Tottenham 0 - 1 Newcastle United - 10/11/13 - Post-match reaction from page 43

[Disco]

I mean, if we got thrashed 4-0, i wouldn't be saying 'well we are in for a relegation battle' or 'another s*** season ahead'. I would have taken it on the chin and looked at more reasonable games against Norwich and West Brom. We got 6 points which was excellent but they are bonus points because you expect nothing and chances are you could be on the end of a battering, but we weren't.

 

Was meant to say 4 but i mean people criticise Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Spurs for not turning up against us, but it think that's far too much of coincidence. I think we've made them look average or poor. That’s' credit to us. Gerrard/Suarez, Dzeko/Navas, Torres/Mata, Soldado/Eriksen, there's 8 top players there who hardly did a thing against us for what they are actually capable of doing. Why do we look at these and just say they never turned up when we should be crediting our own players for nullifying their threat to a certain degree where they haven't performed to the best of their ability. We are too quick to play down the opposition rather than build our own team up.

 

You don't help yourself like.

 

Not quite sure why those three have been bolded?

 

If hardly did a thing = goal, assist x 2, goal respectively I'd hate to see what players who put in average performance do.

 

'Hardly did a thing for what they are actually capable of'....Gerrard/Suarez tore Fulham to bits at the weekend and Suarez scored a hatrick prior to playing us, was up agaisnt 10 men agaisnt us for 45 minutes and he got an assist, it was hardly the performance from Suarez that we all know, why was this? Any credit to any of our players for this? Or did he just not really fancy it?

 

I honestly can't remember a single thing Dzeko did in the 90 minutes, just remember him scoring a goal in extra time once his side took the lead.

 

Perhaps they didn't play a their best ever game but to say they hardly did a thing when all 3 had a direct impact on the result is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

 

I've said repeatedly I thought we've done alright/well in all our recent games too but obviously you're incapable of understanding that because you're too busy twisting the truth to fit to fit your own weird agenda where everyone is out to get you but that's irrelevant in this instance.

 

We rode our luck against Spurs. But we deservedly won against Chelsea and deserved our point against L'pool. Niether L'pool or Chelsea carved us open and probably had 4 clear-cut chances between them, if that.

 

A good Alan Pardew side is going to be largely cautious, solid and reliant on "moments of magic".

 

Will he do the same against Norwich or will he be brave and go for it against an out of form team we should beat though?

[Guest firetotheworks]

'Relying on the oppositions toothlessness' is a bit of a strange way of putting it though I think. I mean, obviously if Chelsea et al play to their potential they will beat us, that's just an unavoidable fact. In reality though, they didn't and/or we resisted them.

 

The reality is also that we're not playing to our potential by relying upon it. You can't plan and account for Chelsea being shit in front of goal and Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves. Therefore the game plan is either isn't sustainable or needs to be tweaked to reduce their chances either through better defending or by being a bigger or more prolonged threat ourselves. We can do it, but it needs to be for longer periods than 15 minutes or even just 1 half.

 

I believe that we have a very good team and that it can be utilised in a better way than it is at the moment, even against the best teams in the league. That does not in any way imply that I want us to or expect us to dominate teams. It means that I want us to rely upon ourselves to win, rather than doing it for a bit and then stopping and relying on the opposition to lose.

[Incognito]

Brett, you're inventing an extreme view in order to make your point with a longer polarity. No one but no one thinks that we should be controlling games against the likes of Chelsea and Spurs. I imagine that quite a few (myself included) think that we should be competing more than we are and relying more on our own football, than the toothlessness of whoever we're playing on the day. Some are also saying that the way that we've played in the last few games has worked, but is unsustainable.

 

Again, there's a middle ground that you're ignoring in order to make your point seem more realistic and imply that any suggestion otherwise is the stuff of dreams.

 

I have no complaints in the slightest playing defend and counter against the top 6. You don't expect to take anything off them especially away from home and if you manage to grab bonus points off them through negative tactics even if you take a hammering somewhere along the line, i'm fine with that. The next two games are bigger than what Chelsea/Spurs were, we've come out with massive massive credit in those games but we now need to back it up. Be very interesting to see how people react if Pardew and the players do indeed back up their performances.

 

You're exaggerating. We haven't come out of it with massive credit at all. Chelsea's poor performance was discussed at great length and you'd be hard pushed to find a review of the Spurs match that doesn't have an entire section on Krul. We won both games and that's great, but that doesn't mean that we've automatically played well, or won those games in anything like a sustainable way.

