Alan Pardew

[Ste]

I think around the time of Tevez and Mascherano at West Ham, South American players had struggled to make much of an impact in the Premiership. I can kind of see Pardew's thinking, but the alternative to Mascherano at the time was Mullins, and I think it was Zamora and Harewood as the options up top. Perhaps Pardew didn't know much about them when they first came in, though they had been making a name for themselves and were quite sought after.

[NG32]

I think around the time of Tevez and Mascherano at West Ham, South American players had struggled to make much of an impact in the Premiership. I can kind of see Pardew's thinking, but the alternative to Mascherano at the time was Mullins, and I think it was Zamora and Harewood as the options up top. Perhaps Pardew didn't know much about them when they first came in, though they had been making a name for themselves and were quite sought after.

 

Nobby Solano?

[Ste]

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Tevez kept them up though so I'm not sure there's a good reason not to play him.

 

 

[Ste]

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.

[Ste]

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.

[thomas]

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.

[Spudil]

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

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. 

[Spudil]

 

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

 

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.

 

Would explain the 9 game winless streak.

[Spudil]

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.

[BottledDog]

http://lonerwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drama-queen.png

[Guest icemanblue]

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?

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Say nothing.

 

EDIT - This wasn't about me.

[Spudil]

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. 

[Disco]

 

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.

[Guest icemanblue]

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.

[Ste]

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.

[Spudil]

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"?

 

[Andymc1]

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.

[TRon]

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.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

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!)

[TRon]

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.