when we last scored a corner because they formed an opinion, having watched us match after match, that they we were shite. The starting point wasn't to randomly trawl for damning statistics and stumble across Demba Ba's goal vs Wolves as being the last time we scored from a corner.

 

We do play horrible, negative football. We don't create nearly enough chances.

 

The person who first looked up that corner fact formed the view, looked at the stats, was proved correct and so it has been a widely circulated since.

 

That's textbook.

 

People watch games, perceive that we don't create chances...and say so on here.  Without the fact checking part.  If we had least shots on target, shots off target, shots in the box, shots outside of the box or something to confirm that, then it would be a useful statement.  But other teams create EVEN less chances than us, before you  even consider what proportion were "good" chances.

 

What the facts do say is that we don't convert the chances we get as well as anyone else (bar QPR) this season.  That we had one of the best conversion rates in the league last season.  That it reduced early this season...and reduced further still when Ba left.

[Dr Venkman]

As I missed the last few pages i'll just say the best thing about stats is how angry they make people whose agenda is compromised by them.

 

I dont use stats to defend Pardew. I use them as evidence where the criticism is factually false.

 

You will not find me suggesting for one second that the football is has been good. I was criticising his footbsll when we came 5th.  But people like to go over board, where Pardew is to blame for one thing he is to blame for all things...even imaginary criticisms with no basis in fact.

 

Pages of this thread can be defined as

 

 

#

"OMG we don't create any chances"

 

"In comparison to the rest of the league we actually create a good deal of chances but our conversion rate is poor"

 

"OMG you're a wum the football is shit"

 

Return to #

 

Creating chances and the football being shit aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I wasn't here much when Money ball was a hot topic. But if you think stats are irrelevant in the multi billion pound world of sport you are ignorant.

 

So stats are good because they allow you to refute criticism which is 'factually false'? But the BEST thing about them is that they make people angry?

 

Righto.

 

No-one's said they're irrelevant, and I'd bet nigh on everyone here would admit to making flippant statements. You're not really saying much.

[Mattoon]

And here we go again with the stats and numbers game, again! The truth of the matter is we are playing shit football under Pardew, we are utterly embarrassing, we are flaccid in attack and inept in defence and there's nothing in between. For all I care we could have an average of 50 "chances" a game, but the truth is we hardly ever look like scoring and certainly don't create much danger in an around their box. Fuck your stats, I've got eyes and 20/20 vision.

[Skirge]

Scott Wilson ‏@Scottwilsonecho 5m

Ashley has instructed Pardew to compile dossier on what went wrong this season, but there appears to be strong reluctance to change manager.

Expand  Reply  Retweet  Favorite  More

[Beren]

You're ignoring the starting point though, aren't you? People don't "find a view" walking down the street. They come before statistics enter the equation. Their view is based on what they see before their eyes on a regular basis.

 

As such, it's only natural for people to believe certain statistics are distortive of the truth and unfaithfully represent what they've seen, and to accept those that correlate with what they've seen. It's just a sign of a curious brain that they would want to explain how/why a statistic can be factually accurate but not correlate with a wider truth.

 

Our terrible record on corners for example. People only took the time to look at when we last scored a corner because they formed an opinion, having watched us match after match, that they we were shite. The starting point wasn't to randomly trawl for damning statistics and stumble across Demba Ba's goal vs Wolves as being the last time we scored from a corner.

 

We do play horrible, negative football. We don't create nearly enough chances.

 

The person who first looked up that corner fact formed the view, looked at the stats, was proved correct and so it has been a widely circulated since.

 

That's textbook.

 

People watch games, perceive that we don't create chances...and say so on here.  Without the fact checking part.  If we had least shots on target, shots off target, shots in the box, shots outside of the box or something to confirm that, then it would be a useful statement.  But other teams create EVEN less chances than us, before you  even consider what proportion were "good" chances.

 

What the facts do say is that we don't convert the chances we get as well as anyone else (bar QPR) this season.  That we had one of the best conversion rates in the league last season.  That it reduced early this season...and reduced further still when Ba left.

 

I'm not sure I understand what your point is, tbh.

 

That because other teams create even fewer chances that we create enough? That doesn't wash with me.

 

The bold bit is completely meaningless. Krul could take ten shots and Lambert could take one shot. I'd take the one Lambert shot every day. The number of chances a side creates without further contextual evidence is close to useless.