Alan Pardew

[Spudil]

Aye of course it is.

 

When I see us passing and keeping posession and probing like in the first half [vs. West Brom] I think that's what Pardew has spent the week drilling them with.  When I see us twating the ball out of defense I think that's the players getting tired and desparate and ignoring what they've been told.  When I see shola coming on I think Pardew is trying to get those balls to stick and stop it being wave after wave of attack.

 

This is what HappyFace actually believes.

 

Why does Pardew set us so differently in the first half of games to the second half of games in your opinion?

 

I don't think there's a massive difference in the way we're set up either side of half time besides becoming gradually more negative as the game goes on providing we haven't gone behind. Even then, we sometimes have become more negative and gone for damage limitation.

 

What's that got to do with your post though? It's an utterly terrible post.

[Happy Face]

Happy Face is adamant to keep this weird argument going, like. Fervently defending a manager who he concedes is a "no-mark" purely because he doesn't like Mike Ashley. It's mad.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Doesn't engage any of my points.

 

Just says I'm mad.

 

There is evidence that Alan Pardew is capable of getting Newcastle united  to finish in the top 5.  There is evidence of awful injury issues hindering that this season, of our main goal threat being sold and not replaced adequately.  There is evidence of improved results since he was given extra bodies to fill some of the gaps in January.

 

What evidence is there that Mike Ashley can find a more accomplished manager?

 

[Incognito]

Aye of course it is.

 

When I see us passing and keeping posession and probing like in the first half [vs. West Brom] I think that's what Pardew has spent the week drilling them with.  When I see us twating the ball out of defense I think that's the players getting tired and desparate and ignoring what they've been told.  When I see shola coming on I think Pardew is trying to get those balls to stick and stop it being wave after wave of attack.

 

This is what HappyFace actually believes.

 

Why does Pardew set us so differently in the first half of games to the second half of games in your opinion?

 

Because he is scared to lose what he has at half time. How many times have we seen us play a good first half to see us totally change tack and become ultra negative second half. Keep what you have. And then naturally as you sit back, the opponents sense an opportunity to press, and you defend deeper and deeper and get rid as far from your goal as....then bring a big tall physical type on to try and win said long desperate punts.

It has happened like this most of the season, ie Pardew forgetting how we got on top in the first place, and changing tack to the other extreme and inviting pressure.

 

[Happy Face]

 

I don't think there's a massive difference in the way we're set up either side of half time besides becoming gradually more negative as the game goes on providing we haven't gone behind. Even then, we sometimes have become more negative and gone for damage limitation.

 

I still don't understand.

 

Do the players ignore everything Pardew has said through the week and play more positively early in the game.....but then take great heed of everything he has to say at half time and come out ready to play his negative brand of football?

 

It defies logic.

 

Much more sensible to view it from the perspective that players lose concentration, they forget their instructions, they panic after a bit of pressure and resort more and more to methods that they had not been asked to use when in training for the game.

[Guest bimpy474]

Aye of course it is.

 

When I see us passing and keeping posession and probing like in the first half [vs. West Brom] I think that's what Pardew has spent the week drilling them with.  When I see us twating the ball out of defense I think that's the players getting tired and desparate and ignoring what they've been told.  When I see shola coming on I think Pardew is trying to get those balls to stick and stop it being wave after wave of attack.

 

This is what HappyFace actually believes.

 

Why does Pardew set us so differently in the first half of games to the second half of games in your opinion?

 

Because he is scared to lose what he has at half time. How many times have we seen us play a good first half to see us totally change tack and become ultra negative second half. Keep what you have. And then naturally as you sit back, the opponents sense an opportunity to press, and you defend deeper and deeper and get rid as far from your goal as....then bring a big tall physical type on to try and win said long desperate punts.

It has happened like this most of the season, ie Pardew forgetting how we got on top in the first place, and changing tack to the other extreme and inviting pressure.

 

 

Spot on like, adding to this that we have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball. Which in a away game really does help keep the pressure off.

 

Sitting back and your luck will run out, and 67 goals conceded would tell that story.

[Guest bimpy474]

 

I don't think there's a massive difference in the way we're set up either side of half time besides becoming gradually more negative as the game goes on providing we haven't gone behind. Even then, we sometimes have become more negative and gone for damage limitation.

 

I still don't understand.

 

Do the players ignore everything Pardew has said through the week and play more positively early in the game.....but then take great heed of everything he has to say at half time and come out ready to play his negative brand of football?

 

It defies logic.

 

Much more sensible to view it from the perspective that players lose concentration, they forget their instructions, they panic after a bit of pressure and resort more and more to methods that they had not been asked to use when in training for the game.

 

Well from watching games, when the opposition makes changes and get at us, Pardew has no reaction, no change other than Shola it seemed at times.

 

Overall Pardew doesn't react at all, hence we get pushed back combined with our terrible ball retension and lack of real forward movement and play. Well there it is.

[chicago_shearer]

People give managers too much credit for their ability to completely alter a game through tactics and team talks.

 

The worst indictment of Pardew was never tactics or "negativity". Talented players we have signed have visibly regressed in his time in charge. They look unfit and disorganized. And for that reason above all, he needs to go.

[Spudil]

 

Much more sensible to view it from the perspective that players lose concentration, they forget their instructions, they panic after a bit of pressure and resort more and more to methods that they had not been asked to use when in training for the game.

 

Aye and we just happen to do this the most out of every single team in the league. What a coincidence that Alan fucking Pardew is our manager.

 

[Happy Face]

How many times have we seen us play a good first half

 

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball.

 

You are contradicting each other while being in agreement.

 

Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

[Hanshithispantz]

Happy Face is adamant to keep this weird argument going, like. Fervently defending a manager who he concedes is a "no-mark" purely because he doesn't like Mike Ashley. It's mad.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Doesn't engage any of my points.

 

Just says I'm mad.

 

There is evidence that Alan Pardew is capable of getting Newcastle united  to finish in the top 5.  There is evidence of awful injury issues hindering that this season, of our main goal threat being sold and not replaced adequately.  There is evidence of improved results since he was given extra bodies to fill some of the gaps in January.

 

What evidence is there that Mike Ashley can find a more accomplished manager?

 

You cannot go around picking out fallacies (although to be honest I wasn't far wrong, if at all) and then claim that they are all anyone has ever said in reply to your points, that is just lying, hence why I called bullshit.

 

And what evidence is there that he cannot find a more accomplished manager? It's a completely pointless debate considering not a single one of know what his current thought process is, or what it will be in a years time etc. For all we know he may have learned another lesson (which he has certainly shown he is capable of) and would take more care with his next selection. Ofcourse there is always the possibility that he won't also.

 

That latter point is your entire argument though, "Mike Ashley won't get anyone better if he sacks Pardew". I think it's highly unlikely that we can appoint anyone worse for our squad and transfer policy.

[Guest strongbow69]

People give managers too much credit for their ability to completely alter a game through tactics and team talks.

 

The worst indictment of Pardew was never tactics or "negativity". Talented players we have signed have visibly regressed in his time in charge. They look unfit and disorganized. And for that reason above all, he needs to go.

[Guest bimpy474]

How many times have we seen us play a good first half

 

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball.

 

You are contradicting each other while being in agreement.

 

Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

 

Every team will play ok in parts. You like a lot of others don't seem to be able to see middle ground. We play ok sometimes but we play mostly crap for the greater of it.

 

We do play ok, but it's never for more than a short spell during a game, we spend 70 mins of virtually every game sitting back.

[Happy Face]

Well from watching games, when the opposition makes changes and get at us, Pardew has no reaction, no change other than Shola it seemed at times.

 

Overall Pardew doesn't react at all, hence we get pushed back combined with our terrible ball retension and lack of real forward movement and play. Well there it is.

 

What Change do you prefer to Shola?  Williamson?  Perch? Gosling?

 

You have a problem with the tools here, not the workman.

[Guest icemanblue]

How many times have we seen us play a good first half

 

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball.

