Don't like to say, I told you so........

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Perhaps the idea is to play 4-5-1 to keep things tight and then open things up when the opposition is tiring by playing 4-4-2. If they work on defence and hold it at 0-0 instead of chasing down a 1 or 2 goal deficit then 4-5-1 can still work. Just needs a little work.

[solentstars]

i don,t think it matters ,at least the players are up to playing different systems,4-5-1 becomes 4-3-3 during parts of the game.

i trust the manager and would let him chose the team.

[Legod Third Coming]

13 points from 18 says we don't have any problems with our current formation but some people are hell bent on criticising and glory in it. It's not their fault, it's the product of the Lowe years. We can discuss it all we want. The reality is we are winning matches under a manager who has proven a number of posters wrong. Funny how they're the ones predominantly advocating their own views over the manager's...

Edited 31 October, 2009 by Legod Third Coming

[docker-p]

13 points from 18 says we don't have any problems with our current formation but some people are hell bent on criticising and glory in it. It's not their fault, it's the product of the Lowe years. We can discuss it all we want. The reality is we are winning matches under a manager who has proven a number of posters wrong. Funny how they're the ones predominantly advocating their own views over the manager's...

 

There isn't anyone saying we have a problem. But 13 points from 18 does leave room for improvement. Some people think that improvement could be made by playing 442, some think not; others don't want to have an opinion as they don't like questioning authority.

[Justin C]

AP must have his reasons but to a novis like me it looks like a traditional 442 is the way ahead!

[Professor]

In case anyone doubts it, I watch home games in The Kingsland, and its been a revelation to see the quality of players that Pardew has brought into the Saints' team. There must be plenty of managers who would not have been able to put together the side that Pardew has, but that doesn't mean he walks on water or that his decisions are beyond crititcism. But friendly criticism should be constructive.

I do think he seems to lack confidence in his own team and even in his post-match notes today he is still defending the defensive system, but he has the players who are good enough to go 4-4-2. When Pards does play it, one of the strengths of the system is that it takes some of the pressure off Lambert as well as putting our best 11 players on the field.

Possibly there is a fitness issue over Connolly, although I couldn't see it when he came on against the MK Dons. In the past, when Beattie, Phillips and Crouch were here, would anyone have played just one striker, so why do it now we have Connolly, and if there is a fitness issue, then why not start him, and then sub him later in the game.

[Windmill Arm 2]

I wont vote as i'm not Alan Pardew, he decides the formation, and he will get it right. Bullsh1t thread.

[aintforever]

I didn't go today but at the last home game the team did look happier when it went to 4-4-2, and it sounded the same today. But it could be the change in itself that causes problems for the opposition. Their defence gets used to dealing with the lone striker and two wide threats, then suddenly they have a busy Connelly to handle as well and because we are chasing the game our wide players are still getting forward. If we play 4-4-2 from the off it might not be as effective.

 

That said I like the look of Connolly so would be tempted to give him a go from the off if fit, we are getting good results though so you have to trust Pardew.

[saintjinksie]

pardew doesnt seem to learn that 451 doesnt work, every time we need goals he has to change to 442, so why not start with 442?

[fred kemp]

i thought the game was brilliant, i'd like to see the 90 mins. again, i hate to think how many chances we created. most people on here are obsessed with systems, god its not that rigid, where the ball goes the players go. in truth i thought our weakness was pappa, i think antonio would have done better, but we haven't a god given right to win and orient played a quick breaking game and did cause us as many problems. connoly was brilliant when he caame on as he was last week, i like others think he isnt fit enough to start, but this obsession with formations baffles me, we created chances the whole game and with more luck would have won by at least three goals

[Legod Third Coming]

For years we have rightly (and sometimes wrongly) criticised managers for failure to deliver results.

 

Finally we get a manager who starts to deliver results, and STILL some criticise.

 

Well, that's poor, very very poor.

 

When managers do badly, criticise and correct, when they do well prasie them for doing well.

 

That's how it has to work to be fair.

 

Yes, there are people who think they know better. They might be right.

 

But if we had played 4-4-2 for the last five games we might have lost them all. You have no idea. So to Champion it as a way forward is laughable when we are winning regularly playing an alternative but totally flexibile system.

 

It just makes you sound like a stuck record.

