Premier League 2013/14 Stuff it in here!

[Corky]

Newcastle are 9th yet have lost 3-0 on 5 occasions and 4-0 four times.

[Dan]

Lallana at £25mil is a laughable call. I like him but he's never ever worth that.

[Dan]

Newcastle are 9th yet have lost 3-0 on 5 occasions and 4-0 four times.

 

They're an awful side with a bang average manager who'd been gotten out of jail by quality individuals on a number of occasions. I don't think it's any coincidence that they've nosedived as soon as Cabaye's done a runner.

 

From a footballing perspective I'd hate being a Newcastle fan.

[AjcW]

It's strange, it was my understanding that Pardew got the job to pay back Mike Ashley a huge sum of money he owed him, now it seems like it's Pardew who has the dirt on Mike! How else would he still have a job.

 

I really hope someone buys the club soon, it's a shame to see them like this, I know it's not a view shared on this forum but its a club close to me for family reasons and they deserve a good manager, good players and some money, that stadium deserves European football and so do the fans (although I know most will disagree).

[Dan]

I've got a couple of decent mates who support Newcastle and one of them's finally jacked in his season ticket. Shame seeing him like that as he's someone who I share about 99% of views on football with, so can totally see where he's coming from. I get the feeling if it wasn't for their scouting team they'd be back in the Championship.

 

I also hope they sort themselves out as they're an excellent fanbase and bar Shearer, a pretty harmless club.

 

Though I think we can actually take advantage of their plight next year.

[ScouseFox]

I hate pardew and hate Newcastle and hope they never win another game of football

[Haydos]

I heard Stan Collymore on TalkSport saying that there should be a rule where if a player gets tackled in the area, stays up, manages to get a shot away but still misses, then the referee should be allowed to go back and award the penalty lol. What the hell?! That's not playing 1 advantage, that's a double advantage! The team attacking gets 2 bites at the cherry. 

 

 

Wtf

 

Is it that crazy? It's exactly how the penalty advantage works in Rugby. If you foul someone and they get a shot off but it's shit because you fouled them then how is that any sort of advantage?

 

If there's a foul and the advantage leaves them in a worse position than a penalty would do then I think the ref should be able to allow an attempt on goal and pull it back if there's a miss because otherwise the defender is getting away with murder.

 

If there's a foul and the attacker manages to recover to a good position and gets a shot off and cocks it up there's no reason to pull it back.

 

Basically, an advantage should be an advantage, if play goes on and the players falling over because of the foul and swings a leg to get a shot off that's not really an advantage, is it?

[Haydos]

Neville's defence of Chelsea's disgraceful tactics has been embarrassing. They need someone a little less biased against Liverpool next time.

 

How is it embarrassing? If you wouldn't do anything within the rules to win a Premiership title I'd say that was embarrassing. Or is this a case of anybody-that-would-do-something-different-to-me-is-wrong once again?

[StanSP]

Is it that crazy? It's exactly how the penalty advantage works in Rugby. If you foul someone and they get a shot off but it's shit because you fouled them then how is that any sort of advantage?

If there's a foul and the advantage leaves them in a worse position than a penalty would do then I think the ref should be able to allow an attempt on goal and pull it back if there's a miss because otherwise the defender is getting away with murder.

If there's a foul and the attacker manages to recover to a good position and gets a shot off and cocks it up there's no reason to pull it back.

Basically, an advantage should be an advantage, if play goes on and the players falling over because of the foul and swings a leg to get a shot off that's not really an advantage, is it?

That's the thing - Collymore was saying it for both. Whether the players gets a shot off well or not, he said it should be brought back for a penalty.

[Haydos]

I find him entertaining, personally opinion, preferences. Am I allowed to have those?

 

Nope, have to share his opinion or you're an idiot.

[Haydos]

That's the thing - Collymore was saying it for both. Whether the players gets a shot off well or not, he said it should be brought back for a penalty.

 

Ah right, I think it would be difficult because referees don't seem to be able to handle having a bit of discretion. I don't think I made my point very well tbh but the gist is there somewhere

[Guest MattP]

Is it that crazy? It's exactly how the penalty advantage works in Rugby. If you foul someone and they get a shot off but it's shit because you fouled them then how is that any sort of advantage?

 

If there's a foul and the advantage leaves them in a worse position than a penalty would do then I think the ref should be able to allow an attempt on goal and pull it back if there's a miss because otherwise the defender is getting away with murder.

 

If there's a foul and the attacker manages to recover to a good position and gets a shot off and cocks it up there's no reason to pull it back.

 

Basically, an advantage should be an advantage, if play goes on and the players falling over because of the foul and swings a leg to get a shot off that's not really an advantage, is it?

 

Spot on.

 

Rugby and American football, it works perfect in both and they have the advantage rule down to perfection.

 

I don't understand how any football fan has a problem with it, if you have been fouled you should benefit, you should get the original attack and another chance if you don't actually get "an advantage".

 

Would also make defenders think twice about trying to foul and we would get a far more fluent game.

[StanSP]

Ah right, I think it would be difficult because referees don't seem to be able to handle having a bit of discretion. I don't think I made my point very well tbh but the gist is there somewhere

No. You fvcking didn't. .

Collymore was lambasted by the presenter of the show though straight after. Can't imagine what some of the calls or texts he got were like .

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Haydos]

You again sound like you have a big chip on your shoulder.

If it that was that easy to put 11 men behind the ball and shut up shop, do you not think every team that went to Anfield would do the same thing? Liverpool have been ON FIRE at home for the past few months, yet Chelsea reduce them to a blank sheet.

It might not be big, it might not be pretty but again, that is an EXCELLENT win for Chelsea, orchestrated by a master tactician.

Not for the first time this season, you're talking out your arris.

Looking at the Chelsea fans on SKY after the game, I think they're well chuffed. Dont you?

There is a big difference between LIKING what Mourinho does and respecting the results he gets. Football is a results business and Mourinho gets results.

 

If you watch Carra and Neville's analysis of Chelsea's setup it is very interesting to watch. Mou again implementing a system perfectly, not just 'parking the bus' (a term i'm really starting to fvcking loathe). It's not very fun to watch but I do appreciate the tactical guise in some of the more subtle elements (how they distribute and set up on goal kicks and throw ins), the discipline positioning etc.

Liverpool knew they'd be likely to do this and couldn't break them down, especially getting frustrated in the second half. 

[Haydos]

Spot on.

 

Rugby and American football, it works perfect in both and they have the advantage rule down to perfection.

 

I don't understand how any football fan has a problem with it, if you have been fouled you should benefit, you should get the original attack and another chance if you don't actually get "an advantage".

 

Would also make defenders think twice about trying to foul and we would get a far more fluent game.

 

I'd like to see a longer advantage, especially in the final third. Just because you retain the ball it doesn't mean there's an advantage. More than likely the foul has slowed your attack down, allowed defenders more time, reposition etc.

[Bobby Hundreds]

One of the greatest ever Premier League moments was when Newcastle got relegated. Fantastic scenes. 

[Dan]

I was actually impressed by Chelsea this time. Maybe I've just took a massive change in my own idea of what I like to see over the weekend but I thought they played it nearly perfectly, especially considering they handed a debut to a young defender too.

 

Wasn't without its luck though.

[Corky]

Newcastle undoubtedly do have the deluded few who are unrealistic but the supporters haven't seen a domestic trophy win for nearly 60 years (and seen many clubs with a fraction of the fanbase and money spent claim prizes) and this season they seemed to have given up and taken it easy in the last six weeks.

 

You'd be fed up if you'd seen your team beaten by at least three goals in a quarter of the games.

[ScouseFox]

Remember when pardew said Newcastle were in a different league to Everton

[Dan]

Remember when pardew said Newcastle were in a different league to Everton

 

They will be by 2015 at this rate.

[Grandad.]

If you watch Carra and Neville's analysis of Chelsea's setup it is very interesting to watch. Mou again implementing a system perfectly, not just 'parking the bus' (a term i'm really starting to fvcking loathe). It's not very fun to watch but I do appreciate the tactical guise in some of the more subtle elements (how they distribute and set up on goal kicks and throw ins), the discipline positioning etc.

Liverpool knew they'd be likely to do this and couldn't break them down, especially getting frustrated in the second half. 

 

I'm not picking an argument but how is what Chelsea done on Sunday any different to what West Ham did v Chelsea at Stamford Bridge this season and Fat Sam was ridiculed about how he set up? West Ham did pretty much everything the same as Chelsea did Sunday but didn't get the same result. 

 

I like Newcastle, simply down to my best friend being a Geordie, amazing they are still in the top half of the table. Pardew has to go and Newcastle should be busting their balls for Moyes. 

[Lionator]

Spot on.

 

Rugby and American football, it works perfect in both and they have the advantage rule down to perfection.

 

I don't understand how any football fan has a problem with it, if you have been fouled you should benefit, you should get the original attack and another chance if you don't actually get "an advantage".

 

Would also make defenders think twice about trying to foul and we would get a far more fluent game.

 

You can't compare the advantage rule in Football to the one in Rugby. Rugby is an attritional game where it takes longer to make progress (gain an advantage) through making a line break. In Football, you can gain an advantage pretty much straight away hence the referee playing advantage.

[Haydos]

I'm not picking an argument but how is what Chelsea done on Sunday any different to what West Ham did v Chelsea at Stamford Bridge this season and Fat Sam was ridiculed about how he set up? West Ham did pretty much everything the same as Chelsea did Sunday but didn't get the same result. 

 

I like Newcastle, simply down to my best friend being a Geordie, amazing they are still in the top half of the table. Pardew has to go and Newcastle should be busting their balls for Moyes. 

 

I'm not sure, I've not seen any analysis of it. Maybe it was the same, I just tend to hear it's more just hoof it up to Carroll with them in attack and men behind the ball in defence. I'm only going on the finer points that I mentioned from the bit I watched.

[Haydos]

You can't compare the advantage rule in Football to the one in Rugby. Rugby is an attritional game where it takes longer to make progress (gain an advantage) through making a line break. In Football, you can gain an advantage pretty much straight away hence the referee playing advantage.

 

But the causes and outcomes are the same. If you're going to argue against it can you address the reasoning I gave for it earlier? Why should a defender be able to get away with a foul and an attacker have to take a shot from a much worse position because of it?

 

The attacker cannot choose not to take the shot in most circumstances, he won't know if the ref's going to give it or not and besides, he's going on instinct. 

[Grandad.]

I'm not sure, I've not seen any analysis of it. Maybe it was the same, I just tend to hear it's more just hoof it up to Carroll with them in attack and men behind the ball in defence. I'm only going on the finer points that I mentioned from the bit I watched.

 

We had the game on in the pub that night and West Ham played really well and had a couple of half decent chances, they set up pretty similarly to how Chelsea did. Yet Fat Sam was called a disgrace and Mourinho is called a genius. 

 

Suppose when you're a team second in the league you can get away with it compared to the teams near the bottom.