 

You are contradicting each other while being in agreement.

 

Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

 

Every team will play ok in parts. You like a lot of others don't seem to be able to see middle ground. We play ok sometimes but we play mostly crap for the greater of it.

 

We do play ok, but it's never for more than a short spell during a game, we spend 70 mins of virtually every game sitting back.

 

I genuinely hope that you saw the humour and immense irony in that sentence, like.

[Guest Gemmill]

my God these toontastic mongs popping out of the woodwork right after we avoid relegation all pompous

 

Utterly embarrassing. Cringe-worthy.

 

Is mongs on the banned list? Can I get this one referred please?

 

I think we should probably pick this discussion back up when you've regained control of your emotions. Take all the time you need.

 

I thought I didn't recognise your name. Now I know why you've gone unnoticed. Keep up the good work.

[Hanshithispantz]

How many times have we seen us play a good first half

 

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball.

 

You are contradicting each other while being in agreement.

 

Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

It depends what you expectations are. But no, I don't think that we've been set out particularly great at any point this season, there has been times where we have looked good in comparison to the rest of the dross we serve, but rarely have we turned out a performance, first half or otherwise, where a neutral would watch us and think "fucking hell they look good".

[Dave]

Happy Face is adamant to keep this weird argument going, like. Fervently defending a manager who he concedes is a "no-mark" purely because he doesn't like Mike Ashley. It's mad.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Doesn't engage any of my points.

 

Just says I'm mad.

 

There is evidence that Alan Pardew is capable of getting Newcastle united  to finish in the top 5.  There is evidence of awful injury issues hindering that this season, of our main goal threat being sold and not replaced adequately.  There is evidence of improved results since he was given extra bodies to fill some of the gaps in January.

 

What evidence is there that Mike Ashley can find a more accomplished manager?

 

Ba wasn't replaced directly (what evidence is there of Ashley doing this btw?), but Pardew was given cover up front and LB and first teamers in defence and midfield. You can't have it both ways. Yes we missed out on Remy, but every other position was strengthened halfway through the season. We improved from losing almost every match, I don't see how that can be used as evidence of anything but the bare minimum given £20m of investment. The managers of the other teams we've been scrapping with could only dream of that level of improvement at that time.

 

A manager needs to be more than simply the bloke that picks his most expensive players and sits on the sidelines waiting to see if they win. Much more.

[Spudil]

What is it then HappyFace, massive coincidence or do our players have the worst concentration levels in the league?

[Happy Face]

You cannot go around picking out fallacies (although to be honest I wasn't far wrong, if at all) and then claim that they are all anyone has ever said in reply to your points, that is just lying, hence why I called bullshit.

 

And what evidence is there that he cannot find a more accomplished manager? It's a completely pointless debate considering not a single one of know what his current thought process is, or what it will be in a years time etc. For all we know he may have learned another lesson (which he has certainly shown he is capable of) and would take more care with his next selection. Ofcourse there is always the possibility that he won't also.

 

That latter point is your entire argument though, "Mike Ashley won't get anyone better if he sacks Pardew". I think it's highly unlikely that we can appoint anyone worse for our squad and transfer policy.

 

I like to make evidence based deductions.

 

I cannot produce evidence of that which has not happened before.  So I can't say it's impossible he would appoint anyone better.  If it happened I'd be delighted.  There is however ample evidence of woeful managerial appointments in the past.  The current one is an example, but he's been the most successful yet.  The liklihood based on previous evidence is that whoever Mike Ashley appoints will be an incapable, cheap dinosaur, or someone that cannot work under him.

 

It's now your turn in the debate to explain your reasons for supposing that trend can be bucked.  Blind faith is not evidence.

[Incognito]

How many times have we seen us play a good first half

 

We have no real pattern of play, no real way of keeping the ball.

 

You are contradicting each other while being in agreement.

 

Has Pardew set us up to play well in the first halves of games or not?

 

Reading was the prime example. Dominated for an hour before Pardew shat himself and whipped off the main fretts to Reading, Marveaux and Cabaye , who had ran the show between them. Ended up losing.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

The worst indictment of Pardew was never tactics or "negativity".

 

it really is like, note is not was

[Guest bimpy474]

Well from watching games, when the opposition makes changes and get at us, Pardew has no reaction, no change other than Shola it seemed at times.

 

Overall Pardew doesn't react at all, hence we get pushed back combined with our terrible ball retension and lack of real forward movement and play. Well there it is.

 

What Change do you prefer to Shola?  Williamson?  Perch? Gosling?

 

You have a problem with the tools here, not the workman.

 

Of course you dont. You set the team up to pass, to move, to keep the ball. Pardew does none of those. He sets the team up to be tight, rigid and not give much away.

Then he hopes a bit of magic will get a goal. Now that is fine if when you set up like we do, if you do keep it tight, but 67 goals conceded tells you he can't do that to well.

 

Pardew has a decent squad at his disposal, lacking a striker which is ridiculous tbh. But overall to be so close to relegation is telling of his lack of ability. A question you've not answered (my apologises if i've missed it), our style of play is dreadful, our GK hoofing it into the box from 50/60 yards out, a tactic has never ever worked. Pardew is responsible for that, to keep trying something that is so poor.

 

Pardew is a terrible manager at getting a team to play good, passing football. Is he not ?

 

 

[Hanshithispantz]

You cannot go around picking out fallacies (although to be honest I wasn't far wrong, if at all) and then claim that they are all anyone has ever said in reply to your points, that is just lying, hence why I called bullshit.

 

And what evidence is there that he cannot find a more accomplished manager? It's a completely pointless debate considering not a single one of know what his current thought process is, or what it will be in a years time etc. For all we know he may have learned another lesson (which he has certainly shown he is capable of) and would take more care with his next selection. Ofcourse there is always the possibility that he won't also.

 

That latter point is your entire argument though, "Mike Ashley won't get anyone better if he sacks Pardew". I think it's highly unlikely that we can appoint anyone worse for our squad and transfer policy.

 

I like to make evidence based deductions.

 

I cannot produce evidence of that which has not happened before.  So I can't say it's impossible he would appoint anyone better.  If it happened I'd be delighted.  There is however ample evidence of woeful managerial appointments in the past.  The current one is an example, but he's been the most successful yet.  The liklihood based on previous evidence is that whoever Mike Ashley appoints will be an incapable, cheap dinosaur, or someone that cannot work under him.

 

It's now your turn in the debate to explain your reasons for supposing that trend can be bucked.  Blind faith is not evidence.

I've already explained my point and it makes far more sense than "it's never happened before so it will never happen".

 

It's also completely contradictory considering you're technically claiming that Ashley's last appointment was the best he's ever made, so by your own theory he's proven that he can bring a better man in.

[Happy Face]

Happy Face is adamant to keep this weird argument going, like. Fervently defending a manager who he concedes is a "no-mark" purely because he doesn't like Mike Ashley. It's mad.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Doesn't engage any of my points.

 

Just says I'm mad.

 

There is evidence that Alan Pardew is capable of getting Newcastle united  to finish in the top 5.  There is evidence of awful injury issues hindering that this season, of our main goal threat being sold and not replaced adequately.  There is evidence of improved results since he was given extra bodies to fill some of the gaps in January.

 

What evidence is there that Mike Ashley can find a more accomplished manager?

 

Ba wasn't replaced directly (what evidence is there of Ashley doing this btw?), but Pardew was given cover up front and LB and first teamers in defence and midfield. You can't have it both ways. Yes we missed out on Remy, but every other position was strengthened halfway through the season. We improved from losing almost every match, I don't see how that can be used as evidence of anything but the bare minimum given £20m of investment. The managers of the other teams we've been scrapping with could only dream of that level of improvement at that time.

 

A manager needs to be more than simply the bloke that picks his most expensive players and sits on the sidelines waiting to see if they win. Much more.

 

Redknapp got £20m+...and he got worse.

 

But people are touting him for the job here.

 

[Hughesy]

Who has touted Redknapp for the job?