LoveTheBobby 1 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 This but with Jonas instead of Obi Hang about - how/where are you mustering these graphics ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well i'd love to think our squad is deep enough beyond Ben Arfa to bring on a game-changer in the middle of a difficult away tie we are losing control of at a ground we've not won at in donkeys. Pardew is doing a mint job, it was right to have him and Santon in the squad but also correct not to bring them on. Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team, maybe he realised Obertan wasnt up to it but didnt fancy Marveaux or Guthrie there in the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9006 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well i'd love to think our squad is deep enough beyond Ben Arfa to bring on a game-changer in the middle of a difficult away tie we are losing control of at a ground we've not won at in donkeys. Pardew is doing a mint job, it was right to have him and Santon in the squad but also correct not to bring them on. Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team, maybe he realised Obertan wasnt up to it but didnt fancy Marveaux or Guthrie there in the circumstances. Got no problem with any of that. I just think that even with the squad we've got, we could have better handled the momentum shift. Mind you I'm not a Professional football manager... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Hardly a mint job by pardew in keeping obertan on the field. He must have very little confidence in any other player because obertan was worse than shite, giving the ball away freely and offering nothing defensively. Fucking headless chicken as usual. If he's selected ahead of marveux or ben arfa in future then pardew is losing objectivity. Three good points. Thank Christ Colo was not hurt as that could've changed the game completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Hardly a mint job by pardew in keeping obertan on the field. He must have very little confidence in any other player because obertan was worse than shite, giving the ball away freely and offering nothing defensively. Fucking headless chicken as usual. If he's selected ahead of marveux or ben arfa in future then pardew is losing objectivity. Three good points. Thank Christ Colo was not hurt as that could've changed the game completely. Obi needs dropping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. The other worrying thing is what appears to be his refuse to substitute Obertan, when it's obvious to all and sundry that the game is passing him by. The argument about Wolves being allowed to dominate the "wing" play and them 'targeting" Simpson for me doesn't look at the cause of why they had the opportunity? Constantly turning over possession by a winger who also rarely tracked back and pulled out of 50/50 challenges in reality made Simpson's job even more difficult. It's not like he has Barton in front of him anymore. Edited October 3, 2011 by sammynb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The argument about Wolves being allowed to dominate the "wing" play and them 'targeting" Simpson for me doesn't look at the cause of why they had the opportunity?Constantly turning over possession by a winger who also rarely tracked back and pulled out of 50/50 challenges in reality made Simpson's job even more difficult. Plus Simpson's view of play was blocked by his massive head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The argument about Wolves being allowed to dominate the "wing" play and them 'targeting" Simpson for me doesn't look at the cause of why they had the opportunity?Constantly turning over possession by a winger who also rarely tracked back and pulled out of 50/50 challenges in reality made Simpson's job even more difficult. Plus Simpson's view of play was blocked by his massive head In the pre-match talk Pards should tell him Sigourney Weaver has been spotted in the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The argument about Wolves being allowed to dominate the "wing" play and them 'targeting" Simpson for me doesn't look at the cause of why they had the opportunity?Constantly turning over possession by a winger who also rarely tracked back and pulled out of 50/50 challenges in reality made Simpson's job even more difficult. Plus Simpson's view of play was blocked by his massive head In the pre-match talk Pards should tell him Sigourney Weaver has been spotted in the ground. Explains why he left the ground clinging to the underside of the team bus.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. Explain what you mean rather than just saying it. 'You put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back'. If it was that simple and required as little tactical insight as you two can muster, then every manager would just 'put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back', wouldnt they? I would imagine that the reason you want to keep 2 up top when under the cosh is perhaps because in this case its not the midfield that is getting over-run. Maybe its because as was argued earlier against taking Ba off, Pardew was trying to make sure we could continue to hold the ball up when we regained possession. Only one striker makes that less likely. And/or maybe the opposition is playing it long but committing lots of players forward, or is avoiding the middle of the park via long diagonal balls to the winger. The problem with 5 in midfield is that it can leave the striker isolated under certain conditions i.e. when the defence is too deep and the other team is playing it either long through the middle or out wide. The best way to counter that is by counter-attacking, taking advantage of the men committed forward. Against a ball-playing side like QPR, the extra man in midfield nullified them in the second half. Wolves arent QPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 You two still getting on then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Like a house on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. Explain what you mean rather than just saying it. 'You put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back'. If it was that simple and required as little tactical insight as you two can muster, then every manager would just 'put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back', wouldnt they? I would imagine that the reason you want to keep 2 up top when under the cosh is perhaps because in this case its not the midfield that is getting over-run. Maybe its because as was argued earlier against taking Ba off, Pardew was trying to make sure we could continue to hold the ball up when we regained possession. Only one striker makes that less likely. And/or maybe the opposition is playing it long but committing lots of players forward, or is avoiding the middle of the park via long diagonal balls to the winger. The problem with 5 in midfield is that it can leave the striker isolated under certain conditions i.e. when the defence is too deep and the other team is playing it either long through the middle or out wide. The best way to counter that is by counter-attacking, taking advantage of the men committed forward. Against a ball-playing side like QPR, the extra man in midfield nullified them in the second half. Wolves arent QPR. Actually Chez, as always you right. Merely substituting Obertan with a player who was willing to track back and defend. Who also didn't give the ball away cheaply, at least half a dozen times, and things down our right would not have been as exposed as they were. btw 5 in the midfield should allow an attacking midfielder, such as Ben Arfa, to sit between the midfield and the forwards, freeing up Cabeye to just sit deeper (in the midfield) and close down the opposition. An attacking midfielder should have the ability to read the game, positioning themselves so they can pick up any knock downs from long balls pumped to the lone striker. If you look at the role Ba has been playing, a lot of it is akin to that of an attacking midfielder with his positioning behind Best. Lovenkrands doesn't have this in his game, he's about diagonal runs forward and that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 If we avoid defeat in the next two home games, that's 12 in a row unbeaten in the league, and 14 in all competitions. Club record? I'm completely and utterly staggered by this start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. Explain what you mean rather than just saying it. 'You put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back'. If it was that simple and required as little tactical insight as you two can muster, then every manager would just 'put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back', wouldnt they? I would imagine that the reason you want to keep 2 up top when under the cosh is perhaps because in this case its not the midfield that is getting over-run. Maybe its because as was argued earlier against taking Ba off, Pardew was trying to make sure we could continue to hold the ball up when we regained possession. Only one striker makes that less likely. And/or maybe the opposition is playing it long but committing lots of players forward, or is avoiding the middle of the park via long diagonal balls to the winger. The problem with 5 in midfield is that it can leave the striker isolated under certain conditions i.e. when the defence is too deep and the other team is playing it either long through the middle or out wide. The best way to counter that is by counter-attacking, taking advantage of the men committed forward. Against a ball-playing side like QPR, the extra man in midfield nullified them in the second half. Wolves arent QPR. Actually Chez, as always you right. Merely substituting Obertan with a player who was willing to track back and defend. Who also didn't give the ball away cheaply, at least half a dozen times, and things down our right would not have been as exposed as they were. btw 5 in the midfield should allow an attacking midfielder, such as Ben Arfa, to sit between the midfield and the forwards, freeing up Cabeye to just sit deeper (in the midfield) and close down the opposition. An attacking midfielder should have the ability to read the game, positioning themselves so they can pick up any knock downs from long balls pumped to the lone striker. If you look at the role Ba has been playing, a lot of it is akin to that of an attacking midfielder with his positioning behind Best. Lovenkrands doesn't have this in his game, he's about diagonal runs forward and that's about it. Pardew told the Chronicle: “It’s not a headache, but a nice problem. I didn’t use Ben Arfa because I thought with the pace of the game, and the way we were defending, we weren’t going to get enough ball to him. “Peter came on and did a sterling job. Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-u.../#ixzz1ZiTww2Gc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The other worrying thing is what appears to be his refuse to substitute Obertan, when it's obvious to all and sundry that the game is passing him by. He had a tenner on him to score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. Explain what you mean rather than just saying it. 'You put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back'. If it was that simple and required as little tactical insight as you two can muster, then every manager would just 'put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back', wouldnt they? I would imagine that the reason you want to keep 2 up top when under the cosh is perhaps because in this case its not the midfield that is getting over-run. Maybe its because as was argued earlier against taking Ba off, Pardew was trying to make sure we could continue to hold the ball up when we regained possession. Only one striker makes that less likely. And/or maybe the opposition is playing it long but committing lots of players forward, or is avoiding the middle of the park via long diagonal balls to the winger. The problem with 5 in midfield is that it can leave the striker isolated under certain conditions i.e. when the defence is too deep and the other team is playing it either long through the middle or out wide. The best way to counter that is by counter-attacking, taking advantage of the men committed forward. Against a ball-playing side like QPR, the extra man in midfield nullified them in the second half. Wolves arent QPR. Actually Chez, as always you right. Merely substituting Obertan with a player who was willing to track back and defend. Who also didn't give the ball away cheaply, at least half a dozen times, and things down our right would not have been as exposed as they were. btw 5 in the midfield should allow an attacking midfielder, such as Ben Arfa, to sit between the midfield and the forwards, freeing up Cabeye to just sit deeper (in the midfield) and close down the opposition. An attacking midfielder should have the ability to read the game, positioning themselves so they can pick up any knock downs from long balls pumped to the lone striker. If you look at the role Ba has been playing, a lot of it is akin to that of an attacking midfielder with his positioning behind Best. Lovenkrands doesn't have this in his game, he's about diagonal runs forward and that's about it. Pardew told the Chronicle: “It’s not a headache, but a nice problem. I didn’t use Ben Arfa because I thought with the pace of the game, and the way we were defending, we weren’t going to get enough ball to him. “Peter came on and did a sterling job. Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-u.../#ixzz1ZiTww2Gc And believe him? He obviously was watching a different game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) If we avoid defeat in the next two home games, that's 12 in a row unbeaten in the league, and 14 in all competitions. Club record? I'm completely and utterly staggered by this start. From .com (refers to just Premier League matches I think) Longest Unbeaten Run in one season: 11 games 21st August 1994 – 29th October 1994 Longest Unbeaten Run: 12 games 7th May 1994 – 29th October 1994 edit; oh wait, you're talking about just home games? Surely we attained the club record in our Championship season? Edited October 3, 2011 by Tecato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 If we avoid defeat in the next two home games, that's 12 in a row unbeaten in the league, and 14 in all competitions. Club record? I'm completely and utterly staggered by this start. None of the results in themselves have been particularly (if at all) surprising but the fact that we haven't lost any of these games certainly is staggering. You could quite easily have predicted each of these results in isolation but not even the most optimistic would have expected such a run of results. It does go to show that outside the very best the league is very mediocre and with some good organisation, a goal threat and a bit of luck you can easily pick up some good results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 just a quick post before i go out, haven't read the whole thread yet, but agree with the comments about Obertan. This is a good away trip, hotel next to the railway station [for those who might go by train], good car park, good hotel bar, city centre 5 mins walk away, football ground 10 mins walk away, chatted to a few canny locals etc. The only down side was the pubs in the city centre on Sat night using plastic glasses, and charging you to get in [which some of us didn't including me]. Overall, one of the best away trips I've ever been to. Will go again. From a footballing perspective, we lost control [as discusses] but the absolute best thing about this game, was Tim Krul. I've knocked him in the past for being a flapper, which he was, and I've seen tall keepers before who have been the same. You always hope they will get to grips with the aerial side of the game, but sometimes they don't. I think Krul on Saturday was really good with the crosses etc, and in general coming off his line. You can say he punched some of them, but he was going into a ruck of players and getting there and making good contact. The one-on-one in the first half he did very well too....I haven't watched the highlights or anything yet, and we were sat low down which isn't always the best view, and most of the action in both halfs was at the opposite end of the ground to where we were, but it all certainly looked to me, as I've said above. I'm really pleased with him. All my life I've seen keepers play for the toon who were basically crap at coming off their line. The only exception was Roger Jones, with no disrespect to keepers like Willie McFaul [ good keeper and a top lad] and one or two others. I am hoping that Krul can continue like this and play for us for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe Ba was fucked and he didnt want to change the shape of the team Physioroom.com is reporting Ba has a sprained ankle, which supports that idea. It's a perfect theory. We all saw him receive treatment shortly before coming off, the second part of it is what worried me. Why did he not want to change the shape when we had been soaking up more and more pressure ever since Mcarthy's astute double switch? Precisely. 2 nil in front and the dynamic of the midfield has changed, so revert to a 5 man midfield and win it back. Explain what you mean rather than just saying it. 'You put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back'. If it was that simple and required as little tactical insight as you two can muster, then every manager would just 'put 5 men in midfield and you win control of the game back', wouldnt they? I would imagine that the reason you want to keep 2 up top when under the cosh is perhaps because in this case its not the midfield that is getting over-run. Maybe its because as was argued earlier against taking Ba off, Pardew was trying to make sure we could continue to hold the ball up when we regained possession. Only one striker makes that less likely. And/or maybe the opposition is playing it long but committing lots of players forward, or is avoiding the middle of the park via long diagonal balls to the winger. The problem with 5 in midfield is that it can leave the striker isolated under certain conditions i.e. when the defence is too deep and the other team is playing it either long through the middle or out wide. The best way to counter that is by counter-attacking, taking advantage of the men committed forward. Against a ball-playing side like QPR, the extra man in midfield nullified them in the second half. Wolves arent QPR. Actually Chez, as always you right. Merely substituting Obertan with a player who was willing to track back and defend. Who also didn't give the ball away cheaply, at least half a dozen times, and things down our right would not have been as exposed as they were. btw 5 in the midfield should allow an attacking midfielder, such as Ben Arfa, to sit between the midfield and the forwards, freeing up Cabeye to just sit deeper (in the midfield) and close down the opposition. An attacking midfielder should have the ability to read the game, positioning themselves so they can pick up any knock downs from long balls pumped to the lone striker. If you look at the role Ba has been playing, a lot of it is akin to that of an attacking midfielder with his positioning behind Best. Lovenkrands doesn't have this in his game, he's about diagonal runs forward and that's about it. Pardew told the Chronicle: “It’s not a headache, but a nice problem. I didn’t use Ben Arfa because I thought with the pace of the game, and the way we were defending, we weren’t going to get enough ball to him. “Peter came on and did a sterling job. Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-u.../#ixzz1ZiTww2Gc And believe him? He obviously was watching a different game. About his thoughts on Ben Arfa? No choice but to accept those were his thoughts during the match. About Peter doing a sterling job? Not massively but i cant think of an example of when Lovenkrands gave the ball away and can remember him tracking back into our penalty area helping to defend. Not sure he did much wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Good post Leazes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 If we avoid defeat in the next two home games, that's 12 in a row unbeaten in the league, and 14 in all competitions. Club record? I'm completely and utterly staggered by this start. From .com (refers to just Premier League matches I think) Longest Unbeaten Run in one season: 11 games 21st August 1994 – 29th October 1994 Longest Unbeaten Run: 12 games 7th May 1994 – 29th October 1994 edit; oh wait, you're talking about just home games? Surely we attained the club record in our Championship season? no i'm not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now