Jump to content

Newcastle Utd 0 - 0 West Ham Utd - 24/08/13 - post-match reaction from page 41


Neil

Recommended Posts

So in other words, you have no answer. Good enough reason to keep Pards in a job.

 

I gave you an answer. Why doesn't Pardew go back to a 433 is a stupid, irrelevant question. Just because a system gave us success in a couple of games 18 months ago doesn't mean it will now.

 

They wont back Pardew or sack him - it doesn't mean I can't afford myself some perspective rather than getting myself hysterical with every word he says like a lot of posters on here.

 

The problems come from Ashley downwards - if Pardew wasn't suitable for the clubs ambition - or lack of - why is he in a job? (the algorithm can get stuck in a loop here if you aren't careful)

 

IMO it's not stupid or irrelevant to ask why something which brought success to a largely similar team or set of players, isn't being tried again. At home, and against teams like West Ham, we shouldn't be setting up to defend for f***'s sake. God forbid we go toe to toe against the colossus that is James Collins. We easily had the better individuals than they did. Playing with fear the way we did is criminal.

 

The devil is in the detail. Dropped points add up, and could see us f***ed by the end of the season. I agree that the problem starts with Ashley, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise Pardew just because we know he isn't getting sacked. If we're stuck with him, we might as well have the hope that he could see what is glaringly obvious, and try to remedy our situation as far as winning those "winnable" games.

 

West Ham have a better squad than us - a better strike force & a better defence for a start & I suppose you probably think Allardyce is a better manager. I'd argue they are stronger in the centre of midfield too & from set pieces.

 

Is it really that easily winnable? Tactically - can you explain why a 433 would work against West Ham's system and which players you would choose to fill what roles?

 

It just seems like guesswork with no real foundation otherwise.

 

Allardyce better than Pardew? Absolutely. Would I want him here? f*** that. But he's definitely the better manager with a better record in the top flight.

 

Why play 433? A London club traveling up to the NE should be coming here cacking their tidy whites at the thought of a free-roaming Ben Arfa, and a lethal Cisse. Against West Ham in particular, who have two big center halves, it's f***ing pointless to play 442 when we have no real wide players who can cross, and no big target men who can compete physically with them. As expected, they easily swatted away every half arse cross that went into the box.

 

What should we have done in that case? Tried to play around them.

 

Ben Arfa in the "hole" in a free role behind Cisse and Gouffran. Pulling defenders out of position, and keeping their best players Diame and Noble busy in their own half.

 

3 in midfield who can play it simple and move the ball to the front 3 as quick as possible. Anita, Sissoko and Marveaux.

 

I'm not a qualified premier league manager, but IMO, the above isn't beyond the realms of imagination. It uses our players to their strengths, and allows us to take our game to a team we should be beating at SJP 8 times out of 10.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe they need to sign a striker...

 

There's a pretty good one on the books already but we won't play to his strengths. It's all well and good asking for new players but if you're not using the players you already have effectively, maybe you might not use the new players properly either?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe they need to sign a striker...

 

Yep - the intelligentsia really are on forum boards....

 

Indeed.

 

Anyone of them could take to the dugout and do a better job than Pardew because his job is a piece of p*ss.

 

Answer me this then if you would?

 

Cisse scored a variety of goals in his first few months at the club (wonder goals, tap-ins, headers, etc.), coinciding with us playing a straight forward 433 where by he had a lot of support in high areas of the pitch. What is so difficult about going back to that simple basic formation which brought us so much relative success in that season run-in?

 

Now Cisse is being branded "s***" and "not very good is he", while he gets shafted up front on his own, and expected to pull miracles out of his arse. What has changed? Was Ba on the left the KEY to the productive 433? Ryan Taylor's injuries?

 

How difficult is it for a manager to revert back to the formation (and in turn the game plan and mindset) that brought him and the club some semblance of relative success? Seems simple in my mind, but obviously you know different. Please enlighten me.

 

Why don't you apply for the job? Cisse hasn't had a shot on target in four games - Alan Pardew isn't shooting on his behalf - that sounds pretty shit to me.

 

You pick tactics and systems to suit the game - if we'd spent some money maybe people could worry about us but we haven't spent a single penny & we're devoid of ideas and inspiration.

