Guest bimpy474 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I think, and already agreed, that the 11 was right. I just don't think he got anything else right, something about the whole approach was off. As stated it was evident that we weren't flooding forward to support attacks from midfield and making them worry about us enough. If you're going to play the team he played then when fullbacks or anyone else gets wide there should be 2-3 players bursting through the middle at home vs the likes of Stoke. But yeah, nothing pardew can do about that, apparently. We've generally started games in an attacking manner, why would Pardew suddenly decide not to against Stoke? I saw a lot of lax play going back and forward, I took it more as a lack of focus than something tactical. Same shit being spouted during the 5th season when we couldn't attack teams like stoke at home properly. If it's the players fault in this case then, do they take all the credit when we put in a good shift away home? I believe as the manager he's responsible for it all, not just what you pick and choose. Erm wasn't Stoke at home one of our best performances of that season, Cabaye through ball to Cisse etc, 3-0 Howay man, "like" Stoke, teams that come to sit deep for a point hoping we slip up and give them more. I know i was being flippant sorry, i know exactly where you're coming from. Pardew really is a strange manager, we can be brilliant and awful all in the same 90 minutes. It has been better lately tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I think, and already agreed, that the 11 was right. I just don't think he got anything else right, something about the whole approach was off. As stated it was evident that we weren't flooding forward to support attacks from midfield and making them worry about us enough. If you're going to play the team he played then when fullbacks or anyone else gets wide there should be 2-3 players bursting through the middle at home vs the likes of Stoke. But yeah, nothing pardew can do about that, apparently. We've generally started games in an attacking manner, why would Pardew suddenly decide not to against Stoke? I saw a lot of lax play going back and forward, I took it more as a lack of focus than something tactical. Same shit being spouted during the 5th season when we couldn't attack teams like stoke at home properly. If it's the players fault in this case then, do they take all the credit when we put in a good shift away home? I believe as the manager he's responsible for it all, not just what you pick and choose. Erm wasn't Stoke at home one of our best performances of that season, Cabaye through ball to Cisse etc, 3-0 Howay man, "like" Stoke, teams that come to sit deep for a point hoping we slip up and give them more. I know i was being flippant sorry, i know exactly where you're coming from. Pardew really is a strange manager, we can be brilliant and awful all in the same 90 minutes. It has been better lately tbf. It has aye, very much so. I just can't understand how people can't see we struggle at home vs these types of teams consistently. I genuinely don't believe he knows how to open up a team that do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 "Luck" is just used when something that benefits is out of our control, I don't really see the problem with the term? If it wasn't for a massive slice of "luck" with Stoke going mental we would have had to have came from behind to win against 11 men which we aren't exactly known for. You cannot really assess the game without pointing that out. We were shit until that point. We have bad luck too, and if we bombarded the Stoke goal in the first half like we did the second, hit the bar a couple of times and a clear penalty waved away, everyone would be saying that we were really "unlucky" not to be ahead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I think, and already agreed, that the 11 was right. I just don't think he got anything else right, something about the whole approach was off. As stated it was evident that we weren't flooding forward to support attacks from midfield and making them worry about us enough. If you're going to play the team he played then when fullbacks or anyone else gets wide there should be 2-3 players bursting through the middle at home vs the likes of Stoke. But yeah, nothing pardew can do about that, apparently. We've generally started games in an attacking manner, why would Pardew suddenly decide not to against Stoke? I saw a lot of lax play going back and forward, I took it more as a lack of focus than something tactical. Same shit being spouted during the 5th season when we couldn't attack teams like stoke at home properly. If it's the players fault in this case then, do they take all the credit when we put in a good shift away home? I believe as the manager he's responsible for it all, not just what you pick and choose. Erm wasn't Stoke at home one of our best performances of that season, Cabaye through ball to Cisse etc, 3-0 Howay man, "like" Stoke, teams that come to sit deep for a point hoping we slip up and give them more. I know i was being flippant sorry, i know exactly where you're coming from. Pardew really is a strange manager, we can be