[Legod Third Coming]

i thought the game was brilliant, i'd like to see the 90 mins. again, i hate to think how many chances we created. most people on here are obsessed with systems, god its not that rigid, where the ball goes the players go. in truth i thought our weakness was pappa, i think antonio would have done better, but we haven't a god given right to win and orient played a quick breaking game and did cause us as many problems. connoly was brilliant when he caame on as he was last week, i like others think he isnt fit enough to start, but this obsession with formations baffles me, we created chances the whole game and with more luck would have won by at least three goals

 

Yeah, cos last time I checked a formation didn't score for anyone.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

For years we have rightly (and sometimes wrongly) criticised managers for failure to deliver results.

 

Finally we get a manager who starts to deliver results, and STILL some criticise.

 

Well, that's poor, very very poor.

 

When managers do badly, criticise and correct, when they do well prasie them for doing well.

 

That's how it has to work to be fair.

 

Yes, there are people who think they know better. They might be right.

 

But if we had played 4-4-2 for the last five games we might have lost them all. You have no idea. So to Champion it as a way forward is laughable when we are winning regularly playing an alternative but totally flexibile system.

 

It just makes you sound like a stuck record.

 

But why do you want to restrict the debate ? - people who disagree with you have just as much right to put their view over as you do . If we can't discuss a football issue such as the best formation to adopt for instance for fear that some see it as a quasi-heretical slander on Alan Pardew then what exactly is the point of a football forum ?

 

Personally I'd rather keep this place alive by discussing threads such as this than any number of artificial 19C style trolling exercises that so many seem to enjoy for some inexplicable reason .

[alpine_saint]

But why do you want to restrict the debate ? - people who disagree with you have just as much right to put their view over as you do . If we can't discuss a football issue such as the best formation to adopt for instance for fear that some see it as a quasi-heretical slander on Alan Pardew then what exactly is the point of a football forum ?

 

Personally I'd rather keep this place alive by discussing threads such as this than any number of artificial 19C style trolling exercises that so many seem to enjoy for some inexplicable reason .

 

Agree with you completely.

 

The reaction on here sometimes to raising a question mark or offering the slightest criticism borders on being on a par with the very worst examples of religious fundamentalism.

[Ewell]

Pardew is doing a fantastic job and the team are playing with passion and fighting spirit. He knows what he is doing and if he decides 4-5-1 is best then why can't we all be happy with that? At the end of the day the other striker we have who is good enough to play in this team is currently coming back from a long term injury so is being given time. Why are so many struggling to see that Connolly is not being rushed and will be given time to regain full fitness. I think had we won every game this season then the same old faces would be moaning about something or other.

[View From The Top]

Say we start with 4-4-2, fail to score for 65mins, then what?

 

I'm happy with 4-5-1/4-3-3, which works, and then having the option for change if required.

[Legod Third Coming]

Say we start with 4-4-2, fail to score for 65mins, then what?

 

I'm happy with 4-5-1/4-3-3, which works, and then having the option for change if required.

 

No, say we had started with 4-4-2 and then not won a game?

 

Then what would our esteemed Jonahs be moaning about?

 

Answer - they would be calling for the manager's head. Especially as most expressed the opinion he was underperforming for the first nine games... and now are clutching at straws to prove their point.

[saintbletch]

In case anyone doubts it, I watch home games in The Kingsland, and its been a revelation to see the quality of players that Pardew has brought into the Saints' team. There must be plenty of managers who would not have been able to put together the side that Pardew has, but that doesn't mean he walks on water or that his decisions are beyond crititcism. But friendly criticism should be constructive.

I do think he seems to lack confidence in his own team and even in his post-match notes today he is still defending the defensive system, but he has the players who are good enough to go 4-4-2. When Pards does play it, one of the strengths of the system is that it takes some of the pressure off Lambert as well as putting our best 11 players on the field.

Possibly there is a fitness issue over Connolly, although I couldn't see it when he came on against the MK Dons. In the past, when Beattie, Phillips and Crouch were here, would anyone have played just one striker, so why do it now we have Connolly, and if there is a fitness issue, then why not start him, and then sub him later in the game.

 

An interesting and brave question to ask, given the fact that I would imagine that a large number of fans don't actually feel there is much wrong on the pitch at the moment.

 

So if I''ve got you right, the premise of your argument Professor seems to be that when we play "4-5-1" we are defensive and negative and that when we play 4-4-2, we are not.

 

I don't agree with the premise, as we don't play the classic "4-5-1".

 

The defensive element of the formation is Wotton who, to my eye, sits in front of the back 4 and doesn't move. This "4-1..." allows for a very attacking and dynamic formation ahead of him and for fullbacks to join in the attack from behind him.