 

I'm not being all sad face about it, because you have to find happiness in the victories otherwise you'd go crazy, but how you can think relying upon toothlessness or an amazing performance from your keeper is a solid and sustainable way to get results is beyond me.

 

You're wasting your time trying to teach him mate.

 

The only time our performance comes into the equation with him is if we lose. (See Sunderland)

[BrettNUFC]

I mean, if we got thrashed 4-0, i wouldn't be saying 'well we are in for a relegation battle' or 'another s*** season ahead'. I would have taken it on the chin and looked at more reasonable games against Norwich and West Brom. We got 6 points which was excellent but they are bonus points because you expect nothing and chances are you could be on the end of a battering, but we weren't.

 

Was meant to say 4 but i mean people criticise Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Spurs for not turning up against us, but it think that's far too much of coincidence. I think we've made them look average or poor. That’s' credit to us. Gerrard/Suarez, Dzeko/Navas, Torres/Mata, Soldado/Eriksen, there's 8 top players there who hardly did a thing against us for what they are actually capable of doing. Why do we look at these and just say they never turned up when we should be crediting our own players for nullifying their threat to a certain degree where they haven't performed to the best of their ability. We are too quick to play down the opposition rather than build our own team up.

 

You don't help yourself like.

 

Not quite sure why those three have been bolded?

 

If hardly did a thing = goal, assist x 2, goal respectively I'd hate to see what players who put in average performance do.

 

'Hardly did a thing for what they are actually capable of'....Gerrard/Suarez tore Fulham to bits at the weekend and Suarez scored a hatrick prior to playing us, was up agaisnt 10 men agaisnt us for 45 minutes and he got an assist, it was hardly the performance from Suarez that we all know, why was this? Any credit to any of our players for this? Or did he just not really fancy it?

 

I honestly can't remember a single thing Dzeko did in the 90 minutes, just remember him scoring a goal in extra time once his side took the lead.

 

Perhaps they didn't play a their best ever game but to say they hardly did a thing when all 3 had a direct impact on the result is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

 

I've said repeatedly I thought we've done alright/well in all our recent games too but obviously you're incapable of understanding that because you're too busy twisting the truth to fit to fit your own weird agenda where everyone is out to get you but that's irrelevant in this instance.

 

And that's because of our players, right? We enforced that. It's not just one top player not playing excellent, it's a collective bunch over numerous games. This is my point, our players stopped them from playing their best, it's too much of a coincidence these excellent players all come up agaisnt us and struggle in general.

[Disco]

I mean, if we got thrashed 4-0, i wouldn't be saying 'well we are in for a relegation battle' or 'another s*** season ahead'. I would have taken it on the chin and looked at more reasonable games against Norwich and West Brom. We got 6 points which was excellent but they are bonus points because you expect nothing and chances are you could be on the end of a battering, but we weren't.

 

Was meant to say 4 but i mean people criticise Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Spurs for not turning up against us, but it think that's far too much of coincidence. I think we've made them look average or poor. That’s' credit to us. Gerrard/Suarez, Dzeko/Navas, Torres/Mata, Soldado/Eriksen, there's 8 top players there who hardly did a thing against us for what they are actually capable of doing. Why do we look at these and just say they never turned up when we should be crediting our own players for nullifying their threat to a certain degree where they haven't performed to the best of their ability. We are too quick to play down the opposition rather than build our own team up.

 

You don't help yourself like.

 

Not quite sure why those three have been bolded?

 

If hardly did a thing = goal, assist x 2, goal respectively I'd hate to see what players who put in average performance do.

 

'Hardly did a thing for what they are actually capable of'....Gerrard/Suarez tore Fulham to bits at the weekend and Suarez scored a hatrick prior to playing us, was up agaisnt 10 men agaisnt us for 45 minutes and he got an assist, it was hardly the performance from Suarez that we all know, why was this? Any credit to any of our players for this? Or did he just not really fancy it?

 

I honestly can't remember a single thing Dzeko did in the 90 minutes, just remember him scoring a goal in extra time once his side took the lead.

 

Perhaps they didn't play a their best ever game but to say they hardly did a thing when all 3 had a direct impact on the result is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

 

I've said repeatedly I thought we've done alright/well in all our recent games too but obviously you're incapable of understanding that because you're too busy twisting the truth to fit to fit your own weird agenda where everyone is out to get you but that's irrelevant in this instance.

 

And that's because of our players, right? We enforced that. It's not just one top player not playing excellent, it's a collective bunch over numerous games. This is my point, our players stopped them from playing their best, it's too much of a coincidence these excellent players all come up agaisnt us and struggle in general.

 

I thought Suarez and Gerrard both had good games against us whilst our players still played well. This is possible, it doesn't have to all out one or the other like you're trying to make out.

[Skirge]

When we lose we are turbo shit when we win we are lucky, takes 11 players & maybe 3 subs to win a match, yeah we were under mass pressure but we coped and kept them out. Doesn't matter if Krul made 14 saves or if Spurs shooting was shit, we did what we had to get the result.

[BrettNUFC]

Brett, you're inventing an extreme view in order to make your point with a longer polarity. No one but no one thinks that we should be controlling games against the likes of Chelsea and Spurs. I imagine that quite a few (myself included) think that we should be competing more than we are and relying more on our own football, than the toothlessness of whoever we're playing on the day. Some are also saying that the way that we've played in the last few games has worked, but is unsustainable.

 

Again, there's a middle ground that you're ignoring in order to make your point seem more realistic and imply that any suggestion otherwise is the stuff of dreams.

 

I have no complaints in the slightest playing defend and counter against the top 6. You don't expect to take anything off them especially away from home and if you manage to grab bonus points off them through negative tactics even if you take a hammering somewhere along the line, i'm fine with that. The next two games are bigger than what Chelsea/Spurs were, we've come out with massive massive credit in those games but we now need to back it up. Be very interesting to see how people react if Pardew and the players do indeed back up their performances.

 

You're exaggerating. We haven't come out of it with massive credit at all. Chelsea's poor performance was discussed at great length and you'd be hard pushed to find a review of the Spurs match that doesn't have an entire section on Krul. We won both games and that's great, but that doesn't mean that we've automatically played well, or won those games in anything like a sustainable way.

 

I'm not being all sad face about it, because you have to find happiness in the victories otherwise you'd go crazy, but how you can think relying upon toothlessness or an amazing performance from your keeper is a solid and sustainable way to get results is beyond me.

 

You're wasting your time trying to teach him mate.

 

The only time our performance comes into the equation with him is if we lose. (See Sunderland)

 

Yes but people said we deserved to lose because we conceded more then them. Same for Spurs? I don't agree with that, i think we were good enough for the draw against Sunderland, i thought we earned our point against Liverpool, deserved our 3 against Chelsea but thought Spurs were unlucky not to get anything yesterday and deserved a draw. Sometimes you get the luck in football, sometimes you don't. Not always a case of well you conceded more than the opposition therefore you deserve to lose.

[Guest firetotheworks]

There's always going to be a degree of 'relying on the oppositions toothlesness' when we are playing teams from the top 6. Until we get some investment, we are going to get beat off any of these teams if they play on top of their game. Sustainability isn't something we can really expect against the likes of Chelsea and Spurs.

 

So we rode our luck at times, this doesn't take away from the fact that we had a clear gameplan in both games and we've come away with two big wins. Unsurprising to see people clinging on to the negativity where possible like.

 

It's also unsurprising to see the same people claim that making any point that doesn't correlate with the fact that we won is the same as being negative.

 

I'm chuffed that we won yesterday and there are a lot of positives to take. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to pipe up when people suggest that anyone is p*ssed off because we're not dominating the likes of Chelsea and Spurs, when the only point that's been made is our set up heavily relied upon the opposition's toothlessness and an amazing performance from Krul. The ends don't always entirely justify the means.

 

It is incredibly negative though

 

We've just beaten two teams who could be battling it out for the title and you're harping on about it being unsustainable. Of course it's unsustainable. There is no tactic on earth that would lead to us playing a 'sustainable' brand of football against these teams.

 

Wrong, I was correcting Brett who claimed that people were saying that we should be dominating Spurs and Chelsea. No one had said that, some had said that relying upon the opposition to be toothless is unsustainable, which it is. That doesn't mean that I'm any less happy with the win, I can just also see that we've been lucky.

 

FWIW, I think that we have the players to compete with those teams that doesn't involve hanging on for dear life for upto entire halves at a time. We just need to do what we do well, more often. It's not complicated.

[BrettNUFC]

I mean, if we got thrashed 4-0, i wouldn't be saying 'well we are in for a relegation battle' or 'another s*** season ahead'. I would have taken it on the chin and looked at more reasonable games against Norwich and West Brom. We got 6 points which was excellent but they are bonus points because you expect nothing and chances are you could be on the end of a battering, but we weren't.

 

Was meant to say 4 but i mean people criticise Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Spurs for not turning up against us, but it think that's far too much of coincidence. I think we've made them look average or poor. That’s' credit to us. Gerrard/Suarez, Dzeko/Navas, Torres/Mata, Soldado/Eriksen, there's 8 top players there who hardly did a thing against us for what they are actually capable of doing. Why do we look at these and just say they never turned up when we should be crediting our own players for nullifying their threat to a certain degree where they haven't performed to the best of their ability. We are too quick to play down the opposition rather than build our own team up.

 

You don't help yourself like.

 

Not quite sure why those three have been bolded?

 

If hardly did a thing = goal, assist x 2, goal respectively I'd hate to see what players who put in average performance do.

 

'Hardly did a thing for what they are actually capable of'....Gerrard/Suarez tore Fulham to bits at the weekend and Suarez scored a hatrick prior to playing us, was up agaisnt 10 men agaisnt us for 45 minutes and he got an assist, it was hardly the performance from Suarez that we all know, why was this? Any credit to any of our players for this? Or did he just not really fancy it?

 

I honestly can't remember a single thing Dzeko did in the 90 minutes, just remember him scoring a goal in extra time once his side took the lead.

 

Perhaps they didn't play a their best ever game but to say they hardly did a thing when all 3 had a direct impact on the result is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

 

I've said repeatedly I thought we've done alright/well in all our recent games too but obviously you're incapable of understanding that because you're too busy twisting the truth to fit to fit your own weird agenda where everyone is out to get you but that's irrelevant in this instance.

 

And that's because of our players, right? We enforced that. It's not just one top player not playing excellent, it's a collective bunch over numerous games. This is my point, our players stopped them from playing their best, it's too much of a coincidence these excellent players all come up agaisnt us and struggle in general.

 

I thought Suarez and Gerrard both had good games against us whilst our players still played well. This is possible, it doesn't have to all out one or the other like you're trying to make out.

 

On the whole their sides were average/poor and players mentioned on the driving force behind them, our players stopped them from playing their best. Clean sheets in normal time against City/Chelsea/Spurs, that's some feat.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

[The College Dropout]

We rode our luck against Spurs. But we deservedly won against Chelsea and deserved our point against L'pool. Niether L'pool or Chelsea carved us open and probably had 4 clear-cut chances between them, if that.

 

A good Alan Pardew side is going to be largely cautious, solid and reliant on "moments of magic".

 

Actually agree with this.

 

Not really sure where people get this notion of us 'building' on these type of performances though. 7 points of Pool, Chelsea and Spurs is fantastic and Pardew will see noe reason to stylistically change our approach on the back of that. We will struggle against sides who play it tight but that's what you get with Pardew. If things are going well, we'll out battle the better sides and hopefully get a goal and a result as space opens up as they try to play around us but we won't be the type of team who can break down teams with clever movement and passing.

Agree with your last point. We'll take the confidence in attack. Remy, Cabaye, Gouff especially will feel they can make it count in the final third but that's it. But passing moves in the final 3rd? That'll remain rare

[Guest firetotheworks]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

 

I'm not suggesting an alternative that is, I'm saying that hanging on for dear life isn't. I'm suggesting that there's one sure fire way to do it, I'm suggesting that there's a better way of doing it than we are now.

 

First half against Spurs was a very good way to do it, and a way that I thought would be a good idea after seeing them recently. Second half we hung on for dear life and defended our lead. Why? What happens at half time?

[Benwell Lad]

Taking nothing away from Timmy's performance and world class saves but I really think that Mbiwa's save on the line was the most incredible of all.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

 

I'm not suggesting an alternative that is, I'm saying that hanging on for dear life isn't. I'm suggesting that there's one sure fire way to do it, I'm suggesting that there's a better way of doing it than we are now.

 

First half against Spurs was a very good way to do it, and a way that I thought would be a good idea after seeing them recently. Second half we hung on for dear life and defended our lead. Why? What happens at half time?

 

Oh right, well I doubt 'hanging on for dear life' is our game plan, they just desperately needed a goal, have good players, and we gave the ball away a bit too easily.

[BrettNUFC]

We outplayed Chelsea in the second half, we outplayed Spurs in the first half. It's a shame for KI to see Newcastle being pinned back in the other half of them two games because if he was manager he would have us in the game for the 90 minutes and not allowing Chelsea/Spurs to dominate periods of the game, it's that simple.

 

Can just imagine him being a Chelsea supporter criticising Di Matteo winning the champions league because his football wasn't sustainable. As much as i hate watching it as a neutral as it spoils the game of football, if your luck is in, it can work an absolute treat. And it worked an absolute treat for us on this occasion and i'd do it all over again if we were playing them next week.

[mrmojorisin75]

if we regularly beat better sides, they wouldn't be fucking better than us would they?

[Lotus]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

 

I'm not suggesting an alternative that is, I'm saying that hanging on for dear life isn't. I'm suggesting that there's one sure fire way to do it, I'm suggesting that there's a better way of doing it than we are now.

 

First half against Spurs was a very good way to do it, and a way that I thought would be a good idea after seeing them recently. Second half we hung on for dear life and defended our lead. Why? What happens at half time?

 

We can only play well for 45 minutes as a rule.

[The College Dropout]

I mean, if we got thrashed 4-0, i wouldn't be saying 'well we are in for a relegation battle' or 'another s*** season ahead'. I would have taken it on the chin and looked at more reasonable games against Norwich and West Brom. We got 6 points which was excellent but they are bonus points because you expect nothing and chances are you could be on the end of a battering, but we weren't.

 

Was meant to say 4 but i mean people criticise Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Spurs for not turning up against us, but it think that's far too much of coincidence. I think we've made them look average or poor. That’s' credit to us. Gerrard/Suarez, Dzeko/Navas, Torres/Mata, Soldado/Eriksen, there's 8 top players there who hardly did a thing against us for what they are actually capable of doing. Why do we look at these and just say they never turned up when we should be crediting our own players for nullifying their threat to a certain degree where they haven't performed to the best of their ability. We are too quick to play down the opposition rather than build our own team up.

 

You don't help yourself like.

 

Not quite sure why those three have been bolded?

 

If hardly did a thing = goal, assist x 2, goal respectively I'd hate to see what players who put in average performance do.

 

'Hardly did a thing for what they are actually capable of'....Gerrard/Suarez tore Fulham to bits at the weekend and Suarez scored a hatrick prior to playing us, was up agaisnt 10 men agaisnt us for 45 minutes and he got an assist, it was hardly the performance from Suarez that we all know, why was this? Any credit to any of our players for this? Or did he just not really fancy it?

 

I honestly can't remember a single thing Dzeko did in the 90 minutes, just remember him scoring a goal in extra time once his side took the lead.

 

Perhaps they didn't play a their best ever game but to say they hardly did a thing when all 3 had a direct impact on the result is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

 

I've said repeatedly I thought we've done alright/well in all our recent games too but obviously you're incapable of understanding that because you're too busy twisting the truth to fit to fit your own weird agenda where everyone is out to get you but that's irrelevant in this instance.

 

We rode our luck against Spurs. But we deservedly won against Chelsea and deserved our point against L'pool. Niether L'pool or Chelsea carved us open and probably had 4 clear-cut chances between them, if that.

 

A good Alan Pardew side is going to be largely cautious, solid and reliant on "moments of magic".

 

Will he do the same against Norwich or will he be brave and go for it against an out of form team we should beat though?

 

IMO he went for it against Spurs. I don't think you can be THAT defensive with 2 strikers on the pitch. We'll have more of the ball so we'll be forced to be more progressive. There's only 1 issue and that's upfront. And it's not like Cisse or even HBA have done anything in recent weeks to play over Shola.

[TRon]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

 

You can't build a strategy to beat better sides, that's just idiotic. What you can do is build a style and method of playing in general, then adapt it according to the opposition. What most of us have wanted is some coherence and consistency which we've shown signs of in the last few games, albeit along Pardew's concept of football. Nothing wrong with it if he can get results with it btw.

[Ste]

Spurs changed a few things because the first half from them was terrible. They pushed for an equaliser more, and the natural reaction from our back line was to drop back. You'll see second half performances like ours from most teams in our position. We wanted the win more than we wanted the second goal.

 

Most teams will rely on the likes of Chelsea and Spurs being toothless to secure wins against them.

[Guest firetotheworks]

We outplayed Chelsea in the second half, we outplayed Spurs in the first half. It's a shame for KI to see Newcastle being pinned back in the other half of them two games because if he was manager he would have us in the game for the 90 minutes and not allowing Chelsea/Spurs to dominate periods of the game, it's that simple.

 

Can just imagine him being a Chelsea supporter criticising Di Matteo winning the champions league because his football wasn't sustainable. As much as i hate watching it as a neutral as it spoils the game of football, if your luck is in, it can work an absolute treat. And it worked an absolute treat for us on this occasion and i'd do it all over again if we were playing them next week.

 

 

Give over man. You have a remarkable talent for comparing points of views with extreme and mostly irrelevant examples to try and detract any credibility from what other people are saying.

 

First off, domination doesn't have to mean allowing chance after chance after chance. Case in point, Swansea two seasons ago dominated, but I didn't have a problem because they created nothing/we didn't allow them to create anything. In these matches it's happened and it's a massive part of the reason we've got our results.

 

Secondly, periods of the game can mean anything, except in our case it usually means an entire half, or just immediately after going ahead.

 

That last paragraph is absolute lunacy like. Completely crazy talk. You can't plan for and account for luck man.

[Gallowgate Toon]

What is a 'sustainable' way of regular beating better sides though? And more than that, an approach which would still work even if they all played to their best against us? Quite a strange concept.

 

I'm not suggesting an alternative that is, I'm saying that hanging on for dear life isn't. I'm suggesting that there's one sure fire way to do it, I'm suggesting that there's a better way of doing it than we are now.

 

First half against Spurs was a very good way to do it, and a way that I thought would be a good idea after seeing them recently. Second half we hung on for dear life and defended our lead. Why? What happens at half time?

 

I know it has been a consistent theme, mainly over the last year or so, but I thought in yesterday's case, we just got pegged back and faded as it went on. To be fair to Pardew, he said afterwards that we were deeper than he would have liked.

[Guest firetotheworks]

If your luck is in, it can work an absolute treat.

 

Soz like, I just had to quote this for posterity. It's utterly crackers mate.

[Raconteur]

'Relying on the oppositions toothlessness' is a bit of a strange way of putting it though I think. I mean, obviously if Chelsea et al play to their potential they will beat us, that's just an unavoidable fact. In reality though, they didn't and/or we resisted them.

 

The reality is also that we're not playing to our potential by relying upon it. You can't plan and account for Chelsea being shit in front of goal and Tim Krul pulling off 14 brilliant saves. Therefore the game plan is either isn't sustainable or needs to be tweaked to reduce their chances either through better defending or by being a bigger or more prolonged threat ourselves. We can do it, but it needs to be for longer periods than 15 minutes or even just 1 half.

 

I believe that we have a very good team and that it can be utilised in a better way than it is at the moment, even against the best teams in the league. That does not in any way imply that I want us to or expect us to dominate teams. It means that I want us to rely upon ourselves to win, rather than doing it for a bit and then stopping and relying on the opposition to lose.

 

Brett is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles, but I can't let the bolded bit past - especially when you accuse him of twisting arguments or embellishing or exaggerating or so on (which you have, in this thread.)

 

Chelsea were not shit in front of goal. That is an outright misrepresentation. Terry's missed two headed chances. Hazard's chance was on the angle and while you might argue he should have put it on target it was a good shot that went just wide. We beat Chelsea becayse we nullified their attack, not because their attack didn't turn up on the day or they missed enough chances to be "shit in front of goal".

 

Tim Krul did not "[pull] off 14 brilliant saves". That is hyperbole, an exaggeration. He did make a lot of saves, but some of these were regulation, some were 'good' saves and, yes, there were some "brilliant saves". But to suggest that we only won because of "14 brilliant saves" is a fallacy. We won thanks to the ruthlessness of Remy, the discipline of the midfield, the resolution of the defence and an excellent performance from Krul.

 

I can dig what you're saying about how we might be 'too' defensive and that you'd like to see us as being more expansive, but you have to acknowledge the validity of the argument that we've got some excellent results against some very good teams, and that as... unpleasant as the tactics might be you can't argue against their effectiveness. You spoke earlier of a middle ground - well, you were right. The tactics aren't great. Neither are the tactics shite. They are effective and have given us some excellent results. I don't think you can put those three results wholly and solely down to the opposition having a bad day...

[BrettNUFC]

If your luck is in, it can work an absolute treat.

 

Soz like, I just had to quote this for posterity. It's utterly crackers mate.

 

Your going to ride your luck when your inferior to the opposition setting up with this gameplan, you know with the quality your up against they will get one/two good chances to score when they have the ball for large periods of the game, it's expected.