Alan Pardew

[Guest firetotheworks]

Of course you weren't. That's who you are, regardless of what actually happens.

[Guest icemanblue]

We were lucky that Norwich were s***. The two are connected, not separate.

 

So now we were lucky against Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Norwich. Sure everytime we get a good result we are just ruled as lucky. We must be second in the form table on sheer luck.

 

In the last of those 3 we were. I wouldn't include Liverpool.

 

We were lucky against Chelsea? In what way?

[Happy Face]

 

Pards gets on the karaoke and gives it the full on Pharrell before every game.

 

 

Working a treat.

[Guest firetotheworks]

We were lucky that Norwich were s***. The two are connected, not separate.

 

So now we were lucky against Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Norwich. Sure everytime we get a good result we are just ruled as lucky. We must be second in the form table on sheer luck.

 

In the last of those 3 we were. I wouldn't include Liverpool.

 

We were lucky against Chelsea? In what way?

 

Do I really have to explain myself again? Can't we just move on? I feel like I'm being bullied.

[Guest icemanblue]

Yeah, that's hilarious. Brilliant stuff.

 

I wasn't aware that you'd explained how we were lucky a first time, to be honest. I'd be very interested to read it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Pards gets on the karaoke and gives it the full on Pharrell before every game.

 

 

Working a treat.

 

 

I can actually imagine him doing that.

[BrettNUFC]

Of course you weren't. That's who you are, regardless of what actually happens.

 

What was actually happening on Saturday? Didn't even think the ground felt that particularly tense compared to what it is normally. Norwich weren't creating anything really to make us worried. We were looking dangerous on the break. Can only really remember one close call but might have just been my angle because Krul seemed very assured as soon as the cross came in and let it go for a goal kick.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Yeah, that's hilarious. Brilliant stuff.

 

I wasn't aware that you'd explained how we were lucky a first time, to be honest. I'd be very interested to read it.

 

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to be funny like. I've explained it on numerous occassions to different people, you included (which is why I feel like you're bringing this up just to try and provoke a reaction from me!)

 

Saying as you've asked though, I'll indulge you. Basically, Chelsea were toothless and I felt like we relied upon that too much. Chelsea being toothless, or Spurs being toothless is luck when they're presented with clear cut opportunity after clear cut opportunity. You could probably say that we rode our luck against Chelsea and relied upon it against Spurs. Relying upon that, or riding your luck over a long period of time isn't a game plan, it's a gamble. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

[arnonel]

Luck is striking a ball that hits a rouge beach ball, and deflects into the net.

 

Our GK having a great day, or their striker not having a great day is not luck. This is the very basis of a football game. 11 players, playing better than another 11 players.

 

Im sorry, but that is just moronic.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Of course you weren't. That's who you are, regardless of what actually happens.

 

What was actually happening on Saturday? Didn't even think the ground felt that particularly tense compared to what it is normally. Norwich weren't creating anything really to make us worried. We were looking dangerous on the break. Can only really remember one close call but might have just been my angle because Krul seemed very assured as soon as the cross came in and let it go for a goal kick.

 

The clue is in your post. Why are we playing on the break...at home...to Norwich? Why are we allowing them the opportunity to use the ball as they see fit. Aye, they're a poor team and will miss chances, but why account for that when you can erradicate it altogether by dominating possession.

 

There was an excuse when it was against better teams, or when we were away. But at home to Norwich? No way.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

 

Would you rather we stopped debating it?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Luck is striking a ball that hits a rouge beach ball, and deflects into the net.

 

Our GK having a great day, or their striker not having a great day is not luck. This is the very basis of a football game. 11 players, playing better than another 11 players.

 

Im sorry, but that is just moronic.

 

This is kind of what I meant.

[themanupstairs]

Football is a game of mistakes. If no one made mistakes, all matches would end in draws.

[Happy Face]

I count luck as bad deflections, shitty refereeing decisions, that sort of thing.  The sort of thing neither team can control.  Never heard actual player/team performances described as lucky/unlucky before.

 

We've been the victim of the former far more than the recipient these past few yerars IYAM.

[Guest firetotheworks]

It's not moronic at all.

 

There is obviously always an element of luck or endeavor or whatever in football. It can't simply be we are better (players, manager, tactics) we will win etc. That's obvious.

 

The point that I'm making is that there are always things that you can do to improve and there are things that can already be done to negate any need to rely upon the opposition striker having a bad day, or our 'keeper having a blinder.

 

There's no way that a manager will set up a team to defend in training and say 'OK, if this happens, Tim saves it or the striker misses' It's not something that can be relied upon because it is completely out of Pardew's control.

 

What is in his control is to get the team retaining possession better, moving more, using attack as defence and defending better. More than anything he can simply get the team to carry on in the way that got them the lead, rather than inviting unnecessary pressure. THAT's moronic.

[BrettNUFC]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

 

Would you rather we stopped debating it?

 

When you're saying we were lucky to win on Saturday because Norwich were shit, then yes. Would like to have seen you reactions throughout the game on Saturday to see how nervous/tense/worried you actually were of Norwich taking a point or winning that game. I thought the general feeling was it was a comfortable enough win but made tougher than it should have been after half time.

[Guest icemanblue]

Yeah, that's hilarious. Brilliant stuff.

 

I wasn't aware that you'd explained how we were lucky a first time, to be honest. I'd be very interested to read it.

 

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to be funny like. I've explained it on numerous occassions to different people, you included (which is why I feel like you're bringing this up just to try and provoke a reaction from me!)

 

Saying as you've asked though, I'll indulge you. Basically, Chelsea were toothless and I felt like we relied upon that too much. Chelsea being toothless, or Spurs being toothless is luck when they're presented with clear cut opportunity after clear cut opportunity. You could probably say that we rode our luck against Chelsea and relied upon it against Spurs. Relying upon that, or riding your luck over a long period of time isn't a game plan, it's a gamble. 

 

I don't understand how we 'relied on Chelsea being toothless'. We restricted them to a minimal amount of chances (which we didn't do against Spurs), whilst creating our own, which we took. Over the course of the game, we matched them in terms of 'good' chances, and kept a clean sheet. You're displaying a biased view of the game.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

 

Would you rather we stopped debating it?

 

When you're saying we were lucky to win on Saturday because Norwich were s***, then yes. Would like to have seen you reactions throughout the game on Saturday to see how nervous/tense/worried you actually were of Norwich taking a point or winning that game. I thought the general feeling was it was a comfortable enough win but made tougher than it should have been after half time.

 

Sorry, are you telling me what I should and shouldn't talk about on here? Just need to clarify that.

 

We were lucky on Saturday because we allowed them to have a chance at getting a draw and relied upon them being shit. If you'd seen me on Saturday you'd have seen someone that was very happy with the first half and then utterly confused as to why we, yet again, sat back and defended our lead for 45 minutes when it's clearly a risk that has stung us in the past and will certainly sting us again under Pardew. 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Yeah, that's hilarious. Brilliant stuff.

 

I wasn't aware that you'd explained how we were lucky a first time, to be honest. I'd be very interested to read it.

 

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to be funny like. I've explained it on numerous occassions to different people, you included (which is why I feel like you're bringing this up just to try and provoke a reaction from me!)

 

Saying as you've asked though, I'll indulge you. Basically, Chelsea were toothless and I felt like we relied upon that too much. Chelsea being toothless, or Spurs being toothless is luck when they're presented with clear cut opportunity after clear cut opportunity. You could probably say that we rode our luck against Chelsea and relied upon it against Spurs. Relying upon that, or riding your luck over a long period of time isn't a game plan, it's a gamble. 

 

I don't understand how we 'relied on Chelsea being toothless'. We restricted them to a minimal amount of chances (which we didn't do against Spurs), whilst creating our own, which we took. Over the course of the game, we matched them in terms of 'good' chances, and kept a clean sheet. You're displaying a biased view of the game.

 

As are you, as is everyone. That's the basis of an opinion-based review of events.

 

 

[BrettNUFC]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

 

Would you rather we stopped debating it?

 

When you're saying we were lucky to win on Saturday because Norwich were s***, then yes. Would like to have seen you reactions throughout the game on Saturday to see how nervous/tense/worried you actually were of Norwich taking a point or winning that game. I thought the general feeling was it was a comfortable enough win but made tougher than it should have been after half time.

 

Sorry, are you telling me what I should and shouldn't talk about on here? Just need to clarify that.

 

We were lucky on Saturday because we allowed them to have a chance at getting a draw and relied upon them being s***. If you'd seen me on Saturday you'd have seen someone that was very happy with the first half and then utterly confused as to why we, yet again, sat back and defended our lead for 45 minutes when it's clearly a risk that has stung us in the past and will certainly sting us again under Pardew. 