brilliant and awful all in the same 90 minutes. It has been better lately tbf. It has aye, very much so. I just can't understand how people can't see we struggle at home vs these types of teams consistently. I genuinely don't believe he knows how to open up a team that do it. Aye, i think this is where a lack of movement to create chances comes in, especially at home where you tend to dicate more. Away you play differently as we've done well this season. I know it was against 9 men, but against Stoke we moved the ball from left to right in exactly the way we should have, pulling them about. We need that kind of movement and passing when it's 11 v 11. Ok it's harder but that's the aim, pull the opposition out of shape and exploit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Just to point out the sheer hypocrisy. From the Southampton game a couple of weeks ago The second Remy chance was because we were pressuring the keeper, we failed to press in the second half against Swansea which I was really fucked off about and mentioned a few times but yesterday we played well against an equal side and were unlucky not to win. So we can be unlucky not to win, like we apparently were against Southampton, but you get the hump as soon as someone says we were lucky to win against Stoke? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Exactly bimpy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallowgate Toon Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Packed defences are very hard to break down. It takes creativity and high levels of technical ability to consistently do it, so, to be fair to Pardew, I don't think that's all down to him. A better coach would improve the movement but there's still the other things to address. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Just to point out the sheer hypocrisy. From the Southampton game a couple of weeks ago The second Remy chance was because we were pressuring the keeper, we failed to press in the second half against Swansea which I was really fucked off about and mentioned a few times but yesterday we played well against an equal side and were unlucky not to win. So we can be unlucky not to win, like we apparently were against Southampton, but you get the hump as soon as someone says we were lucky to win against Stoke? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 1st half against Southampton we played some lovely lovely stuff, we went through on goal one point after a series of one touch passing. We we can open sides up. Pards just tries to work solely on counter in 2nd halves when we're winning, generally it works but makes a game difficult. A couple times now its cost us points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 "Luck" is just used when something that benefits is out of our control, I don't really see the problem with the term? If it wasn't for a massive slice of "luck" with Stoke going mental we would have had to have came from behind to win against 11 men which we aren't exactly known for. You cannot really assess the game without pointing that out. We were shit until that point. We have bad luck too, and if we bombarded the Stoke goal in the first half like we did the second, hit the bar a couple of times and a clear penalty waved away, everyone would be saying that we were really "unlucky" not to be ahead. We would have been lucky if neither player deserved to be sent off but both did, "well it is lucky they decided to cheat otherwise who know what would have happened" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 When we're assessing our performance we can only look at factors that are in our control, the opposition being thick as fuck and getting 2 players sent off needlessly isn't under our control (unless we set out to wind them up). I saw us being outplayed by Stoke until that point, so imo we were fortunate that Whelan is an arsehole. I'm not saying we couldn't have came back in the 2nd half against 11 men. It's down to good fortune that we didn't have too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 We have bad luck too, we just don't seem to have 20 page debates every time some one mentions it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I really hate the "luck" thing, often the bunker mackems try and hide in when they have nothing else but we will never agree so I will stop now for the sake of the forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 There's a reason the saying "better a lucky manager than a good one" exists. We've had good managers at the club who rarely got a lucky break (Keegan, Robson) and we have a manager of debatable ability who gets a decent chunk of luck, fortune, decisions... whatever you want to look at. I'm all for it mind, hope he's lucky all the way to the FA Cup, we've had enough shit luck tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 He had appalling luck with injuries last year to be fair to him, not to the point where he should be nearly relegating us, but the squad was down to it's bare bones at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Don't want to say anyone is clearly guilty of this but... Honestly though it was like reading RTG at times yesterday with the "we were lucky" comments. It