Guest bimpy474 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 They're Rob Elliot and Pardew lookalikes surely, and Ben Arfa looking a bit portly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Looks gay. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Ha ha ha! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallowgate Toon 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 no way we win that without the sendings off like, i'm sorry, it's like some people just haven't been paying attention for the last 3 years Those Charlie Adam 30 yarders were going to fly in second half weren't they... what do you see with your eyes brett? I saw a manager change to a formation we haven't been playing at home, look out of sorts in adapting to it and in need of a re-shuffle. Major surgery wasn't needed, just a change in formation and maybe a change of personel at half time if we were still getting beat. Obviously nobody knows how the game would have panned out but even when we went one down i was confident we could still turn it around. Stoke just basically threw us the 3 points instead. How many times does he 'get it wrong' at home when faced with teams who are not in the top echelons of the league? In fact, a better question is how many times does he get it right? Was a f***ing formation people on here wanted us to play, Ben Arfa back in the side, no Shola, no Tiote at home. So he plays it, struggling with it and gets criticised for trying it Everyone wanted Shola dropped, got dropped and worst we've played at home in recent times when he wasn't in the side. For the record, i thought he picked the right side prior to kick off then soon realised it wasn't really working and was expecting changes half time. This is the best point i've read on this forum in a long time. Brett got part of that right, but we didn't struggle with it, we came out thinking we already had the game won. Wrong attitude for the game rather than wrong players or system, imo. That's partly true. But when you read this forum you would think that would solve all our problems. We looked a light touch in midfield and we couldn't really get the ball to stick up top. 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. 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 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.. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallowgate Toon 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 s*** 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. I never said it was wholly the players' fault, the manager's the one that motivates them. I'm just saying I highly doubt it was tactical considering our performances against lesser opposition, this season, which have generally been positive. Edit: positive in how we've started games. 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. 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...
Recommended Posts