 

You can talk about what you, like. Claiming our opposition unlucky after each game is getting a bit tiresome imo however. Feel you aren't giving our team nearly enough praise for their efforts they are putting in and they are being hard done by.

[Guest icemanblue]

Yeah, that's hilarious. Brilliant stuff.

 

I wasn't aware that you'd explained how we were lucky a first time, to be honest. I'd be very interested to read it.

 

Thanks, but I wasn't trying to be funny like. I've explained it on numerous occassions to different people, you included (which is why I feel like you're bringing this up just to try and provoke a reaction from me!)

 

Saying as you've asked though, I'll indulge you. Basically, Chelsea were toothless and I felt like we relied upon that too much. Chelsea being toothless, or Spurs being toothless is luck when they're presented with clear cut opportunity after clear cut opportunity. You could probably say that we rode our luck against Chelsea and relied upon it against Spurs. Relying upon that, or riding your luck over a long period of time isn't a game plan, it's a gamble. 

 

I don't understand how we 'relied on Chelsea being toothless'. We restricted them to a minimal amount of chances (which we didn't do against Spurs), whilst creating our own, which we took. Over the course of the game, we matched them in terms of 'good' chances, and kept a clean sheet. You're displaying a biased view of the game.

 

As are you, as is everyone. That's the basis of an opinion-based review of events.

 

 

 

I'd say most other people's opinions are based on what they actually saw. But, thems the breaks.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Krul made loads of saves against Spurs, that's not luck either. Anyway, this is a crazy debate. Every victory in sport is in some way down to your opponent either being worse or not playing to their potential in some way.

 

Would you rather we stopped debating it?

 

When you're saying we were lucky to win on Saturday because Norwich were s***, then yes. Would like to have seen you reactions throughout the game on Saturday to see how nervous/tense/worried you actually were of Norwich taking a point or winning that game. I thought the general feeling was it was a comfortable enough win but made tougher than it should have been after half time.

 

Sorry, are you telling me what I should and shouldn't talk about on here? Just need to clarify that.

 

We were lucky on Saturday because we allowed them to have a chance at getting a draw and relied upon them being s***. If you'd seen me on Saturday you'd have seen someone that was very happy with the first half and then utterly confused as to why we, yet again, sat back and defended our lead for 45 minutes when it's clearly a risk that has stung us in the past and will certainly sting us again under Pardew. 

 

You can talk about what you, like. Claiming our opposition unlucky after each game is getting a bit tiresome imo however. Feel you aren't giving our team nearly enough praise for their efforts they are putting in and they are being hard done by.

 

You could always leave the forum. There are far more people that disagree with you than agree with you, so if you find those views tiresome then you're perhaps somewhere near to how a lot of us feel about your incessant insistance upon giving praise all of the time when most people see it another way entirely and find your views tiresome.

 

Like I've said on countless occassions. You manipulate a fair bit of what people say in order to give your views more credence. I've never said that our opposition are unlucky, I've said that we have relied upon luck.

 

 

[BrettNUFC]

On saturday if we were lucky to take 3 points, surely that means Norwich were unlucky to have 0 points, right?

[Interpolic]

I'd say that deliberately posing no attacking threat for long periods of a game, game after game, and therefore relying on a lack of incisiveness from the opposition (Chelsea, Norwich) or incredible profilgacy from the opposition and a world-class goalkeeping performance (Spurs) is an approach that relies on having a certain amount of "rub of the green" and is a risky strategy that can and will come unstuck when things aren't going so well.  It's working for us at the moment, but I do find it perplexing that we're still taking this all-or-nothing approach to our attacking play during games.  All 3 victories have been inclusive of stretches of 45 minutes plus where we weren't even attempting to build meaningful attacks of our own. 

 

As stated in the last few days, I knew what would happen second half against Norwich, as would most people, as that's what we do every time we go into half time in a winning position.  Playing in a similar way 2nd half to what we had 1st wouldn't have involved us leaving all sorts of gaps at the back or anything of the sort, it's the fact that sitting back and giving the opposition the entire initiative is far more risky in terms of potentially letting a game slip that riles people up and it's what people want to see the end of.  It's frustrating because we played some lovely stuff 1st half and have done better in this respect all season, but this is another pattern of our play that needs to be addressed.