was the same the season we finished 5th. Not sure some will ever enjoy watching us anymore as they seem desperate to be 'balanced'. We certainly had the rub of the green to get into that position and things weren't looking good at all on 40 minutes, but as I said earlier on you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with aplomb, so good stuff. I'm watching MOTD and Shearer and Savage are both saying we were lucky to get all the decisions we did yesterday, not sure what their N-O usernames are but they're as manic-depressive Pardew-haters as anyone else on here going by the logic you're applying. Well if 'try too hard to be impartial' Shearer and 'wind up merchant' Savage said it how can anyone argue? I'd prefer to go on what I saw, neither of the sendings off were harsh and we could have had a few more decisions go our way but Atkinson basically felt sorry for them knowing there was no way back. Neither of the sendings off were harsh, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lucky to be playing Stoke on the day Whelan decided he wanted a bath after 40 minutes. You don't have to be a recipient of dodgy decisions to enjoy good fortune. When is anyone not lucky? That time Cabaye catches it just right, Krul dives at just the right time, the linesman gets the difficult decision spot on, the opposition players get sent off for stupid tackles etc.. How you've got the stones to call my post desperate and then follow up with shite like this, I'll never know. Good footballing technique and officiating is the same as an opposition player talking himself into getting sent off and us benefitting massively from it? Cracking stuff. Just give it up man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Just to point out the sheer hypocrisy. From the Southampton game a couple of weeks ago The second Remy chance was because we were pressuring the keeper, we failed to press in the second half against Swansea which I was really fucked off about and mentioned a few times but yesterday we played well against an equal side and were unlucky not to win. So we can be unlucky not to win, like we apparently were against Southampton, but you get the hump as soon as someone says we were lucky to win against Stoke? He's not backing down on this one, oh no. My post was desperate, I'm absolutely DESPERATE to slag off pardew, even though I've put on record my support for him and desire for him to do well. I'm desperate for him to fail, man, desperate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Don't want to say anyone is clearly guilty of this but... Honestly though it was like reading RTG at times yesterday with the "we were lucky" comments. It was the same the season we finished 5th. Not sure some will ever enjoy watching us anymore as they seem desperate to be 'balanced'. We certainly had the rub of the green to get into that position and things weren't looking good at all on 40 minutes, but as I said earlier on you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with aplomb, so good stuff. I'm watching MOTD and Shearer and Savage are both saying we were lucky to get all the decisions we did yesterday, not sure what their N-O usernames are but they're as manic-depressive Pardew-haters as anyone else on here going by the logic you're applying. Well if 'try too hard to be impartial' Shearer and 'wind up merchant' Savage said it how can anyone argue? I'd prefer to go on what I saw, neither of the sendings off were harsh and we could have had a few more decisions go our way but Atkinson basically felt sorry for them knowing there was no way back. Neither of the sendings off were harsh, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lucky to be playing Stoke on the day Whelan decided he wanted a bath after 40 minutes. You don't have to be a recipient of dodgy decisions to enjoy good fortune. When is anyone not lucky? That time Cabaye catches it just right, Krul dives at just the right time, the linesman gets the difficult decision spot on, the opposition players get sent off for stupid tackles etc.. How you've got the stones to call my post desperate and then follow up with shite like this, I'll never know. Good footballing technique and officiating is the same as an opposition player talking himself into getting sent off and us benefitting massively from it? Cracking stuff. Just give it up man. A team winning because the opposition gets someone rightly sent off being deemed as luck. Aye, right I'm the one full of shite you will find a hell of a lot more people agreeing with you on RTG fella, we are always lucky according to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I really hate the "luck" thing, often the bunker mackems try and hide in when they have nothing else but we will never agree so I will stop now for the sake of the forum Why won't we agree? Because we can never have good or bad fortune? What sort of world is that you're living in? All I (and others) have said is that we were lucky that Stoke self imploded. There's been as many posts by the same people saying we did a really good job of capitalising on the situation, me included. You totally overreacted to the initial post and now you won't admit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Cajun, the