Pards' interview

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer. Just because some people on this site can only deal with questions that already indicate the answer, doesn't mean we all have to. The implication that the James substitution was a mistake was also wrong. A proper reporter would have asked questions without agenda (a proper reporter can do this and extract the information needed), and not spend his time trying to get across their own views and grievances.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Yes, and the line of questioning was why not someone else being that James was on the field for twenty minutes and was a sub himself.

 

It wasn't a "stupid ass" question it was the question any reporter or any fan would ask.

 

Pardew's reaction was arsey but fine - you can tell he was gutted and it's great he feels so much for the job he is doing.

 

But enough reporter bashing already.

 

So you're chasing the game. You have 6 available players to take off to bring a more attacking player on. So you take off the least attacking player. The one who is likely to creat least. One who played at RB last season and has been injured for a lot of this season.

 

You'd have to be a moron or sub 10 years old to not know why he did that.

[jam]

Ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer. Just because some people on this site can only deal with questions that already indicate the answer, doesn't mean we all have to. The implication that the James substitution was a mistake was also wrong. A proper reporter would have asked questions without agenda (a proper reporter can do this and extract the information needed), and not spend his time trying to get across their own views and grievances.

 

It wasn't a stupid question...

[Thedelldays]

So you're chasing the game. You have 6 available players to take off to bring a more attacking player on. So you take off the least attacking player. The one who is likely to creat least. One who played at RB last season and has been injured for a lot of this season.

 

You'd have to be a moron or sub 10 years old to not know why he did that.

i think the point being..why put him on in the first place if he only lasted 20 mins...

 

I would expect fergie, jose, wenger to explain the reasoning if they did the same...

 

hold on, wenger did have to when eboue came on and then went off

[david in sweden]

It wasn't a stupid question...

 

well I thought it was.

Even the most tactically illiterate fan would know that when you are 0-0 after 70 mins. in a real MUST WIN game - you need every available striker on the pitch.

Barnard was clearly not getting much luck - who else, I wonder, might you have subbed instead. ..Puncheon..Hammond?..or one of the back four ?

 

James is certainly not back to full match fitness and we needed a striker to score a goal.

 

I'm just glad the journo wasn't sat in the trainers box making the decisions.

[John B]

So you're chasing the game. You have 6 available players to take off to bring a more attacking player on. So you take off the least attacking player. The one who is likely to creat least. One who played at RB last season and has been injured for a lot of this season.

 

You'd have to be a moron or sub 10 years old to not know why he did that.

 

Why not take off a defender we needed a win a loss would not really have mattered in the long run

 

It is all very well having lots of strikers on the pitch but somebody from midfield has to create the goal chances

[Thedelldays]

 

James is certainly not back to full match fitness and we needed a striker to score a goal. I'm just glad the journo wasn't sat in the trainers box making the decisions.

why on gods green earth waste a sub on him then...would have been better off sticking with wotton for 20 mins than waste a precious sub..

[rallyboy]

for anyone who wasn't there it was no surprise to me when Lloyd returned to the dugout, he was clearly out of form and out of touch, something a manager wouldn't say in a radio interview, either James underperformed or our bench misjudged his fitness.

 

Pardew has to control the passion but there was a long queue of people who wanted to run on at the end and ask the ref why he was so incredibly poor.

He gave us two ridiculous free kicks in the second half when players fell over yet he gave us nothing in the first half and his use of cards was all over the place.

 

The defender who charged straight into the back of Barnard leading with his arm didn't warrant a chat but his mate who was walking slowly off to be subbed was booked.

And he obviously hadn't read the memo that the tackle from behind was outlawed a while back, he let several go without even giving a foul.

 

We didn't win because we didn't score, our players and the ref are two factors that led to that and making reference to the official was valid on this occasion, imo.

Moaning about officials every week is as pointless as a Pompey home game but this guy was awful and we suffered more than they did from his inability to referee.

[jam]

well I thought it was.

Even the most tactically illiterate fan would know that when you are 0-0 after 70 mins. in a real MUST WIN game - you need every available striker on the pitch.

Barnard was clearly not getting much luck - who else, I wonder, might you have subbed instead. ..Puncheon..Hammond?..or one of the back four ?

 

James is certainly not back to full match fitness and we needed a striker to score a goal.

 

I'm just glad the journo wasn't sat in the trainers box making the decisions.

 

You say it's obvious that you need every available striker on the pitch but you don't even raise an eyebrow at Barnard being taken off?

 

Barnard who scored the last gasp winner on Saturday and is possibly the best poacher we've got in a game that saw us put countless balls into the box.

 

Bizarre.

 

Seriously, why do you single out Barnard? Lambert, Lallana, Puncheon and Hammond hadn't had much luck either.

 

If James is 'certainly not back to match fitness' then the question becomes why did he put James on in the first place? Or at least why did he come on as early as half time?

 

Would you have asked about that?

 

Why not take someone else off and put James wide on the right, where he can put decent crosses in and allow semi to use the overlap?

 

There were loads of options, it's perfectly reasonable to ask the manager to talk about his thinking behind the options he chose.

 

It's kind of the point of a post match interview.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

why on gods green earth waste a sub on him then...would have been better off sticking with wotton for 20 mins than waste a precious sub..

 

But the point is you don't often go 3 up top at half time when drawing 0-0. No managers do that. They wait to see if the first tactical change will work, ie bringing someone on for the walking statue, Paul Wotton, and then if that doesn't yield a goal then you go to Plan C.

 

Why am I debating football, on a football forum, with a load of mongs who son't understand it?

 

And comparing Pardew to Wenger. Seriously? By doing that, you've said we have one of the best managers in the world. Did Ferguson ever explain his decision to play 0 up front against Munich a few weeks ago?

[Thedelldays]

But the point is you don't often go 3 up top at half time when drawing 0-0. No managers do that. They wait to see if the first tactical change will work, ie bringing someone on for the walking statue, Paul Wotton, and then if that doesn't yield a goal then you go to Plan C.

 

Why am I debating football, on a football forum, with a load of mongs who son't understand it?

 

And comparing Pardew to Wenger. Seriously? By doing that, you've said we have one of the best managers in the world. Did Ferguson ever explain his decision to play 0 up front against Munich a few weeks ago?

oh..please lay your UEFA licence on the table for us all to see...

[saint_stevo]

Cup tie sorta stuff last night, gotta win at all costs, may as well lose as draw so why not 3 up top after half time

[ottery st mary]

If Pards started biffing some of these stupid peeps, we would really have something to debate on this forum.

[david in sweden]

You say it's obvious that you need every available striker on the pitch but you don't even raise an eyebrow at Barnard being taken off?

 

Barnard who scored the last gasp winner on Saturday and is possibly the best poacher we've got in a game that saw us put countless balls into the box.

Bizarre.

Seriously, why do you single out Barnard? Lambert, Lallana, Puncheon and Hammond hadn't had much luck either.

If James is 'certainly not back to match fitness' then the question becomes why did he put James on in the first place? Or at least why did he come on as early as half time? Would you have asked about that?

 

Why not take someone else off and put James wide on the right, where he can put decent crosses in and allow semi to use the overlap?

There were loads of options, it's perfectly reasonable to ask the manager to talk about his thinking behind the options he chose.

It's kind of the point of a post match interview.

 

 

Fairly obviously the 25 minutes that James WAS on the pitch didn't achieve what AP wanted...(some people seem to be comparing him to Ali Dia !)..and clearly AP felt that Barnard had made a huge effort without much result.

Had we been 1 or 2 goals up, it would have been a different scenario.

 

Would you have left the team as it was and hoped for the best ?

 

Scoring in the LAST game, or the one before that ..isn't a reason to continue playing the same man for 90 mins. every game. Surely, it's all about how you perform on the night.? Most people admit he tried hard but without any luck and few chances.

I'm sure LB isn't as embittered about the subbing as some fans seem to be.

 

It's part of the squad process. Some people still have a mindset that the chosen 11 are the best we have and everyone else is an " also ran " who only gets on when someone is injured. I expect LB to be picked on Saturday and he'll probably score a hat-trick, but last night wasn't his night.

 

For the record: Lee Barnard has been subbed on 12 occasions since he first played in January. It's a tactic that AP uses regularly - why is it so surprising now ?

 

As for the question...do you expect such politeness and diplomacy from a manager whose team has just FAILED to get all three points ?

It's obvious he tried everything possible. Do you blame his substitutions for the 17 shots that the players had and didn't score from.?

 

The Q. was.. to say the least...ill-timed. James obviously didn't liven up the midfield as AP hoped and was never going to be a match-winner but Papa and Connolly had a better chance of scoring.

 

I'm glad he did make the change, personally, I'd have put them on sooner.

[The Kraken]

i think the point being..why put him on in the first place if he only lasted 20 mins...

 

I would expect fergie, jose, wenger to explain the reasoning if they did the same...

 

hold on, wenger did have to when eboue came on and then went off

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just missing the point?

 

Question: You brought Lloyd James on and then took him off, what was the thinking behind that substitution?

AP: Well I don't think that's the right question to ask me, if I'm honest because its obvious that we're trying to push for a goal. Lloyd James came on to move the ball for us and then we had to take chances..

 

How is that not explaining it? He replaced Wotton with James as he thought that James would pass the ball better through the midfield. James had a terrible game, it wasn't working so he changed it again.

 

I guess in the blame culture that exists on here you'd rather Pardew came out and said "Well, Llloyd James was awful, couldn't pass for toffee and was well below par, so I had to change it again". AP chose not to directly criticise his player, which is actually quite laudable.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

oh..please lay your UEFA licence on the table for us all to see...

 

I'm worried that you feel the need to have a UEFA license to understand such an easy concept. Does explain a lot though.

[Thedelldays]

I'm worried that you feel the need to have a UEFA license to understand such an easy concept. Does explain a lot though.

you clearly believe you know all and I dont

 

so please, if us "mongs" have less of an idea than you..please show us your pro licence..

 

unless, you use the term "mongs" simply because someone does not agree with you.

 

not too sure which it is....maybe you are a pro coach...yes, I'll go with that

 

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

you clearly believe you know all and I dont

 

so please, if us "mongs" have less of an idea than you..please show us your pro licence..

 

unless, you use the term "mongs" simply because someone does not agree with you.

 

not too sure which it is....maybe you are a pro coach...yes, I'll go with that

 

 

You want to carry on with this do you?

 

If that's the case, the Pro license doesn't teach you anything about tactics. It's more around coaching techniques, transfer negotiations and the like. But little to none on tactics.

 

Anything else?

[Thedelldays]

You want to carry on with this do you?

 

If that's the case, the Pro license doesn't teach you anything about tactics. It's more around coaching techniques, transfer negotiations and the like. But little to none on tactics.

 

Anything else?

you must be an ex manager then

 

is that you merrington..?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

you must be an ex manager then

 

is that you merrington..?

 

So, I now have to be an ex-manager to understand the basics of football. Jeez. So either I am an ex manager, or you're a retard. I'm a BA, and have never managed a real team in my life, so I guess that means...

 

To be honest, I'd just pipe down if I were you, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Thedelldays]

So, I now have to be an ex-manager to understand the basics of football. Jeez. So either I am an ex manager, or you're a retard. I'm a BA, and have never managed a real team in my life, so I guess that means...

 

To be honest, I'd just pipe down if I were you, you're embarrassing yourself.

like the "mongs" comment for no other reason that not agreeing with somone.

 

and I am embarrassing myself..?

 

dont like other opinions - uset he ignore feature

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

like the "mongs" comment for no other reason that not agreeing with somone.

 

and I am embarrassing myself..?

 

dont like other opinions - uset he ignore feature

 

I don't have a problem with your opinion. I have an issue with it being uninformed, and frankly ill-educated. That's my issue.

[Thedelldays]

I don't have a problem with your opinion. I have an issue with it being uninformed, and frankly ill-educated. That's my issue.

and what is ill educated then on this thread..?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

and what is ill educated then on this thread..?

 

Originally Posted by Thedelldays

why on gods green earth waste a sub on him then...would have been better off sticking with wotton for 20 mins than waste a precious sub..

 

 

This.

[Thedelldays]

Originally Posted by Thedelldays

why on gods green earth waste a sub on him then...would have been better off sticking with wotton for 20 mins than waste a precious sub..

 

 

This.

and that is ill educated how..?

because you disagree..?

 

not a usual thing is it..subbing a sub after 20 mins..

IMO (IN MY OPINION) reading what others have said, listening to the radio and what they said..it was a wasted sub in the context of the outcome..

 

if you disagree, fine..neither of us are right or wrong are we..?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

and that is ill educated how..?

because you disagree..?

 

NO, BECAUSE YOU ASK WHY! You should know why, it's easy for a lot of us to see. But not you.

[Thedelldays]

NO, BECAUSE YOU ASK WHY! You should know why, it's easy for a lot of us to see. But not you.

it is called a different opinion...

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

and that is ill educated how..?

because you disagree..?

 

not a usual thing is it..subbing a sub after 20 mins..

IMO (IN MY OPINION) reading what others have said, listening to the radio and what they said..it was a wasted sub in the context of the outcome..

 

if you disagree, fine..neither of us are right or wrong are we..?

 

In context of the outcome, it may have been wasted, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. What would have happened if we'd have scored in the last 25 minutes? Which player would you have withdrawn?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

it is called a different opinion...

 

No it's not, it's called not understanding. Do I really have to get the definitions of 'Opinion' and 'Understanding' to show you they aren't the same thing?

[The Kraken]

Delldays and Dibden; there's a perfectly good private message system on this board which, as full members, you're both entitled to use. Any chance of the pair of you continuing your tiresome playground spat using that, rather than boring the rest of us mindless with your inane drivel?

[Thedelldays]

In context of the outcome, it may have been wasted, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. What would have happened if we'd have scored in the last 25 minutes? Which player would you have withdrawn?

hindsight is a wonderful thing..that is what makes football the greatest sport to debate..all of us (including you) think we know best...when in reality only the very select few within the game actually do

 

still, that does not stop us mulling over the "what if's" and "if only"

 

if we all agreed or never talked about the previous game then football would be the poorer...

 

but hey, you will probably just dismiss that as thick or negative

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Delldays and Dibden; there's a perfectly good private message system on this board which, as full members, you're both entitled to use. Any chance of the pair of you continuing your tiresome playground spat using that, rather than boring the rest of us mindless with your inane drivel?

 

Do you know what, I apologise to all those bored to **** with this, cos I am and I'm involved. The guy could argue black is white, and I don't have any time for trolling WUM's today. I'll leave him to it.

[jam]

Fairly obviously the 25 minutes that James WAS on the pitch didn't achieve what AP wanted...(some people seem to be comparing him to Ali Dia !)..and clearly AP felt that Barnard had made a huge effort without much result.

Had we been 1 or 2 goals up, it would have been a different scenario.

 

Would you have left the team as it was and hoped for the best ?

 

Scoring in the LAST game, or the one before that ..isn't a reason to continue playing the same man for 90 mins. every game. Surely, it's all about how you perform on the night.? Most people admit he tried hard but without any luck and few chances.

I'm sure LB isn't as embittered about the subbing as some fans seem to be.

 

It's part of the squad process. Some people still have a mindset that the chosen 11 are the best we have and everyone else is an " also ran " who only gets on when someone is injured. I expect LB to be picked on Saturday and he'll probably score a hat-trick, but last night wasn't his night.

 

For the record: Lee Barnard has been subbed on 12 occasions since he first played in January. It's a tactic that AP uses regularly - why is it so surprising now ?

 

As for the question...do you expect such politeness and diplomacy from a manager whose team has just FAILED to get all three points ?

It's obvious he tried everything possible. Do you blame his substitutions for the 17 shots that the players had and didn't score from.?

 

The Q. was.. to say the least...ill-timed. James obviously didn't liven up the midfield as AP hoped and was never going to be a match-winner but Papa and Connolly had a better chance of scoring.

 

I'm glad he did make the change, personally, I'd have put them on sooner.

 

You seem to have completely missed the point that I made which was that it's perfectly reasonable to enquire about AP's thinking behind subbing a sub after twenty minutes or so.

 

In your previous post you claimed that it was obvious why Pardew did what he did to anyone with a clue about football then in the post above say that you'd have changed things sooner. So was AP right and unquestionable or not?

 

You said that obviously we needed every available striker on the pitch but then say it was right to take Barnard off. You can't have it both ways.

 

Pardew made a decision to shuffle the pack including subbing a sub, which rarely happens in football. He's supposed to the the expert. It's quite reasonable for a reporter to ask him to talk about his reasoning so the rest of us (especially the listeners who most likely aren't at the game), can understand a bit more about Pardew's take on the game, the team, etc.

 

Pardew took it the wrong way and saw it as a negative but the question was fair enough.

 

Incidentally, you seem to think that I've got an issue with either the substitutions or Pardew's attitude. I don't know where you've got that from, I just have an issue with fans who seem to think that reporters shouldn't ask questions of the club or manager.

[Hopkins]

Thedelldays coming across as a right tit haha.

 

Thinking he has a different opinion whereas it is just a plain wrong understanding of the game.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

He acted like a petulant child from what I have read about his reaction to the most obvious question about what happened in the game.

 

Well you would find something to hold against him wouldn`t you..

 

I heard the interview and he was obviously annoyed/down about the result

as we all were and the muppet doing the interview was asking

stupid questions..

 

But you side with the radio station as you would anybody except ap

and have the cheek to say you are a fan...

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Pleased to see AP'S reaction' date=' same as mine, shows he cares[/quote']

 

Yep me too shame about the idiots like Alpwhine,that bloke saint stevo who acts like a schoolboy and the fountain of all knowledge cb fry.

[CB Fry]

Pleased to see AP'S reaction' date=' same as mine, shows he cares[/quote']

 

Yep me too shame about the idiots like Alpwhine,that bloke saint stevo who acts like a schoolboy and the fountain of all knowledge cb fry.

 

 

Yeah, because I've not said anything like what 70s Mike has said on this thread....

 

Got arsey when asked about the James on-off substitutions. To be fair the journalist wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't ask about it.

 

And then gave a sharp answer to the closing harmless question about being positive for the final three games.

 

Pardew is clearly gutted, so fair enough, but I'm sure there will be plenty of brainless journalist bashing on here anyway.

 

It's not easy on either party - the manager or the reporter - when both are expected to talk to each other seconds after a match like that.

 

Pard's reaction was a human reaction, but let's not pretend he was asked a "stupid question". It was a perfectly sensible question.

 

And it is part of Pardew's job to speak to the fans after a match and even in the heat of the moment he'd be anticipating being asked that question. Which probably explained his reaction as well. He tried something that didn't come off and is probably furious with himself as well.

 

Yes, and the line of questioning was why not someone else being that James was on the field for twenty minutes and was a sub himself.

 

It wasn't a "stupid ass" question it was the question any reporter or any fan would ask.

Pardew's reaction was arsey but fine - you can tell he was gutted and it's great he feels so much for the job he is doing.

But enough reporter bashing already.

 

 

 

Look at me Pardew bashing

 

Just read what you want to read you bunch of planks.

[dune]

He acted like a petulant child from what I have read about his reaction to the most obvious question about what happened in the game.

 

LOL, so you're an expert on a match without seeing it, and now you're an expert on an interview without hearing it.

[pilsburydoughboy]

if we dont win, we blame the ref, the pitch or the opposition tactics

 

Three clear penalties and the ref ignores all of them.

Lambert gets the **** kicked out him all night and the ref does nothing.

I think we are right to blame the ref.

[CB Fry]

Ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer. Just because some people on this site can only deal with questions that already indicate the answer, doesn't mean we all have to. The implication that the James substitution was a mistake was also wrong. A proper reporter would have asked questions without agenda (a proper reporter can do this and extract the information needed), and not spend his time trying to get across their own views and grievances.

 

In your opinion. You might try and lord it, but you aint Arsene Wenger my old son. You're not even Lew Chatterley.

 

Asking a sensible question - why sub a sub - was a perfectly normal thing to do. What freaking "agenda" is Solent working to now? And what "grievances" have they got?

 

Is "Paranoia" a key part of the Pro Licence course you did? I think you need a bit of real life experience mush. You don't know it all from sewing a fabric badge on your tracksuit.

 

 

So you're chasing the game. You have 6 available players to take off to bring a more attacking player on. So you take off the least attacking player. The one who is likely to creat least. One who played at RB last season and has been injured for a lot of this season.

 

You'd have to be a moron or sub 10 years old to not know why he did that.

 

Maybe, maybe not. The list of reasons for taking him off sound like quite good reasons to not put him on a whole twenty minutes earlier.

 

But I'm not bothered about the decision, just the reporters right to ask about it. I never question any decision any manager makes during a match. People probably think I do but I don't.

 

For your info, Radio Solent is not "Football Expert Only FM" for people writing a thesis on the catenaccio system.

 

It is, hilariously enough, mainly for people not at the game. You know, radio isn't really a visual medium.

 

Didn't they teach you anything at Ball-bag college?

Edited 21 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

In your opinion. You might try and lord it, but you aint Arsene Wenger my old son. You're not even Lew Chatterley.

 

Asking a sensible question - why sub a sub - was a perfectly normal thing to do. What freaking "agenda" is Solent working to now? And what "grievances" have they got?

 

Is "Paranoia" a key part of the Pro Licence course you did? I think you need a bit of real life experience mush. You don't know it all from sewing a fabric badge on your tracksuit.

 

 

 

Didn't they teach you anything at Ball-bag college?

 

Do you know what, I did react to you, but I'm going to remove that as I can't be arsed with all you WUM's. My point is above. No I don't have a UEFA Pro license or anything of the sort. I feel that people are trying to make something of nothing, and funnily enough, it's the usual suspects. That's it.

Edited 21 April, 2010 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[jam]

...

Edited 21 April, 2010 by jam
redundant and pointless post.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Oh the irony. I applaud you on your debating skills, sir.

 

Maybe in future you shouldn't post after being in the pub?

 

I have nothing to debate. My point was made earlier in the thread, I just don't enjoy the way the 3 amigo's back each other up NO MATTER WHAT. That is what has got my goat.

[jam]

I have nothing to debate. My point was made earlier in the thread, I just don't enjoy the way the 3 amigo's back each other up NO MATTER WHAT. That is what has got my goat.

 

Alpine and CB Fry as the 2 of the 3 amigos.

 

You are kidding, right?

[alpine_saint]

Alpine and CB Fry as the 2 of the 3 amigos.

 

You are kidding, right?

 

WTF has this fracas got to do with me ?

[LA77]

Delldays reminds me of that "only me" character in Harry Enfield. Remember him going on MOTD? "only meeeeee, he didn't wanna do that, he wanted to stop the ball going in the goal"

 

Talk about over analyzing ffs. Are you that bored that you have to be on a constant wind up?

[Genk]

Yes, and the line of questioning was why not someone else being that James was on the field for twenty minutes and was a sub himself.

 

It wasn't a "stupid ass" question it was the question any reporter or any fan would ask.

 

Pardew's reaction was arsey but fine - you can tell he was gutted and it's great he feels so much for the job he is doing.

 

But enough reporter bashing already.

 

For me it was a stupid question by the reporter, in order to 'go for it' and bring on another attacker James was probably the only one on the pitch to take off. It's irrelevant that he came on for 20minutes and that was only because Wotton was shockingly poor. Every other player on the pitch either had pace, could finish, had aerial ability and unfortunately for Lloyd he had to go off.

[CB Fry]

Do you know what, I did react to you, but I'm going to remove that as I can't be arsed with all you WUM's. My point is above. No I don't have a UEFA Pro license or anything of the sort. I feel that people are trying to make something of nothing, and funnily enough, it's the usual suspects. That's it.

 

 

That's what I think too.

 

People like the ones who take one pretty tame post match question and turn it into a conspiracy against SFC by, er, Radio Solent.

 

Any chance you'll ever explain what Solent's "agenda" and what their "grievances" are?

 

It's you making something out of nothing, Prof.

Edited 22 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[CB Fry]

For me it was a stupid question by the reporter, in order to 'go for it' and bring on another attacker James was probably the only one on the pitch to take off. It's irrelevant that he came on for 20minutes and that was only because Wotton was shockingly poor. Every other player on the pitch either had pace, could finish, had aerial ability and unfortunately for Lloyd he had to go off.

 

Which is fine. I'm not questioning the decision at all. But having a sub on/off the pitch for twenty minutes is a conversation point. It just is.

 

Pardew could have answered it better but he was clearly angry with himself that they didn't do the job so came across a bit arsey. Perfectly understandable.

 

Anyway, I have contributed enough to this thread.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

That's what I think too.

 

People like the ones who take one pretty tame post match question and turn it into a conspiracy against SFC by, er, Radio Solent.

 

Any chance you'll ever explain what Solent's "agenda" and what their "grievances" are?

 

It's you making something out of nothing, Prof.

 

I don't know what their agenda is, perhaps they've decided after asking moronic questions previously, and getting short shrift, that is makes good radio on one of the most boring stations in the country. Considering that the BBC is not known for it's hard hitting football journalism, there must be something. Watch MOTD, or listen to 5Live and when was the last time you heard them ask a question that is phrased in such a way that it sounds like a criticism. Follow this up with a ridiculou question and it seems that either they're just appalling journalists, wasting the license fee they're given.