Alan Pardew

[Wilson]

Pardew's shit like, proper.

[Dr Venkman]

What exactly is the argument here anyway? I don't think anyone would argue that Pardew hasn't had the rub of the green this season and that some players haven't pulled their weight at times, or have been off form for whatever reason.

 

We've literally just survived relegation by the skin of our teeth though and the blame has to lie at the managers feet, obviously Mike Ashley should have spent in the summer etc etc but he isn't exactly a replaceable cog in the machine.

 

I feel like I've read enough of his shite to sum up the argument as such:

 

1) Pardew is bad but not as bad as loads of other managers we might get if he was sacked.

 

2) Most people on this board have at one time made a statement that is likely to be an exaggeration.

 

I'm really glad he decided to post for a few days actually, I've learned plenty.

 

[Flip]

Looking at the other end of the spectrum there is a level of 'confirmation' of which defensive players have let us down...

 

Worst 5

Tiote - 41.3 minutes per goal conceded

Sissoko - 42.7

Perch - 43.5

Marveaux - 46.7

Debuchy - 47

 

Tiote has been more of a liability than a help in shoring up our defence this season.  His mistakes seem to be getting more and more frequent.

 

Sissoko can't really be blamed.  Never played where he is used to.  Should really be playing deeper and making occasional forward runs to add to the chaos during times of pressure or when he spots a gap.

 

The others...what we all knew.

 

There's not much of a level of confirmation there at all, though, given the relative absence of any context.

True, what else can we add to it?

 

Chez, you know full well that HP would fail a statistics course if he presented his information like he's done in this thread. You need to do proper regressions, have big sample sizes etc.

 

This look at minutes and goals conceded or % of shots taken inside the area to points is such a fundamentally flawed analysis that i just don't know where to start. If you can't even give confidence levels to your conclusion then it's even worse. What he's done in this thread is just confused anyone who doesn't have a background in Maths and used statistics in the worse way to 'back up' his point, by which he means that he's cherry picked stats to prove his points.

 

Here, I'm going to do something similar:

List of players in order of appearances: Cisse (34), Jonas (33)....

Goals conceded: 67 (third worst in the league)

 

Jonas is s***.

 

I love Pip, he's such a douche Although I do agree with you.

[Spudil]

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.

 

Daily reminder.

[Guest Dontooner]

Quibbling about exactly who should be playing in defensive midfield to prevent conceding so many goals is skirting round the issue. In an ideal world, I would prefer to play without one altogether, the players should be coached into pressing in the right areas, keep the ball well and get rid of the need for a player only there to tackle by being well positioned. Alex Ferguson has been the absolute master at it.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with having one though because very few managers are able to coach a team as well as him, but one is the absolute maximum from the start of any game, to have two you need to have really outstanding players ahead of them. Pardew regularly plays with three. He simply doesn't know how to coach a team to defend competently without making massive attacking sacrifices.

In an event a team can defend as a unit and press the right way, they need less defensive players since it compensated by team organization.

Pardew likes the tight unit system, it seem to work last year where teams took extra to break us down.

I actually think Pardew got founded out although he prides himself on tactics. Defensively we are often chasing players fouling them, we look defensive and set out as a team to defend but it always like we are chasing shadows.

 

The pressing tactic we are using is not working as effectively as last year, its still yet to be addressed.

[Taylor Swift]

If HP was serious about wanting to find out what's the most important factor in getting points, then he'd look back at the last five years of statistics in the league, giving a healthy 190 game sample size, very much big enough to form conclusions that have a high degree of confidence. He'd then do a regression of points to things like possession, chances inside the box, chances inside 6 yards, % of shots from outside etc etc. He'd get a proper R^2 and a 'formula' for getting points in the premier league. Right now, for a guy who has background in statistics, he's just being disingenuous and in many cases is purposely conflating things.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was fucking downright minging patter to begin with.

[Guest icemanblue]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was fucking downright minging patter to begin with.

 

These last few pages have put me off posting. It's that bad.

[Rich]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was fucking downright minging patter to begin with.

 

These last few pages have put me off posting. It's that bad.

 

Every cloud.

[Spudil]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was f***ing downright minging patter to begin with.

 

These last few pages have put me off posting. It's that bad.

 

Every cloud.

 

[Guest icemanblue]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was fucking downright minging patter to begin with.

 

These last few pages have put me off posting. It's that bad.

 

Every cloud.

 

I can't read you, Richard. You're a beautiful mystery to me.

[arnonel]

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.

 

Daily reminder.

 

 

Good post. Very welcome reading as opposed to the "Why hasnt Pardew died" nonsense.

 

 

 

 

[Incognito]

Quibbling about exactly who should be playing in defensive midfield to prevent conceding so many goals is skirting round the issue. In an ideal world, I would prefer to play without one altogether, the players should be coached into pressing in the right areas, keep the ball well and get rid of the need for a player only there to tackle by being well positioned. Alex Ferguson has been the absolute master at it.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with having one though because very few managers are able to coach a team as well as him, but one is the absolute maximum from the start of any game, to have two you need to have really outstanding players ahead of them. Pardew regularly plays with three. He simply doesn't know how to coach a team to defend competently without making massive attacking sacrifices.

 

Cracking post that .

[Happy Face]

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.

 

Daily reminder.

 

You keep quoting it.  What was wrong about it?

 

From the West Brom thread on here....

 

THAT'LLDEE LIKE

 

Overall, very good.

 

I think we've looked decent.

 

Funny how much better we play when Cabaye is pushed 10 yards further forward 

 

Should be at least 2-0 up.

 

So everyone agrees we were good in the first half.  So Pardew can get the team to play well.  Following the instructions they've been given all wwek in the build up.

 

Or do you think they ignored him in the first half?

[ChezGiven]

Looking at the other end of the spectrum there is a level of 'confirmation' of which defensive players have let us down...

 

Worst 5

Tiote - 41.3 minutes per goal conceded

Sissoko - 42.7

Perch - 43.5

Marveaux - 46.7

Debuchy - 47

 

Tiote has been more of a liability than a help in shoring up our defence this season.  His mistakes seem to be getting more and more frequent.

 

Sissoko can't really be blamed.  Never played where he is used to.  Should really be playing deeper and making occasional forward runs to add to the chaos during times of pressure or when he spots a gap.

 

The others...what we all knew.

 

There's not much of a level of confirmation there at all, though, given the relative absence of any context.

True, what else can we add to it?

 

Chez, you know full well that HP would fail a statistics course if he presented his information like he's done in this thread. You need to do proper regressions, have big sample sizes etc.

 

This look at minutes and goals conceded or % of shots taken inside the area to points is such a fundamentally flawed analysis that i just don't know where to start. If you can't even give confidence levels to your conclusion then it's even worse. What he's done in this thread is just confused anyone who doesn't have a background in Maths and used statistics in the worse way to 'back up' his point, by which he means that he's cherry picked stats to prove his points.

 

Here, I'm going to do something similar:

List of players in order of appearances: Cisse (34), Jonas (33)....

Goals conceded: 67 (third worst in the league)

 

Jonas is shit.

 

I fully agree with that analysis

 

I would add that stats follow known distributions, you need sample sizes and regressions if you want to test that a statistical difference exist between samples from different teams or periods. That's not needed here. When the 'ranking' of the team in terms of shots on target is used to describe our creativity, i've got no problem with it. What i do have a problem with is people saying that 'thats not a good statistic, as it doesnt tell you how many were pathetic grass-cutter shots from outside the box'. That where people are abusing stats because statistical science tells you that the 'shot statistics' for other teams will also include these types of shots and that these factors will be uniformly distributed, perhaps even normally. Hence you could strongly hypothesise that removing these 'shit shots' would preserve the ranking. If you were able to identify and remove the 'shit shots' and then wanted to then test whether the rankings were different, you could in this case use a non-parametric test like the Wilcoxon and therefore not rely on large sample sizes.

 

The data is valid and conclusions can be drawn. You cant assume in anomalies to make your argument work though, you have to assume distributions follow standard patterns.

 

For the record, i'm not a statistician.

[Happy Face]

Quibbling about exactly who should be playing in defensive midfield to prevent conceding so many goals is skirting round the issue. In an ideal world, I would prefer to play without one altogether, the players should be coached into pressing in the right areas, keep the ball well and get rid of the need for a player only there to tackle by being well positioned. Alex Ferguson has been the absolute master at it.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with having one though because very few managers are able to coach a team as well as him, but one is the absolute maximum from the start of any game, to have two you need to have really outstanding players ahead of them. Pardew regularly plays with three. He simply doesn't know how to coach a team to defend competently without making massive attacking sacrifices.

 

I think people just like to argue with me. 

 

Someone mentioned him ALWAYS picking Jonas.  I offered the justification Pardew would for that and it descended into 4 more pages of frothing over my methodology.

 

Don't think we can attract Fergie either btw

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

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.

 

Daily reminder.

 

You keep quoting it.  What was wrong about it?

 

From the West Brom thread on here....

 

THAT'LLDEE LIKE

 

Overall, very good.

 

I think we've looked decent.

 

Funny how much better we play when Cabaye is pushed 10 yards further forward 

 

Should be at least 2-0 up.

 

So everyone agrees we were good in the first half.  So Pardew can get the team to play well.  Following the instructions they've been given all wwek in the build up.

 

Or do you think they ignored him in the first half?

 

Whose to say if they ignored him or not? Does it matter. If I can do my job well some of the time then im a bit of dick for not making sure I do it well all of the time.

[Guest neesy111]

I still don't get what HF is on about.

[Happy Face]

Whose to say if they ignored him or not? Does it matter. If I can do my job well some of the time then im a bit of dick for not making sure I do it well all of the time.

 

We're looking into the reasons behind solid, controlled  performances in the first 45 minutes of a game versus backs to the wall out and out panic in the second 45.

 

As far as i can remember people suggested that Pardew changes his tactics at half time, irrespective of scoreline, asking the players to sit deeper so we can just try to soak up the pressure.

 

That argument doesn't hold any water with me, or we would take that approach from the first whistle.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

For all the fun the ToonTastic Tag Team had when they discovered that guy who doesn't post very much suggested sending some 'dossier' to the club, they haven't half brought this thread down even f***ing further, like.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This is easily the worst this thread has ever been. And it was fucking downright minging patter to begin with.

 

These last few pages have put me off posting. It's that bad.

 

Every cloud.

 

I can't read you, Richard. You're a beautiful mystery to me.

 

I was thinking it had got better today! Maybe because I wasn't taking as much personal abuse from the usual two or three.

[Taylor Swift]

Looking at the other end of the spectrum there is a level of 'confirmation' of which defensive players have let us down...

 

Worst 5

Tiote - 41.3 minutes per goal conceded

Sissoko - 42.7

Perch - 43.5

Marveaux - 46.7

Debuchy - 47

 

Tiote has been more of a liability than a help in shoring up our defence this season.  His mistakes seem to be getting more and more frequent.

 

Sissoko can't really be blamed.  Never played where he is used to.  Should really be playing deeper and making occasional forward runs to add to the chaos during times of pressure or when he spots a gap.

 

The others...what we all knew.

 

There's not much of a level of confirmation there at all, though, given the relative absence of any context.

True, what else can we add to it?

 

Chez, you know full well that HP would fail a statistics course if he presented his information like he's done in this thread. You need to do proper regressions, have big sample sizes etc.

 

This look at minutes and goals conceded or % of shots taken inside the area to points is such a fundamentally flawed analysis that i just don't know where to start. If you can't even give confidence levels to your conclusion then it's even worse. What he's done in this thread is just confused anyone who doesn't have a background in Maths and used statistics in the worse way to 'back up' his point, by which he means that he's cherry picked stats to prove his points.

 

Here, I'm going to do something similar:

List of players in order of appearances: Cisse (34), Jonas (33)....

Goals conceded: 67 (third worst in the league)

 

Jonas is shit.

 

I fully agree with that analysis

 

I would add that stats follow known distributions, you need sample sizes and regressions if you want to test that a statistical difference exist between samples from different teams or periods. That's not needed here. When the 'ranking' of the team in terms of shots on target is used to describe our creativity, i've got no problem with it. What i do have a problem with is people saying that 'thats not a good statistic, as it doesnt tell you how many were pathetic grass-cutter shots from outside the box'. That where people are abusing stats because statistical science tells you that the 'shot statistics' for other teams will also include these types of shots and that these factors will be uniformly distributed, perhaps even normally. Hence you could strongly hypothesise that removing these 'shit shots' would preserve the ranking. If you were able to identify and remove the 'shit shots' and then wanted to then test whether the rankings were different, you could in this case use a non-parametric test like the Wilcoxon and therefore not rely on large sample sizes.

 

The data is valid and conclusions can be drawn. You cant assume in anomalies to make your argument work though, you have to assume distributions follow standard patterns.

 

For the record, i'm not a statistician.

 

Yeah, you're a trained economist, which just means you get paid well to do statistics then talk about them.

[Spudil]

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.

 

1) "Passing and keeping possession and probing". Misleading PR bullshit (where did you learn that from?), especially the probing part, there was none or very little "probing". We are incapable of it. We had a decent amount of possession (mainly at the back) because West Brom were on holiday and put us under literally no pressure unless we approached their half/goal. Even the inept commentators mentioned this non stop. When they received the predictable bollocking at half time they spent the first ten minutes of the second half camped in our half and dominated the rest of the match.

 

Quoting some select Newcastle fans from a forum as proof that we played well is utterly laughable for obvious reasons I'll leave you to ponder.

 

2) The part in bold is utter bullshit. It had been noted several times in the press, by word of mouth of our own coaching staff that Pardew spends 4 days working on shape, analyzing the oppositions strengths and defending against them and 1 day on attacking. So that's just a straight up lie.

 

  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.

 

Most long balls in the league

 

So what is it, massive coincidence or do our players have the worst concentration, discipline and fitness levels in the league?

 

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.

 

Pardew puts on Shola because our bold and silly players wont stop kicking it long. 

 

Not as if he's known to like a target man throughout his career or anything 

 

 

[Guest Dontooner]

Whose to say if they ignored him or not? Does it matter. If I can do my job well some of the time then im a bit of dick for not making sure I do it well all of the time.

 

We're looking into the reasons behind solid, controlled  performances in the first 45 minutes of a game versus backs to the wall out and out panic in the second 45.

 

As far as i can remember people suggested that Pardew changes his tactics at half time, irrespective of scoreline, asking the players to sit deeper so we can just try to soak up the pressure.

 

That argument doesn't hold any water with me, or we would take that approach from the first whistle.

Should hold water when the 70 minute substitutions are made.

[Wullie]

My problem with using a shots statistic is not that poor shots can add to the shot count but the types of thing it misses out.

 

A player going one on one but being run out of play by the goalkeeper, a ball fizzed across the face just in front of a centre forward, a ball pulled back from the by line and cut out, an easy shooting chance where a player passes instead.

 

How often has it been said of Arsenal that they try and walk it in? Whereas some teams will try more speculative efforts as they know it's the only way of getting it near the opposition goal. It's simply not a measure of how many chances a team creates that stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.