Week after cup final onwards. A pause during the 3 game winning run vs sh1t teams. Apart from that it's been nowhere near good enough for 12 months.

COYP

Time he should have been sacked - Swansea

Reasons he should have been sacked - Selling Murray, Gayle, Jedinak and Bolasie.
Yes I know we were looking to transition into a more attacking type of fancy team but if the sub vs man u was Jedi instead of Cambell to just retain some order in def/mid we could have walked away with a point.

We were trying at times to play a 442 with 2 big guys upfront of similar attributes who couldn't really work off each other this is where we needed a fox in the box type of striker that we had in Gayle.

Bolasie sale I guess was to fund Benteke but I believe he wanted out from Pardew anyway.

All the above even if not in the first 11 could have attributed something from the bench.

The dance at Wembley, leaving Punch out, shipping 5 goals after being told defence had been training all week, letting 3 teams s***ter then us play like Barcelona and get results, being unable to defend his defenders inability's, the non blame culture of his tactics after defeats but full of self praise when results go our way, the CYL incident (if true)
6 WINS ALL YEAR
But I think (if true) the one that kicks in the teeth the most is being told it's time to step down and not taking it upon himself, yes I guess we were unlucky against mancs and chelsea but these are the teams we should be looking to take points from they are the ones that prove you can cut it.

I didn't think he should have been sacked at anytime. Selling various players wasn't always his choice. If they want to go, then go they will.

We have obviously had a terrible run of results but there are many reasons for it. Pardew tried to alter the system because he felt it had become too predictable and teams were picking us off. Losing Bolasie made that even more necessary. We have suffered particularly damaging injuries to key players, as well as a loss of form from others. Neither was Pardew's fault. He had obviously decided that, in the short term at least, he needed to revert to a more rugged, less expansive, style, and it seemed to be paying dividends with a result against Southampton, and decent performances against Man U and Chelsea.

We obviously needed a shake up defensively, either with new coaching or personnel, but changing the guy at the top seems a big step to me, and probably a step backwards.

I worry that this step has been forced by the Americans and was not wanted by Parish who wanted, as I did, to close ranks and fight our way through. Allardyce is reported to have made an effective job application, backed up with a statistical dossier of where we were going wrong, a month or so ago and sent this to our "investors". If true, and it is them who has forced the issue, then does this mean that the way the club is run has changed for ever? We all thought that Steve Parish was the one who made the decisions but maybe that isn't true anymore.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

When he insulted the Yanks, his days were numbered. He had lost the plot with bizarre substitutions.

THIS!!

Burnley. Then I realised that he wasn't up to the job and no amount of time would change that.

Loads of mistakes but for me his biggest was getting rid of the leaders in the group without replacing them.

The ups and downs of Palace have left me older than my years