 

Besides, a great man once said players win matches not tactics, which to an extent is true - but he only had the two european cups to polish...

 

If the manager/tactics matter so little why don't we just do without one and save the wages?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Haris Vuckic

So in other words, you have no answer. Good enough reason to keep Pards in a job.

 

I gave you an answer. Why doesn't Pardew go back to a 433 is a stupid, irrelevant question. Just because a system gave us success in a couple of games 18 months ago doesn't mean it will now.

 

They wont back Pardew or sack him - it doesn't mean I can't afford myself some perspective rather than getting myself hysterical with every word he says like a lot of posters on here.

 

The problems come from Ashley downwards - if Pardew wasn't suitable for the clubs ambition - or lack of - why is he in a job? (the algorithm can get stuck in a loop here if you aren't careful)

 

IMO it's not stupid or irrelevant to ask why something which brought success to a largely similar team or set of players, isn't being tried again. At home, and against teams like West Ham, we shouldn't be setting up to defend for f***'s sake. God forbid we go toe to toe against the colossus that is James Collins. We easily had the better individuals than they did. Playing with fear the way we did is criminal.

 

The devil is in the detail. Dropped points add up, and could see us f***ed by the end of the season. I agree that the problem starts with Ashley, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise Pardew just because we know he isn't getting sacked. If we're stuck with him, we might as well have the hope that he could see what is glaringly obvious, and try to remedy our situation as far as winning those "winnable" games.

 

West Ham have a better squad than us - a better strike force & a better defence for a start & I suppose you probably think Allardyce is a better manager. I'd argue they are stronger in the centre of midfield too & from set pieces.

 

Is it really that easily winnable? Tactically - can you explain why a 433 would work against West Ham's system and which players you would choose to fill what roles?

 

It just seems like guesswork with no real foundation otherwise.

 

Allardyce better than Pardew? Absolutely. Would I want him here? f*** that. But he's definitely the better manager with a better record in the top flight.

 

Why play 433? A London club traveling up to the NE should be coming here cacking their tidy whites at the thought of a free-roaming Ben Arfa, and a lethal Cisse. Against West Ham in particular, who have two big center halves, it's f***ing pointless to play 442 when we have no real wide players who can cross, and no big target men who can compete physically with them. As expected, they easily swatted away every half arse cross that went into the box.

 

What should we have done in that case? Tried to play around them.

 

Ben Arfa in the "hole" in a free role behind Cisse and Gouffran. Pulling defenders out of position, and keeping their best players Diame and Noble busy in their own half.

 

3 in midfield who can play it simple and move the ball to the front 3 as quick as possible. Anita, Sissoko and Marveaux.

 

I'm not a qualified premier league manager, but IMO, the above isn't beyond the realms of imagination. It uses our players to their strengths, and allows us to take our game to a team we should be beating at SJP 8 times out of 10.

 

 

 

Our 433 was a success when used in counter attacking - exploiting home teams attacks. So I can only take from this that you looked at the results and not how they happened.

 

West Ham are solid, seldom attacked & played two rows of four in their own half most of the time i.e it would've been as fruitless as 4231.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't HAVE to be used in a counter attacking system though. It could be tried as an attacking system in and of itself, by getting a player either side of Cisse to play passes into him to hit at goal. It's worth giving it a go isn't it? Considering we've been awful for ages?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mixture of personnel and formation played right into West Ham's hands, that is undeniable. With Ben Arfa and Marveaux on the wings, we were very narrow, which didn't suit our strikers, particularly Cisse, and this was compounded by only having one full back on his natural foot. This mightn't have been so bad if we had a really good link man up top with plenty of forward movement but we had Shola, who wasted countless opportunities with crap control, poor decision-making and generally playing on his heels.

 

With our current situation, the only way for us to go is 4-2-3-1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, you have no answer. Good enough reason to keep Pards in a job.

 

I gave you an answer. Why doesn't Pardew go back to a 433 is a stupid, irrelevant question. Just because a system gave us success in a couple of games 18 months ago doesn't mean it will now.

 

They wont back Pardew or sack him - it doesn't mean I can't afford myself some perspective rather than getting myself hysterical with every word he says like a lot of posters on here.

 

The problems come from Ashley downwards - if Pardew wasn't suitable for the clubs ambition - or lack of - why is he in a job? (the algorithm can get stuck in a loop here if you aren't careful)

 

IMO it's not stupid or irrelevant to ask why something which brought success to a largely similar team or set of players, isn't being tried again. At home, and against teams like West Ham, we shouldn't be setting up to defend for f***'s sake. God forbid we go toe to toe against the colossus that is James Collins. We easily had the better individuals than they did. Playing with fear the way we did is criminal.

 

The devil is in the detail. Dropped points add up, and could see us f***ed by the end of the season. I agree that the problem starts with Ashley, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticise Pardew just because we know he isn't getting sacked. If we're stuck with him, we might as well have the hope that he could see what is glaringly obvious, and try to remedy our situation as far as winning those "winnable" games.

 

West Ham have a better squad than us - a better strike force & a better defence for a start & I suppose you probably think Allardyce is a better manager. I'd argue they are stronger in the centre of midfield too & from set pieces.

 

Is it really that easily winnable? Tactically - can you explain why a 433 would work against West Ham's system and which players you would choose to fill what roles?

 

It just seems like guesswork with no real foundation otherwise.

 

Allardyce better than Pardew? Absolutely. Would I want him here? f*** that. But he's definitely the better manager with a better record in the top flight.

 

Why play 433? A London club traveling up to the NE should be coming here cacking their tidy whites at the thought of a free-roaming Ben Arfa, and a lethal Cisse. Against West Ham in particular, who have two big center halves, it's f***ing pointless to play 442 when we have no real wide players who can cross, and no big target men who can compete physically with them. As expected, they easily swatted away every half arse cross that went into the box.

 

What should we have done in that case? Tried to play around them.

 

Ben Arfa in the "hole" in a free role behind Cisse and Gouffran. Pulling defenders out of position, and keeping their best players Diame and Noble busy in their own half.

 

3 in midfield who can play it simple and move the ball to the front 3 as quick as possible. Anita, Sissoko and Marveaux.

 

I'm not a qualified premier league manager, but IMO, the above isn't beyond the realms of imagination. It uses our players to their strengths, and allows us to take our game to a team we should be beating at SJP 8 times out of 10.

 

 

 

Our 433 was a success when used in counter attacking - exploiting home teams attacks. So I can only take from this that you looked at the results and not how they happened.

 

West Ham are solid, seldom attacked & played two rows of four in their own half most of the time i.e it would've been as fruitless as 4231.

 

The performance against Stoke (h) in that shape was the benchmark for the entire season, for me, and that was far from a counter-attacking approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the players warm up before yesterday's game. Our pre-match warm up routines are exactly the same as last season. I only noticed Ben Arfa and Sammy Ameobi practising shooting. Both were very hit and miss. A lot of the time the ball went over the bar. Why weren't Marveaux, Cissé, Shola and Sissoko (never mind the subs) practising their shooting? I'd have the players practising shooting all week as 14 shots and 0 on target is a disgrace for the home team against West Ham.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said on here for a long time that I don't believe we do any shooting or finishing practice whatsoever, the regression across the board in these areas is clear.

 

When your managers remit is 'keep it tight, the opposition can hurt us' it's hardly surprising.  A nil:nil score line is what Pardew dreams of before kick off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said on here for a long time that I don't believe we do any shooting or finishing practice whatsoever, the regression across the board in these areas is clear.

 

its hard to fit in when you're spending the whole week practicing crossing the ball and focussing on set pieces and corners

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said on here for a long time that I don't believe we do any shooting or finishing practice whatsoever, the regression across the board in these areas is clear.

 

Its not just the level of finishing, none of those shots (besides Gouffran's) were from good positions anyway, and more than half of those 14 shots were probably silly punts from 40 yards out by Ben Arfa. I fully expect that record to be broken during the course of this season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching this back, it's really infuriating that Gouffran didn't start. You could see we were really missing a striker that could receive the ball and keep momentum going, so many attacks were either slowed down or failed completely due to bad play from Cisse and Shola.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corner to Colo is going to be the new back post to Williamson after it worked once in pre season

I think we should just do what Cardiff do. Put loads of players near the goal and them put an inswinging corner into the six yard box. The problem is our lack of decent corner takers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...