 

It is also a formation that allows us to build up momentum in a game that then allows us to move to 4-4-2. That 4-4-2 works for us, is because we have kept the opposition honest by playing "4-5-1", as you call it, before that.

 

I'd agree that we can play 5 in midfield at times when we need to and I'd also admit that this can stifle the opposition. I thought we did this brilliantly against MK Dons. There was no space for them to play but when we got the ball we got forward well on both flanks and at no point did I sit there feeling that it was defensive or negative.

 

In fact when we moved to 4-4-2 it was like a bottle from a cork. The midfield had so much space and with the fresh legs of Connolly and Antonio, MK Dons didn't know what hit them. And this was against a team that had an excellent record until they played us. I left the stadium thinking Pardew got it exactly right and royally entertained in both phases of the game.

 

Reading the match reports from yesterday it appears that we dominated and created many, many chances playing "4-5-1". That is not usually the result of a defensive formation. I can also say that it's been a long time since I've been as entertained as much by a Saints team. And if that is a defensive formation then I say bring it on.

 

All of this is not to say that we couldn't make 4-4-2 work. I suspect we could. It's just that I think that what we've found in the current formation, and the subsequent change later in games to 4-4-2, is working incredibly well for us. Both from an entertainment as well as a results perspective.

 

Anyway, an interesting debate and I guess we won't convince each other of our different views. But a question for you.

 

When you sit in the Kingsland, are you honestly telling me that in the last several matches you've been frustrated by the defensive displays you've witnessed?

[View From The Top]

No, say we had started with 4-4-2 and then not won a game?

 

Then what would our esteemed Jonahs be moaning about?

 

Answer - they would be calling for the manager's head. Especially as most expressed the opinion he was underperforming for the first nine games... and now are clutching at straws to prove their point.

 

As some of them were/are arch luvvies I guess they'd be saying things were better under the Dark Lord.

 

Only an idiot, and they're are many on this site, believe that the 1st 1/2 dozen games or so weren't about getting the correct players in and the shape right, in other words, our pre-season.

[View From The Top]

When you sit in the Kingsland, are you honestly telling me that in the last several matches you've been frustrated by the defensive displays you've witnessed?

 

If he sits there.

[derry]

And most of us know better than the "professor', whose credibility is zero after his continuing defence of Lowe getting rid of NP, and replacing him with the two clowns. How's NP being doing since he left Saints, "professor'?

 

How is Capello doing? England play from a 4-4-2 basis. NP plays 4-4-2 at Leicester. We play it successfully after messing up with 4-5-1. If we had a proper, decent (like Oakley?) holding/passing midfielder it might be a good formation. Wotton isn't good enough.

 

Schneiderlin when he grows up might become that sort of player. He hasn't scored in over 38/10 appearances and needs to do that if he is to play in 4-5-1 as an attacking midfielder.

 

Once/if ever Connolly is fit enough to start and finish a match, we more than likely will start 4-4-2 as Lambert this week spoke about his anticipation at being teamed up with Connolly.

[NickG]

changing to a 4/3/3 type formation a few weeks ago coincided exactly with our improved performance.

 

Pardew seems to use both to vary the game.

 

Simply put - its working, current form shows that, so I am happy.

 

If I was manager would probably opt for simpler 4/4/2 but he knows better!

Edited 1 November, 2009 by NickG

[Gorgiesaint]

I'm sure Pardew will continue with the way we are playing whilst it is still bringing in results. It sounds like we still had enough chances yesterday to have won the game easily, that happens so its probably not worth making wholesale changes because of one draw.

 

That said, what is starting to concern me is that we have not kept a clean sheet in the last 8 games. We should have one of the best defenses in this league, but seem unable to keep that clean sheet. Interestingly in those 8 games, we've conceeded 12 goals - 7 of which have been in the first half when we're playing our more defensive formation.

 

Due to work commitments & living in Scotland, I've not yet seen SFC this season so I'm not in a position to comment really, but for the regulars - what needs to change to keep a clean sheet - do we need another RB to replace Lloyd (and Murty is still out)? or should AP be looking to sign a replacement for Wooton in January? and if so who?

[sadoldgit]

Won five drawn one in the last 6 games but lets have a pop at the manager shall we?

[Kingsland Red]

Saints system described as 4-5-1 is when the team defends as attacking it is more like a 4-3-3 with the wide midfield players getting forward.

As long as the players know their responsibilities and win their personal battles then the system is almost irrelevant as players migrate around the pitch during a game,overlapping, doubling up or chasing in 'packs', unlike say table football where players positions are fixed (!)

[John B]

But why do you want to restrict the debate ? - people who disagree with you have just as much right to put their view over as you do . If we can't discuss a football issue such as the best formation to adopt for instance for fear that some see it as a quasi-heretical slander on Alan Pardew then what exactly is the point of a football forum ?

 

Personally I'd rather keep this place alive by discussing threads such as this than any number of artificial 19C style trolling exercises that so many seem to enjoy for some inexplicable reason .

 

Like Alpine I agree with you completely

 

This is a forum to discuss football issues.

 

The manager is not being critised I would have thought

[sadoldgit]

Agree with you completely.

 

The reaction on here sometimes to raising a question mark or offering the slightest criticism borders on being on a par with the very worst examples of religious fundamentalism.

 

Grow up Alpine, you do say the most ridiculous things.

 

The point is that Pardew was critisised for not getting results and now he is being criticsied for getting results. Pathetic.

 

Five wins and one draw in the last six is more than any of us could hope for a short while ago. He has turned things round big time. If it wasn't for the minus 10 we would be up there chasing promotion.

 

He, like Burley, another one who you slagged off religiously during our last decebt season, is doing what he can. If people gave him support instead of nit picked over his every "mistake" you wouldn't get people complaing about posts.

 

Pardew has dropped tow points in six games. I think it is fair enough to assume that he knows what he is doing.

[docker-p]

For years we have rightly (and sometimes wrongly) criticised managers for failure to deliver results.

 

Finally we get a manager who starts to deliver results, and STILL some criticise.

 

Well, that's poor, very very poor.

 

When managers do badly, criticise and correct, when they do well prasie them for doing well.

 

That's how it has to work to be fair.

 

Yes, there are people who think they know better. They might be right.

 

But if we had played 4-4-2 for the last five games we might have lost them all. You have no idea. So to Champion it as a way forward is laughable when we are winning regularly playing an alternative but totally flexibile system.

 

It just makes you sound like a stuck record.

You've convinced me. This site should be closed down unless people stick to discussing their favorite half-time biscuit or similar weighty topics.

[sadoldgit]

Discuss it by all means, but if things carry on the way they are I suggest that perhaps Pardew knows what he is doing and should carry on with his own ideas.

The bickering can go on all day here but if we continue to pick up points as were are doing I think it all rings a little hollow.

[Legod Third Coming]

You've convinced me. This site should be closed down unless people stick to discussing their favorite half-time biscuit or similar weighty topics.

 

Bourbon. The site can now be closed for good.

[Legod Third Coming]

Like Alpine I agree with you completely

 

This is a forum to discuss football issues.

 

The manager is not being critised I would have thought

 

There is no other implication possible. We should have an alternative formation = the manager does not understand tactics as well as he should.

[eelpie]

The poll should have included 4-3-3, since so many have pointed out that this formation is being played some times.

 

But that might confuse the experts on here!!

[Gorgiesaint]

There is no other implication possible. We should have an alternative formation = the manager does not understand tactics as well as he should.

 

Not really, it's about fans expressing their opinions - not saying Pardew doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Look at Man Utd, SAF keeps playing Anderson & Nani, lots of MU fans criticise him for it as they don't rate those players. Does that mean SAF does not understand what is required?

 

Pardew's doing okay at the moment. For me, the discussion is how do we take ourselves to the next level up (i.e. win six out of the next six), hence my earlier questions about keeping clean sheet. If discussing the formation forms part of that then thats part of the debate.

 

Sure as hell beats talking about the boardroom and which picture should be on the wall!!

Edited 1 November, 2009 by Gorgiesaint
it'll make some sense now

[sadoldgit]

I didn't see the game but by all accounts we controlled the play with pretty much any formation we used. If we were making chances that is all you can do with any formation isn't it. If they went in earlier would we then complain about 442?

[Gorgiesaint]

I didn't see the game but by all accounts we controlled the play with pretty much any formation we used. If we were making chances that is all you can do with any formation isn't it. If they went in earlier would we then complain about 442?

 

Players missing chances has nothing to do with the formation.

 

You're right (from what I've heard) in that we created chances with both formations. As someone commented earlier, it's nice that we have two formations that we can play & change if required.

[Graffito]

Connolly changed the game when he came on. He brought our better players into the game with his link up play. When AP is convinced of Connolly's fitness I guess 442 will be the preferred formation but I see no reason why it should be used exclusively, with or without Connolly.

[S-Clarke]

Saints system described as 4-5-1 is when the team defends as attacking it is more like a 4-3-3 with the wide midfield players getting forward.

As long as the players know their responsibilities and win their personal battles then the system is almost irrelevant as players migrate around the pitch during a game,overlapping, doubling up or chasing in 'packs', unlike say table football where players positions are fixed (!)

 

Agreed.

 

People are going a bit OTT with this ''4-5-1'' - it's not a fixed rigid 4-5-1 by any means and when we're on top it's a 4-4-3 as you said.

 

That formation will only work when we're fluid though, if we cannot get the ball down and use the width quick enough then it doesn't work (as shown y/day in the first half).

 

I still believe though that the starting formation has shown enough promise in the last 6 games to warrant us to continue playing it.

 

4-4-2 is a great ''impact'' change, when we're chasing the game and on top.

[John B]

There is no other implication possible. We should have an alternative formation = the manager does not understand tactics as well as he should.

 

I am in no way critising Pardew I just prefer watching 4 4 2 as it appears to be more attack oriented than 4 5 1 .

 

We may not have the players the utilise 4 4 2 at the moment as the number of fully fit and capable strikers is limited we do not have our own competant wide players .

 

We also need a system to utilise Lallana effectively which 442 probably does not

[Bearsy]

Will the 4-4-2 lobby still vote that way if the second striker is Paterson or Saga?

[SaintRobbie]

Why start with 4-4-2 when we've won every game - and should have won yesterday but for finishing - by playing 4-5-1 and switching? I'd go with Pardew's selection.

 

Playing 4-5-1 is giving us a rehearsed second option and getting results. Daft to knee jerk and change it, we need a couple of playing options to mix it up a little. We clearly can play 4-4-2, so lets keep working on Plan A - it's getting results.

[SaintRobbie]

I didn't see the game but by all accounts we controlled the play with pretty much any formation we used. If we were making chances that is all you can do with any formation isn't it. If they went in earlier would we then complain about 442?

 

Agreed.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Agree with you completely.

 

The reaction on here sometimes to raising a question mark or offering the slightest criticism borders on being on a par with the very worst examples of religious fundamentalism.

 

Alps there are forces at work on here that threaten the very continuation of this forum . In this thread for example the Professor merely raised the possibility of the team adopting another formation and maybe performing even better than it has recently - now whether you agree or disagree with that it's still a mild enough premise I would have thought but judging by some of the reaction he's garnered you'd think he'd called for the managers instant dismissal .

 

If people are deterred from raising football issues on here for fear of being labeled as a 'traitor' to the cause somehow (your religious fundamentalism comparison is very apt) then before very long this place will fade into nothing - and that would be a great shame .

[John B]

Alps there are forces at work on here that threaten the very continuation of this forum . In this thread for example the Professor merely raised the possibility of the team adopting another formation and maybe performing even better than it has recently - now whether you agree or disagree with that it's still a mild enough premise I would have thought but judging by some of the reaction he's garnered you'd think he'd called for the managers instant dismissal .

 

If people are deterred from raising football issues on here for fear of being labeled as a 'traitor' to the cause somehow (your religious fundamentalism comparison is very apt) then before very long this place will fade into nothing - and that would be a great shame .

 

Looking at the poll results two out of three posters think 442 is the way forward which is pretty interesting but I doubt if many posters are really critical of Pardew.

Edited 1 November, 2009 by John B

[Legod Third Coming]

Not really, it's about fans expressing their opinions - not saying Pardew doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Look at Man Utd, SAF keeps playing Anderson & Nani, lots of MU fans criticise him for it as they don't rate those players. Does that mean SAF does not understand what is required?

 

Pardew's doing okay at the moment. For me, the discussion is how do we take ourselves to the next level up (i.e. win six out of the next six), hence my earlier questions about keeping clean sheet. If discussing the formation forms part of that then thats part of the debate.

 

Sure as hell beats talking about the boardroom and which picture should be on the wall!!

 

 

It is the way of the world sadly. There are myriad United fans who criticise Fergie. Whereas, in my book, the guy is a managerial God. Probably the best manager in the history of football.

 

In such cases (and I am not remotely saying that Pardew is yet close to such a status) managers are beyond criticism altogether. That's my view. Feguson has earned the right to do what the hell he likes and their fans should lump it. Or wise up. There is no doubt Ferguson would prefer to play Kaka than Nani, but United have no cash...

 

Anyway, that's an aside...

 

As regards Pardew and 4-4-2. The lobby for the latter seem to have no basis for an argument if whichever system the manager chooses is winning games.

 

When his system is not winning games, then he needs to be called to account and I would be the first to question his tactics.

 

But what is the point of this thread when you consider:

 

1. We have scored 15 goals in five games.

2. We have won four and drawn 1 of the last five.

 

We have no problem scoring goals, we're conceding very few.

 

I don't give a stuff what Pardew plays so long as we win. Surely that is all that matters??

 

The guy himself said (and I agree 100%) that our fans have been bamboozled by formations and think about such things far too much. Of more importance he said, is to have winning players with a winning mentality. We seem to be achieving this.

 

As for the next level of winning the next six games, you're entitled to believe that changing a system/players that has earned 13 point in the last 18 (could easily be 16 in 18 after our next home game) is the way to go. I would disagree as I don't condone changing things that are working. But that's your view and you're welcome to share/air it, of course.

[Legod Third Coming]

Alps there are forces at work on here that threaten the very continuation of this forum . In this thread for example the Professor merely raised the possibility of the team adopting another formation and maybe performing even better than it has recently - now whether you agree or disagree with that it's still a mild enough premise I would have thought but judging by some of the reaction he's garnered you'd think he'd called for the managers instant dismissal .

 

If people are deterred from raising football issues on here for fear of being labeled as a 'traitor' to the cause somehow (your religious fundamentalism comparison is very apt) then before very long this place will fade into nothing - and that would be a great shame .

 

This is hogwash.

Any argument is valid.

But this one seems pointless when the manager is succeeding.

 

And there are nigh on zero threads praising our Manager.

 

When there is such balance then you might be right, until then you're just arguing that this place is better when it is riddled with criticism than when it shows a balance of opinion.

 

Surely when a team is winning, a forum should be biased in favour of positive reaction? Not be design but by default.

 

This thread was started halfway through the second half yesterday as an oppotunity to suggest that Professor's proposition (we should start with 4-4-2) was valid because we were losing... That's his opinion and preference of formation, fair enough.

 

We did not lose, so at what point does he change his view and acceed that 4-5-1 or 4-3-3, or 4-2-1-2-1 or whatever might be the correct formation?

 

Or does he just want 4-4-2 regardless of results?

 

That is a debate worth having.

[Thedelldays]

well LGTC....we did not win yesterday and it was 2 points dropped

[John B]

well LGTC....we did not win yesterday and it was 2 points dropped

 

Perhaps if we had played 442 for the whole of the second half we may have won

[Legod Third Coming]

well LGTC....we did not win yesterday and it was 2 points dropped

 

Agreed. Formation cause or player cause? Complacency?What?

 

I would take a view from someone watching.

[NickG]

Even during the good run of results, I have been saying that Alan Pardew seems to be too wedded to the 4-5-1 system. Pards has shown he will switch to 4-4-2 when the game is going against the team but then reverts to the defensive system for the next game.

Its not only the system, as better players should always get a better result, so Antonio and Connolly in the team seem to make a difference, but 4-4-2 from the start might be the key.

 

Alps there are forces at work on here that threaten the very continuation of this forum . In this thread for example the Professor merely raised the possibility of the team adopting another formation and maybe performing even better than it has recently - now whether you agree or disagree with that it's still a mild enough premise I would have thought but judging by some of the reaction he's garnered you'd think he'd called for the managers instant dismissal .

 

If people are deterred from raising football issues on here for fear of being labeled as a 'traitor' to the cause somehow (your religious fundamentalism comparison is very apt) then before very long this place will fade into nothing - and that would be a great shame .

 

it is critical - which is up to anyone who wants to complain about Pardew but you cannot say its not!

 

Funny how we suddenly starting averaging 3 goals a game with this defensive tactic.

 

True tho a team based on a midfield of

 

Lallana, Mellis, Schneiderlin, Hammond and Papa is always going to be defensive! lol!

 

Makes me wonder if those who are saying they don't like have seen our use of it?

[John B]

it is critical - which is up to anyone who wants to complain about Pardew but you cannot say its not!

 

Funny how we suddenly starting averaging 3 goals a game with this defensive tactic.

 

True tho a team based on a midfield of

 

Lallana, Mellis, Schneiderlin, Hammond and Papa is always going to be defensive! lol!

 

Makes me wonder if those who are saying they don't like have seen our use of it?

 

The team seems to score more goals whilst playing 442 is an observation not a critcism