entire course of the game changed in a few seconds, a game we were really struggling in. What changed the course of the game were things outwith our control, such as self implosion of their players. What changed the course of the game was fortunate for us, no question about it. What happened after that had nothing to do with luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I really hate the "luck" thing, often the bunker mackems try and hide in when they have nothing else but we will never agree so I will stop now for the sake of the forum Why won't we agree? Because we can never have good or bad fortune? What sort of world is that you're living in? All I (and others) have said is that we were lucky that Stoke self imploded. There's been as many posts by the same people saying we did a really good job of capitalising on the situation, me included. You totally overreacted to the initial post and now you won't admit it. I think luck has a lot more to it than "Well the ref followed the rules of the game", sorry. The Sunderand beach ball goal was luck, us winning a game because the opposition decided to make challenges that are legitimate sendings off isn't luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Don't want to say anyone is clearly guilty of this but... Honestly though it was like reading RTG at times yesterday with the "we were lucky" comments. It was the same the season we finished 5th. Not sure some will ever enjoy watching us anymore as they seem desperate to be 'balanced'. We certainly had the rub of the green to get into that position and things weren't looking good at all on 40 minutes, but as I said earlier on you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with aplomb, so good stuff. I'm watching MOTD and Shearer and Savage are both saying we were lucky to get all the decisions we did yesterday, not sure what their N-O usernames are but they're as manic-depressive Pardew-haters as anyone else on here going by the logic you're applying. Well if 'try too hard to be impartial' Shearer and 'wind up merchant' Savage said it how can anyone argue? I'd prefer to go on what I saw, neither of the sendings off were harsh and we could have had a few more decisions go our way but Atkinson basically felt sorry for them knowing there was no way back. Neither of the sendings off were harsh, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lucky to be playing Stoke on the day Whelan decided he wanted a bath after 40 minutes. You don't have to be a recipient of dodgy decisions to enjoy good fortune. When is anyone not lucky? That time Cabaye catches it just right, Krul dives at just the right time, the linesman gets the difficult decision spot on, the opposition players get sent off for stupid tackles etc.. How you've got the stones to call my post desperate and then follow up with shite like this, I'll never know. Good footballing technique and officiating is the same as an opposition player talking himself into getting sent off and us benefitting massively from it? Cracking stuff. Just give it up man. A team winning because the opposition gets someone rightly sent off being deemed as luck. Aye, right I'm the one full of shite you will find a hell of a lot more people agreeing with you on RTG fella, we are always lucky according to them. You're completely ignoring the context though (it's almost as if the score is the only thing that matters?). That Whelan sending off wasn't your normal run of the mill red card, and you know it. He actively got himself a red when it could have been avoided and it was a massive turning point in the game, a game which we were second best in up until that point. We were lucky it happened. I don't know how many different ways I/others can put across that point of view. You're not an idiot, I've read your posts for years so I know that. Just seems like you totally overreacted to my initial post and you haven't got the balls to admit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 It's all down to semantics at the end of the day. We were definitely the dictionary definition of lucky that Whelan got himself sent off though Disclaimer, this does not mean I think we would not have turned it around in the 2nd half regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Don't want to say anyone is clearly guilty of this but... Honestly though it was like reading RTG at times yesterday with the "we were lucky" comments. It was the same the season we finished 5th. Not sure some will ever enjoy watching us anymore as they seem desperate to be 'balanced'. We certainly had the rub of the green to get into that position and things weren't looking good at all on 40 minutes, but as I said earlier on you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with aplomb, so good stuff. I'm watching MOTD and Shearer and Savage are both saying we were lucky to get all the decisions we did yesterday, not sure what their N-O usernames are but they're as manic-depressive Pardew-haters as anyone else on here going by the logic you're applying. Well if 'try too hard to be impartial' Shearer and 'wind up merchant' Savage said it how can anyone argue? I'd prefer to go on what I saw, neither of the sendings off