Ste Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Aye, there were a few exceptions back then. South American players seem to be doing a lot better in the Premiership these days compared to 10 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ste Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Tevez did play, he just didn't play in what he calls his preferred "number 8 role". Mascherano was frozen out, but Tevez got pitch time under Pardew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ste Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 No justification for playing Hayden Mullins over Mascherano exists imo. I think he had his nose pushed out at having 2 players forced on him at the last minute and simply didn't think Mascherano was up to playing the holding role, nor that Tevez would be enough of a threat up top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Aye, there were a few exceptions back then. South American players seem to be doing a lot better in the Premiership these days compared to 10 years ago. There have been a number of forgettable Argies near the start of the century - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_Premier_League_players But there's no excuse not to play those two. Tevez and Masch both arrived with excellent credentials. I don't think this is hindsight bias either; at the time everyone was wondering why they weren't playing. It was an error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Tevez did play, he just didn't play in what he calls his preferred "number 8 role". Mascherano was frozen out, but Tevez got pitch time under Pardew. On the f***ing wing in a f***ing 4-4-2 or not at all, pretty much. Jesus, defending Pardew over the Tevez/mascherano affair is just silly like. Arguments like he was a bit more put out by the arrival of those two. It's easy to say he should have just got on with it and used them well, but I can understand how he was p*ssed off. have essentially no substance. If you're "put out" by being given world class players then you are more than likely a crap manager (especially if you had none in the first place ffs). It's not as if he was given some 'exotic', 'flair' players with 'little physicality' either ffs both are dogged, strong, and determined- they were always going to succeed in the premier league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Tevez did play, he just didn't play in what he calls his preferred "number 8 role". Mascherano was frozen out, but Tevez got pitch time under Pardew. 6 of the 13 prem games Pardew was in charge for he appeared as a sub. He was subbed off a further 5 times during this time. He also scored all of his goals after Pardew left. Dat management Maybe it was a little off putting having been given two world class players with such short notice though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the shit that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 http://lonerwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drama-queen.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the shit that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Very good. What's the alternative, by the way? Spend your days crying about it on a forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the s*** that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Very good. What's the alternative, by the way? Spend your days crying about it on a forum? 1) Stop going to matches, you are enabling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Tevez did play, he just didn't play in what he calls his preferred "number 8 role". Mascherano was frozen out, but Tevez got pitch time under Pardew. 6 of the 13 prem games Pardew was in charge for he appeared as a sub. He was subbed off a further 5 times during this time. He also scored all of his goals after Pardew left. Dat management Pretty sure Tevez started a few games out wide for West Ham n all, not sure whether that was under Pardle though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the s*** that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Very good. What's the alternative, by the way? Spend your days crying about it on a forum? 1) Stop going to matches, you are enabling. Ah, of course. Forgot about that. Won't make the slightest bit of difference, but at least I'll feel dead good about myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ste Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I'm not defending Pardew, just offering some thoughts on what his own thought process may have been at the time. In the end, it turned out that he called it wrong as Tevez was instrumental to keeping them up and both have since gone on to have very good careers turning out for some big clubs. I can see the reasoning, I wouldn't like players forced on to me, especially as they were both dodgy deals (and this was under scrutiny at the time of the transfers). I think he's learnt from his lessons at West Ham in all fairness to Pardew. He's been much less reluctant to play new signings from the off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the s*** that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Very good. What's the alternative, by the way? Spend your days crying about it on a forum? 1) Stop going to matches, you are enabling. Ah, of course. Forgot about that. Won't make the slightest bit of difference, but at least I'll feel dead good about myself. Don't be so defeatist. Do you not vote either because it "won't make the slightest bit of difference"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andymc1 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Seemingly everyone in this thread agrees that Pardew is a bad manager, certainly not a good enough manager for the club. Yet, the thread just seems locked in this semantic exercise of 'he's not as bad as you make out'. Ok fine whatever. He's still bad. What sort of limp-wristed point is 'he's bad but not as bad as you say' when at the end of the day he isn't good enough. Mike Ashley will apparently 100% never appoint anyone better than Alan Pardew (Despite appointing Kevin Keegan in the past) So clearly the best course of action is to get behind our Alan, eat all the s*** that is fed up to us, reduce our expectations to close to 0, keep going to the matches ( iz wot a suported doez lol) and keep on letting this poison situation continue until irreparable damage is done to the club. Very good. What's the alternative, by the way? Spend your days crying about it on a forum? 1) Stop going to matches, you are enabling. Ah, of course. Forgot about that. Won't make the slightest bit of difference, but at least I'll feel dead good about myself. Would take a considerable number of people to stay away for something to happen but I believe it is possible. At this stage it's a long way off but it could become a reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Tevez claimed he was a good football man but out of his comfort zone with foreign players. I think he didn't play him in the correctly or Mascherano at all because they were forced on him and he felt slighted. He perhaps also felt a loyalty to the players already there. Strange given he's probably been behind the signings of only a few players here. I guess his expectations were different there, and he was a bit more put out by the arrival of those two. It's easy to say he should have just got on with it and used them well, but I can understand how he was pissed off. What difference does any of that make? He was handed two world class stars and couldn't figure out a way to incorporate them into his (exceedingly shit) team. I can imagine when Tevez was blasting in the goals which saved West Ham once Pardew had been replaced, he was probably sitting at home gaping in astonishment at the little Argie's antics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. We spent the utter minimum we can. Of course it does ffs, are you daft? Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example. You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid. Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context. To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual. Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. We spent the utter minimum we can. Of course it does ffs, are you daft? Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example. You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid. Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context. To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual. Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. We spent the utter minimum we can. Of course it does ffs, are you daft? Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example. You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid. Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context. To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual. Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many. Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads. They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point" Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid. Funnily: Were 8th. So even by your own conditions you are still wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I think the fact Remy is a loanee has quite a lot to do with waiting to see if he's been a bit rapey or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. We spent the utter minimum we can. Of course it does ffs, are you daft? Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example. You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid. Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context. To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual. Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many. Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads. They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap. I'm not really talking about where we are placed in any given week, I'm thinking more about where we should expect to finish come the end of the season. We are talking about the relative merits of our squad compared to the rest of the division. So again, the question is: how many teams outside the top six have a better squad than us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) Terrible post, you've lamely skirted around all the issues I raised with your "point" Here look : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ on the front page there is a table of premier league squads valued by transfer fees paid. Funnily: Were 8th. So even by your own conditions you are still wrong. In that table the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th) is just £72m. The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m. Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest are all very much in similar boats. http://i42.tinypic.com/w811yx.jpg There's a valid argument that 7th to 12th should form a group in the middle of the table distinct from the bottom 8, and Newcastle should be in that group. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Well - ok - but that doesn't do much to contradict my point. We spent the utter minimum we can. Of course it does ffs, are you daft? Let's look at what happened here - You laughed at the suggestion that we probably have the 8th most valuable squad in the league. Not just disagreed with it, you laughed at it. This obviously implies that you think that its far from the truth. It would be a strange thing to laugh at if you believed we had the 9th most valuable squad in the league, for example. You say that "We spent the utter minimum we can." -as if this somehow backs up your point (You think we have far from the 8th most valuable squad in the premier league). Is Arsenal's squad of inherently lower value because they have a low net spend too? No, let's not be stupid. Now squad value is not anywhere near an exact science but there are some factors that we can look at to get an objective view: salary (the big one) and transfermarkt values, even, yes, net spend/feed paid but they have to be looked at within context. To sum up, you're talking utter s**** as usual. Calm Down Petal You get what you pay for pretty much - fair enough there might be the odd anomaly - but generally the rule of thumb is correct. There's generally a reason why a player who costs £0.5m costs that much - and if you think our squad is really that valuable - apart from the obvious clues on the pitch - just take a look at the bench. and before you start talking utter rubbish about what players are ''worth'' against what they cost - think about it for a second. There's a reason they are still playing for one of the least ambitious teams in the country. (I mean this season - our best player has been a loanee ffs, that's mackemesque!) How many squads beyond the top six would you say are better than ours? Everton probably, after that I think you'd struggle to name many. Southampton, Hull and possibly Villa are the only teams above us at the moment that don't have better squads. They all play top 6 teams this weekend so if we put in a performance we'd likely move above them or close the gap. I'm not really talking about where we are placed in any given week, I'm thinking more about where we should expect to finish come the end of the season. We are talking about the relative merits of our squad compared to the rest of the division. So again, the question is: how many teams outside the top six have a better squad than us? The league table as it stands is all we have to judge whether our squad is performing at the level you would expect though. Clearly last season it wasn't. The season before it excelled. This season, so far, we're as you'd expect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudil Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 some stuff and a graph That's all well and good, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I was having with Haris Vuckic so I'm not sure why you quoted what you did. Btw the difference in the amount of spending used to justify describing the amount separating 12 places from Villa (7th) to Palace (20th) as "just 72m" and The amount separating the one place from Villa (7th) to Arsenal (6th) is £89m. as "Clearly the top 6 is a cut above EVERYONE else in the league and the rest" Is "just" 17 million. Seems like you are putting some (unjustified) spin on your argument here, as usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts