Alan Pardew

[Guest Dontooner]

Would also like Campbell to get a chance in the team as well, as little as he might seem , the ball sticks to him.

Would love it if he turns out to be another local hero.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Andy Carroll will be here in the summer nailed on.

 

I like him, and if Pardew stays, as i think he will. Carroll will improve us for sure. Also i think Carroll can play for a team playing decent football too.

 

BBC sport were saying this morning 17m fee already agreed with WHAM.

[Smal]

I'm confused. What do people think our main formation has been this season if not a 451/433?

 

It's been a 4-2-3-1

[Guest bimpy474]

I'm confused. What do people think our main formation has been this season if not a 451/433?

 

4-4-2 with Ba, 4-2-3-1 for nearly all of the rest, 4-3-3 for a couple near the end and 4-4-2 v Q.P.R.

[Ronaldo]

A proper 4-3-3 of

 

Debuchy Colo MYM Santon

 

Sissoko Tiote Cabaye

 

HBA Cissé Gouffran

 

Would be bloody brilliant. Shame we'll never see it under current management.

 

It might look good on paper, but there's few goals, no threat from set pieces, Cheick Tiote, and a lack of physicality in CD. We're gonna have to accept that the current squad is a work in progress in need of investment and replacement.

 

I don't really agree with the first part, I think that team does have goal in it. Cisse, Gouff and Ben Arfa all score goals and Siss and Cabaye can ship in a few as well. I do think we need to strengthen and from what has been seen I do agree that MYM and Colo can't play together.

 

That team would always score goals if the manager in question gave license to get bodies forward when in possession.

 

Look at Swansea, Routledge suddenly scores and creates goals by the bucketload same goes for Maloney at Wigan because they allowed to join the centre forward when in possession.

 

Of course it won't score goals if we are deep and not allowed to join the attack very often, Bale is another example no coincidence since he was allowed to be high up the pitch his goal rate went up.

 

Its not a coincidence.

 

Cisse aside, none of those players have ever really been consistent goalscores. And we certainly won't ever see the best of Cisse unless we get creativity either side of him.

[Hanshithispantz]

Less long balls were played but we were still shit. Does that summarise what happened?

[Guest Dontooner]

Would be happy for Carrol to be back and Shola to be gone.

 

Whats the funny part?? Shola ever leaving??

Depress if thats the joke...

[Dave]

Less long balls were played but we were still shit. Does that summarise what happened?

 

Pretty much.

[Interpolic]

Or more than likely be ignored, just as I was when I pulled him up on his 'Shola's our best option from the bench' rubbish.

Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative?

 

I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd.

 

As for your point about how wonderful the arguments have been on here, surely the end of the season, with all the stats, facts and figures to hand is a good time to reflect on whatever has been said before?

 

I find it incredibly farfetched to think that Pardew sees us resorting to long ball and hoys Shola on to utilise it, and I'm amazed you don't. Players panicking and reverting to a style that isn't historically suited to them individually when a goal up or drawing just seems like absolute rubbish to me. It's far more feasible that the instruction comes from the bench.

 

They panic so much that even when the ball is dead and we have a free kick in our own half, they load the box and the keeper aims for Mike Williamson, despite the manager (surely) yelling at them from the touchline to play a short pass and keep the ball moving.

 

I think something that everything can agree on is that Pardew's football isn't exactly expansive and on the whole he likes to keep things tight, i.e. not go hell for leather.  However we've seen time and time again that we sit on a lead and the argument appears to be whether that's led by the players or the manager.

 

It's clear as day that we sit deeper and give up on going forward when ahead or in a drawing position against a better side and as I say I find it difficult to accept that we do that because the players aren't confident enough to attack the game anymore.  We did it numerous times last year when the players were full of confidence.

[Happy Face]

This is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard....well done.

 

So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else.

 

Pardew was rightly criticized.

 

In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement.

 

But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality.

 

Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality?  You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily?

 

Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement.

 

Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination.

 

If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you.

 

I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer.

 

Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league.

 

As they have started playing a more passing game results have also improved.

 

Given time, as the new players settle more and Pardew hopefully decides who will play where this interplay will hopefully improve.

 

It doesn't happen from one game to the next.  But in putting a stop to the goofball that we were playing the first step has been taken.

 

[Guest bimpy474]

I don't get this counter argument that some long balls are passes and others aren't.  What does it matter?  How does that counter the fact that on average, we've hit 20 less long balls per game in the last 3 months than in the first 3 months.

 

An improvement, for those that don't like long balls/passes.

This is frustrating me too The quality of the long ball doesn't fucking matter!

 

This is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard....well done.

You're not following that's why. The point was less long balls were played. I can see how you can mis-read though. It doesn't matter to the point. Obviously.

 

I was following but as i've stated, stats do not work with me, i watch every game, and i then watch the game again. I am a total nerd, so you and Happy Face can't tell me what i know from watching every minute of every game, virtually all of which i watched more than once. Stats mean nothing when you watch a match, every match is different, every match brings a different circumstance to which a stat might represent. They dont work.

[Guest Dontooner]

Or more than likely be ignored, just as I was when I pulled him up on his 'Shola's our best option from the bench' rubbish.

Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative?

 

I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd.

 

As for your point about how wonderful the arguments have been on here, surely the end of the season, with all the stats, facts and figures to hand is a good time to reflect on whatever has been said before?

 

I find it incredibly farfetched to think that Pardew sees us resorting to long ball and hoys Shola on to utilise it, and I'm amazed you don't. Players panicking and reverting to a style that isn't historically suited to them individually when a goal up or drawing just seems like absolute rubbish to me. It's far more feasible that the instruction comes from the bench.

 

They panic so much that even when the ball is dead and we have a free kick in our own half, they load the box and the keeper aims for Mike Williamson, despite the manager (surely) yelling at them from the touchline to play a short pass and keep the ball moving.

 

I think something that everything can agree on is that Pardew's football isn't exactly expansive and on the whole he likes to keep things tight, i.e. not go hell for leather.  However we've seen time and time again that we sit on a lead and the argument appears to be whether that's led by the players or the manager.

 

It's clear as day that we sit deeper and give up on going forward when ahead or in a drawing position against a better side and as I say I find it difficult to accept that we do that because the players aren't confident enough to attack the game anymore.  We did it numerous times last year when the players were full of confidence.

Think the substitutions towards the end are also a clear  indication, it was from instructions.

[Dave]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

[Tiresias]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

 

I'd honestly sack him just on the basis of those 2 games, call me fickle but they were completely unacceptable.

 

[Ronaldo]

Would be happy for Carrol to be back and Shola to be gone.

 

Whats the funny part?? Shola ever leaving??

Depress if thats the joke...

 

Just goes completely without saying, no? Carroll's a very good CF and exactly what we need. Shola's a talentless nothing with a dodgy hip.

[Interpolic]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

 

We went from getting less than a point a game to not much more than a point a game.  We've got 41 points.  So close to relegation form over the course of the season.

[Mattoon]

May I just ask these supastats, do they count all the hoofs we make as long balls or are they perhaps considered also or alternatively as clearances?

[Guest Dontooner]

This is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard....well done.

 

So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else.

 

Pardew was rightly criticized.

 

In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement.

 

But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality.

 

Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality?  You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily?

 

Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement.

 

Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination.

 

If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you.

 

I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer.

 

Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league.

 

As they have started playing a more passing game results have also improved.

 

Given time, as the new players settle more and Pardew hopefully decides who will play where this interplay will hopefully improve.

 

It doesn't happen from one game to the next.  But in putting a stop to the goofball that we were playing the first step has been taken.

 

Would genuinely give you a benefit of doubt if you really feel we would improve footballing wise.

Personally i still think Pardew would have had his last game at Arsenal..

[Guest bimpy474]

This is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard....well done.

 

So. In October it was clear that we played more long balls than anyone else.

 

Pardew was rightly criticized.

 

In the last 3 months we've played less long balls than all but a few teams. I take that as an improvement.

 

But Pardew is still criticised because even though we use much less long balls, those that we do use are poor quality.

 

Your complaint is not about the quantity of long balls but the quality?  You don't want him to play on the deck necessarily?

 

Less doesn't mean they are any better, and i dispute your stats, stats mean nothing and for to keep using them toward me is not going to work. They are still aimless punts which we dont win. We have a Cisse, so unsuited to a long ball aimed at him it's untrue, but yet we still persisited. Now i want us to play good football, possession football. That doesn't mean all tippy tappy, a mixture. Like i say, which you and your chums seem to be dismissing, a longer pass is fine, now if Andy Carroll say was up top i've no doubt he would turn a aimless long ball into a decent one. But i want us to play short, fast controlled possession football, with lots of movement.

 

Now this is where you have avoided answering, Pardew throughout his career has never got any of his team to do this, so why should he get anymore time. We are more than two years into his reign and our football has got worse and worse. He isn't going to change, Jesus our set pieces tell you all you need to know about his lack of imagination.

 

If he stays, we will continue to play boring, direct, non possession percentage football. Which might be slightly better if we sign a Andy Carroll type suited to it. But i, as someone who wanted him gone over 6 months ago because if there's anything i hate, it's poor football and that mate is exactly what Pardew gives you.

 

I don't think you have understood my posts. Sorry I've not been clearer.

 

Pardew has recently managed to get his team playing less long balls than almost all other teams in the league.

 

As they have started playing a more passing game results have also improved.

 

Given time, as the new players settle more and Pardew hopefully decides who will play where this interplay will hopefully improve.

 

It doesn't happen from one game to the next.  But in putting a stop to the goofball that we were playing the first step has been taken.

 

 

I accept we may have played less long passes. What you seem to not grasp. In some of those games we had less possession, obviously meaning less passing. Now you have to study every game in detail, for possession, for where that possession mainly was on the pitch. You can't factor that into an overall stat, the ones you are using.

 

In my post Chez, i would say with a hell a lot of arrogance, that i've no doubt i watch our games more than anyone else. I watch them over and over, if you did the same you would know that the stats you are using are just nonsense to what my eyes see and my rather educated football brain tell me.

[Interpolic]

Or more than likely be ignored, just as I was when I pulled him up on his 'Shola's our best option from the bench' rubbish.

Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative?

 

I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd.

 

As for your point about how wonderful the arguments have been on here, surely the end of the season, with all the stats, facts and figures to hand is a good time to reflect on whatever has been said before?

 

I find it incredibly farfetched to think that Pardew sees us resorting to long ball and hoys Shola on to utilise it, and I'm amazed you don't. Players panicking and reverting to a style that isn't historically suited to them individually when a goal up or drawing just seems like absolute rubbish to me. It's far more feasible that the instruction comes from the bench.

 

They panic so much that even when the ball is dead and we have a free kick in our own half, they load the box and the keeper aims for Mike Williamson, despite the manager (surely) yelling at them from the touchline to play a short pass and keep the ball moving.

 

I think something that everything can agree on is that Pardew's football isn't exactly expansive and on the whole he likes to keep things tight, i.e. not go hell for leather.  However we've seen time and time again that we sit on a lead and the argument appears to be whether that's led by the players or the manager.

 

It's clear as day that we sit deeper and give up on going forward when ahead or in a drawing position against a better side and as I say I find it difficult to accept that we do that because the players aren't confident enough to attack the game anymore.  We did it numerous times last year when the players were full of confidence.

Think the substitutions towards the end are also a clear  indication, it was from instructions.

 

Well I was fucking raging at West Ham when he brought Ben Arfa and Gouffran off for Shola and Gosling.  I saw with my own eyes that we were the better team without being particularly incisive for 60 minutes, then gave up on our chances offensively, and beyond that were in danger for the first time in the game.

 

That's what gets me, we risk losing games by sitting back and inviting pressure like that.  Especially when we're low on confidence.

[Unbelievable]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

 

Stats don't work in football don't you know?

[Dave]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

 

Stats don't work in football don't you know?

 

Points are quite important as it happens.

[Guest Dontooner]

Would be happy for Carrol to be back and Shola to be gone.

 

Whats the funny part?? Shola ever leaving??

Depress if thats the joke...

 

Just goes completely without saying, no? Carroll's a very good CF and exactly what we need. Shola's a talentless nothing with a dodgy hip.

Just a cheap joke mate

[Guest bimpy474]

Or more than likely be ignored, just as I was when I pulled him up on his 'Shola's our best option from the bench' rubbish.

Didnt you suggest Anita as an alternative?

 

I thought HF's point was just that we dont have a striker on the bench of a better quality than Shola, hence pointing to squad depth. Shola seems to come on in response to us playing it long, not the other way round. If that is the case then bringing on Anita would be odd.

 

As for your point about how wonderful the arguments have been on here, surely the end of the season, with all the stats, facts and figures to hand is a good time to reflect on whatever has been said before?

 

I find it incredibly farfetched to think that Pardew sees us resorting to long ball and hoys Shola on to utilise it, and I'm amazed you don't. Players panicking and reverting to a style that isn't historically suited to them individually when a goal up or drawing just seems like absolute rubbish to me. It's far more feasible that the instruction comes from the bench.

 

They panic so much that even when the ball is dead and we have a free kick in our own half, they load the box and the keeper aims for Mike Williamson, despite the manager (surely) yelling at them from the touchline to play a short pass and keep the ball moving.

 

I think something that everything can agree on is that Pardew's football isn't exactly expansive and on the whole he likes to keep things tight, i.e. not go hell for leather.  However we've seen time and time again that we sit on a lead and the argument appears to be whether that's led by the players or the manager.

 

It's clear as day that we sit deeper and give up on going forward when ahead or in a drawing position against a better side and as I say I find it difficult to accept that we do that because the players aren't confident enough to attack the game anymore.  We did it numerous times last year when the players were full of confidence.

Think the substitutions towards the end are also a clear  indication, it was from instructions.

 

Well I was fucking raging at West Ham when he brought Ben Arfa and Gouffran off for Shola and Gosling.  I saw with my own eyes that we were the better team without being particularly incisive for 60 minutes, then gave up on our chances offensively, and beyond that were in danger for the first time in the game.

 

That's what gets me, we risk losing games by sitting back and inviting pressure like that.  Especially when we're low on confidence.

 

Spot on.

[Happy Face]

2 wins in 10, including losing two home matches by an aggregate of 9-0. That's quite an improvement.

 

After losing 10 out of 13 league games.  Only losing 6 in 14 is much improved. Aye.