were harsh and we could have had a few more decisions go our way but Atkinson basically felt sorry for them knowing there was no way back. Neither of the sendings off were harsh, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lucky to be playing Stoke on the day Whelan decided he wanted a bath after 40 minutes. You don't have to be a recipient of dodgy decisions to enjoy good fortune. When is anyone not lucky? That time Cabaye catches it just right, Krul dives at just the right time, the linesman gets the difficult decision spot on, the opposition players get sent off for stupid tackles etc.. How you've got the stones to call my post desperate and then follow up with shite like this, I'll never know. Good footballing technique and officiating is the same as an opposition player talking himself into getting sent off and us benefitting massively from it? Cracking stuff. Just give it up man. A team winning because the opposition gets someone rightly sent off being deemed as luck. Aye, right I'm the one full of shite you will find a hell of a lot more people agreeing with you on RTG fella, we are always lucky according to them. You're completely ignoring the context though (it's almost as if the score is the only thing that matters?). That Whelan sending off wasn't your normal run of the mill red card, and you know it. He actively got himself a red when it could have been avoided and it was a massive turning point in the game, a game which we were second best in up until that point. We were lucky it happened. I don't know how many different ways I/others can put across that point of view. You're not an idiot, I've read your posts for years so I know that. Just seems like you totally overreacted to my initial post and you haven't got the balls to admit it. Balls to admit what? We clearly have different interpretations to what luck is, to me it isn't the fact they made poor decisions. That is how most football games are won or lost. Luck is a freak course of action like the Sunderland beach ball thing I mentioned previously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Don't want to say anyone is clearly guilty of this but... Honestly though it was like reading RTG at times yesterday with the "we were lucky" comments. It was the same the season we finished 5th. Not sure some will ever enjoy watching us anymore as they seem desperate to be 'balanced'. We certainly had the rub of the green to get into that position and things weren't looking good at all on 40 minutes, but as I said earlier on you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with aplomb, so good stuff. I'm watching MOTD and Shearer and Savage are both saying we were lucky to get all the decisions we did yesterday, not sure what their N-O usernames are but they're as manic-depressive Pardew-haters as anyone else on here going by the logic you're applying. Well if 'try too hard to be impartial' Shearer and 'wind up merchant' Savage said it how can anyone argue? I'd prefer to go on what I saw, neither of the sendings off were harsh and we could have had a few more decisions go our way but Atkinson basically felt sorry for them knowing there was no way back. Neither of the sendings off were harsh, but that doesn't change the fact that we were lucky to be playing Stoke on the day Whelan decided he wanted a bath after 40 minutes. You don't have to be a recipient of dodgy decisions to enjoy good fortune. When is anyone not lucky? That time Cabaye catches it just right, Krul dives at just the right time, the linesman gets the difficult decision spot on, the opposition players get sent off for stupid tackles etc.. How you've got the stones to call my post desperate and then follow up with shite like this, I'll never know. Good footballing technique and officiating is the same as an opposition player talking himself into getting sent off and us benefitting massively from it? Cracking stuff. Just give it up man. A team winning because the opposition gets someone rightly sent off being deemed as luck. Aye, right I'm the one full of shite you will find a hell of a lot more people agreeing with you on RTG fella, we are always lucky according to them. You're completely ignoring the context though (it's almost as if the score is the only thing that matters?). That Whelan sending off wasn't your normal run of the mill red card, and you know it. He actively got himself a red when it could have been avoided and it was a massive turning point in the game, a game which we were second best in up until that point. We were lucky it happened. I don't know how many different ways I/others can put across that point of view. You're not an idiot, I've read your posts for years so I know that. Just seems like you totally overreacted to my initial post and you haven't got the balls to admit it. Balls to admit what? We clearly have different interpretations to what luck is, to me it isn't the fact they made poor decisions. That is how most football games are won or lost. Luck is a freak course of action like the Sunderland beach ball thing I mentioned previously. You've said we were unlucky not to win against Southampton, which freak event do you put that down to then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts