Anyone going to acknowledge the bad luck...

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Anyone going to acknowledge the bad luck...

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Inapickle South West 15 Dec 16 11.25am
Originally posted by dannyh How so, we were 2-1 up, before McCarthur was taken off then went 3-2 down in his absence, I fail to see how taking him off "worked" just because he got us an equaliser we should never have needed. ..remind me how they got their first goal again? I seem to have forgotten. Hull really could have got a point at Spurs last night, Spurs were so lucky.
Alert a moderator to this post

Inapickle

South West 15 Dec 16 11.25am

Originally posted by dannyh

How so, we were 2-1 up, before McCarthur was taken off then went 3-2 down in his absence, I fail to see how taking him off "worked" just because he got us an equaliser we should never have needed.

..remind me how they got their first goal again? I seem to have forgotten.

Hull really could have got a point at Spurs last night, Spurs were so lucky.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.29am
Originally posted by Inapickle ..good point. No it isn't. it's clutching at an ever decreasing circle of Straws. As has been pointed out by me and others. How can you determine that taking off Jimmy Mac, as working when before he went off we were winning with him scoring, then after he went off, we were lucky to get a draw. I'll have some of what you've been drinking. What's more worrying, is he doesn't learn by his errors. Burnley away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we lose 3-2. Swansea away:4-3 up,take off MacArthur we lose 5-4. Hull away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we draw 3-3. Lastnight:- 1-1 with minutes to go take off MacArthur and within seconds we concede and lose 2-1. Now I'm no analyst but even I can see a pattern here , why is it AP can not ? Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.30am) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.29am

Originally posted by Inapickle

..good point.

No it isn't. it's clutching at an ever decreasing circle of Straws.

As has been pointed out by me and others. How can you determine that taking off Jimmy Mac, as working when before he went off we were winning with him scoring, then after he went off, we were lucky to get a draw.

I'll have some of what you've been drinking.

What's more worrying, is he doesn't learn by his errors.

Burnley away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we lose 3-2.
Swansea away:4-3 up,take off MacArthur we lose 5-4.
Hull away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we draw 3-3.
Lastnight:- 1-1 with minutes to go take off MacArthur and within seconds we concede and lose 2-1.

Now I'm no analyst but even I can see a pattern here , why is it AP can not ?

Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.30am)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

Inapickle South West 15 Dec 16 11.29am
Originally posted by gambler I will disagree. We could well have come out of the United and Chelsea games with one point. Now we'll have none. Why save him for Chelsea? If anything get the booking out the way and choose that game for him to miss as we're extremely unlikely to get anything from it with or without him. He is more needed in closer games i think. ..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't.
Alert a moderator to this post

Inapickle

South West 15 Dec 16 11.29am

Originally posted by gambler

I will disagree. We could well have come out of the United and Chelsea games with one point. Now we'll have none.

Why save him for Chelsea? If anything get the booking out the way and choose that game for him to miss as we're extremely unlikely to get anything from it with or without him. He is more needed in closer games i think.

..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.32am
Originally posted by Inapickle ..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't. Are you just ignoring the obvious to be a divisive attention seeker, or are you genuinely being that dumb. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.32am

Originally posted by Inapickle

..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't.

Are you just ignoring the obvious to be a divisive attention seeker, or are you genuinely being that dumb.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

Inapickle South West 15 Dec 16 11.32am
Originally posted by dannyh No it isn't. it's clutching at an ever decreasing circle of Straws. As has been pointed out by me and others. How can you determine that taking off Jimmy Mac, as working when before he went off we were winning with him scoring, then after he went off, we were lucky to get a draw. I'll have some of what you've been drinking. What's more worrying, is he doesn't learn by his errors. Burnley away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we lose 3-2. Swansea away:4-3 up,take off MacArthur we lose 5-4. Hull away:2-1 up, take off MacArthur we draw 3-3. Lastnight:- 1-1 with minutes to go take off MacArthur and within seconds we concede and lose 2-1. Now I'm no analyst but even I can see a pattern here , why is it AP can not ? Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.30am) ..coincidence.
Alert a moderator to this post

Inapickle

South West 15 Dec 16 11.32am

Originally posted by dannyh

No it isn't. it's clutching at an ever decreasing circle of Straws.

I'll have some of what you've been drinking.

What's more worrying, is he doesn't learn by his errors.

Now I'm no analyst but even I can see a pattern here , why is it AP can not ?

Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.30am)

..coincidence.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.38am
Originally posted by Inapickle ..coincidence. Dumb it is then. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 15 Dec 16 11.38am

Originally posted by Inapickle

..coincidence.

Dumb it is then.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

rollercoaster Cornwall 15 Dec 16 11.53am
What is worrying me is that the easy answer is just to say PARDEW OUT to everything that happens, and to say anybody who disagrees is DELUDED and STUPID. This leaves no room for useful debate and no room for balanced discussion. We were clearly unlucky yesterday. The team clearly are fighting for Pardew. The disputed goal on the stroke of half-time with our bad run would have put the heads down of most teams but our team continue to fight. The subsitution had no impact on their second goal, Jimmy Mac wouldn't have been involved I don't think. At the time ManU were attacking with 8-9 players, could be Pardew was thinking by playing a hard running Campbell we could maybe reduce the tide. However, I probably agree that Pardew's time is up but sacking him will be a high risk strategy and will only be made when it is 100% clear that we are not going to get out of this slump. I thing Pardew's tactics are questionable and have cost us a number of points this year. I also think the coaching of the team has gone downhill and hold Pardew responsible for this. In hindsight the board should have replaced Pardew in the Summer in the light of our terrible form in the second half of last year.
Alert a moderator to this post

rollercoaster

Cornwall 15 Dec 16 11.53am

What is worrying me is that the easy answer is just to say PARDEW OUT to everything that happens, and to say anybody who disagrees is DELUDED and STUPID. This leaves no room for useful debate and no room for balanced discussion.

We were clearly unlucky yesterday. The team clearly are fighting for Pardew. The disputed goal on the stroke of half-time with our bad run would have put the heads down of most teams but our team continue to fight. The subsitution had no impact on their second goal, Jimmy Mac wouldn't have been involved I don't think. At the time ManU were attacking with 8-9 players, could be Pardew was thinking by playing a hard running Campbell we could maybe reduce the tide.

However, I probably agree that Pardew's time is up but sacking him will be a high risk strategy and will only be made when it is 100% clear that we are not going to get out of this slump. I thing Pardew's tactics are questionable and have cost us a number of points this year. I also think the coaching of the team has gone downhill and hold Pardew responsible for this. In hindsight the board should have replaced Pardew in the Summer in the light of our terrible form in the second half of last year.

Alert a moderator to this post

gambler Kent 15 Dec 16 12.00pm
Originally posted by Inapickle ..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't. I did say we "could" have got a point. But of course none of us will ever know for sure will we?
Alert a moderator to this post

gambler

Kent 15 Dec 16 12.00pm

Originally posted by Inapickle

..but the decision to change him didn't cause the goal, for your convenience it did ..but it didn't.

I did say we "could" have got a point. But of course none of us will ever know for sure will we?

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 15 Dec 16 12.39pm
Originally posted by Flightsequence How can that be? One is a center forward, and the other a winger? The reason he didn't bring Townsend on was because we had two wide players on ie Fryers although a defender, he played him further forward, like when he supplied the cross for a Benteke goal earlier in the season (I think), and Zaha who was by that time, back out wide. I just think he brought Campbell on to make it a four when going forward, but chose Fryers for his ability to defend when they came forward. As opposed to Townsend who can't be a** to do any defensive duties. Maybe it was suicide, but I think he is just gambling on getting all the points. Maybe foolish, but gambling 1 point for 3 is a chance maybe worth taking in a game we weren't expecting much from. Edited by Flightsequence (15 Dec 2016 10.12am) You my dear, are a fool. That final sentence sums up the zombies who're willing to follow P1ss poor Pardew into the championship. Gambling 1 point for 3 in a game weren't expecting much from is worth taking? You are Alan aren't you? Who have we got next? How many points have we won lately? That's his problem. Always going to win cos he knows it's doubtful he'll get fack all elsewhere. Get the t1t out asap. COYP**
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 15 Dec 16 12.39pm

Originally posted by Flightsequence

How can that be? One is a center forward, and the other a winger? The reason he didn't bring Townsend on was because we had two wide players on ie Fryers although a defender, he played him further forward, like when he supplied the cross for a Benteke goal earlier in the season (I think), and Zaha who was by that time, back out wide. I just think he brought Campbell on to make it a four when going forward, but chose Fryers for his ability to defend when they came forward. As opposed to Townsend who can't be a**** to do any defensive duties. Maybe it was suicide, but I think he is just gambling on getting all the points. Maybe foolish, but gambling 1 point for 3 is a chance maybe worth taking in a game we weren't expecting much from.

Edited by Flightsequence (15 Dec 2016 10.12am)

You my dear, are a fool. That final sentence sums up the zombies who're willing to follow P1ss poor Pardew into the championship.

Gambling 1 point for 3 in a game weren't expecting much from is worth taking? You are Alan aren't you? Who have we got next? How many points have we won lately? That's his problem. Always going to win cos he knows it's doubtful he'll get fack all elsewhere.

Get the t1t out asap.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

JacksonEagle Croydon 15 Dec 16 12.45pm
Originally posted by rollercoaster What is worrying me is that the easy answer is just to say PARDEW OUT to everything that happens, and to say anybody who disagrees is DELUDED and STUPID. This leaves no room for useful debate and no room for balanced discussion. We were clearly unlucky yesterday. The team clearly are fighting for Pardew. The disputed goal on the stroke of half-time with our bad run would have put the heads down of most teams but our team continue to fight. The subsitution had no impact on their second goal, Jimmy Mac wouldn't have been involved I don't think. At the time ManU were attacking with 8-9 players, could be Pardew was thinking by playing a hard running Campbell we could maybe reduce the tide. However, I probably agree that Pardew's time is up but sacking him will be a high risk strategy and will only be made when it is 100% clear that we are not going to get out of this slump. I thing Pardew's tactics are questionable and have cost us a number of points this year. I also think the coaching of the team has gone downhill and hold Pardew responsible for this. In hindsight the board should have replaced Pardew in the Summer in the light of our terrible form in the second half of last year. But we weren't, Utd absolutely bossed us yesterday, it was almost like a training exercise last night and as many have said the bad decisions pretty much equalled out. Yes people will say down to 10 men bla bla, the last 2 games we were playing 10 men we bottled it. Football is a simple game, play your best players in there best positions for some reason Pards can't get this into thick head.
Alert a moderator to this post

JacksonEagle

Croydon 15 Dec 16 12.45pm

Originally posted by rollercoaster

We were clearly unlucky yesterday. The team clearly are fighting for Pardew. The disputed goal on the stroke of half-time with our bad run would have put the heads down of most teams but our team continue to fight. The subsitution had no impact on their second goal, Jimmy Mac wouldn't have been involved I don't think. At the time ManU were attacking with 8-9 players, could be Pardew was thinking by playing a hard running Campbell we could maybe reduce the tide.

But we weren't, Utd absolutely bossed us yesterday, it was almost like a training exercise last night and as many have said the bad decisions pretty much equalled out. Yes people will say down to 10 men bla bla, the last 2 games we were playing 10 men we bottled it. Football is a simple game, play your best players in there best positions for some reason Pards can't get this into thick head.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 15 Dec 16 12.46pm
We've conceded goals in the last 10mins of time 4 out of the last 6 games...costing us 6points had they not been conceded in the process...those 6 points would see us in 9th place. We're not getting spanked either...we just need to concentrate for the whole game The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 15 Dec 16 12.46pm

We've conceded goals in the last 10mins of time 4 out of the last 6 games...costing us 6points had they not been conceded in the process...those 6 points would see us in 9th place.

We're not getting spanked either...we just need to concentrate for the whole game

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Flightsequence 15 Dec 16 12.49pm
Originally posted by dannyh First off playing players out of position is something of a forte for Pardew, Ward Left Back, Kelly right Back, Sako Left Back Mcarthur Right wing etc. And you say about a winger not being a forward, OK then explain why Wilf was put up front in a two with Tekkers, while Lee was played Left and McCarthur played right wing FFS. I said from the start that Townsend for Puncheon was a straight and simple choice. Wilf right and Chungy left with Ledley and McCarthur deep. If you then want to go more defensive you bring Cabaye on for Townsend and ask him to sit just behind a loan striker. But no thundercnut decides to bring on Frazer "couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat" Cambell and take off a defensive CM with 4, thats 4 Mins left. The man is a f*witted buffoon who will Guaranteed have us swapping places with the weed. And what's more Parish is letting it happen. How anyone can defend 6 wins in 41 league games is beyond me. I have no confidence at all we will beat either Chelsea Watford or Arsenal meaning that we will have 15 points after 19 Games. Or 6 Wins out of 44 Games. If you or anyone else thinks that is acceptable form for a manager, then you need help. Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.13am) You know what. You do make some very valid points. I too was a bit confused by the look of the starting lineup. But, the whole square pegs in round holes thing is probably due to him not trusting most of them. The Ward scenario is because he doesn't trust Kelly, or Fryers defending, and Tomkins can probably only play one side at full back. The reason why Townsend is benched is because he wants to play on the same side as Zaha and is sulking, and with Zaha's form it aint happening. Maybe the players cant be ar* to play for Pardew and then it really is time to get rid. Seriously, I'm not a Pardew lover, but just can't stand it when people just jump on anything to batter him with regardless. I think we are too open at the back and maybe Pardews tactics are a bit gung ho. So hopefully the new man when appointed will balance the ambition to win games. However, we may go back to the, we're drawing, sit tight, and make no subs to change the game scenario. I also can't see us getting anything against Chelsea or Arsenal, but have you really ever expected to? So its a new manager, some player who can be bothered, and another new system. Fingers crossed. Please don't let it be a backward step with a new up and coming manager or Fat Sam. We need a proper master tactician. Not unless we all chip in with our ideas and pass them on. Now where's my old Trevor Francis tracksuit.
Alert a moderator to this post

Flightsequence

15 Dec 16 12.49pm

Send a Private Message to Flightsequence

Originally posted by dannyh

First off playing players out of position is something of a forte for Pardew, Ward Left Back, Kelly right Back, Sako Left Back Mcarthur Right wing etc. And you say about a winger not being a forward, OK then explain why Wilf was put up front in a two with Tekkers, while Lee was played Left and McCarthur played right wing FFS.

I said from the start that Townsend for Puncheon was a straight and simple choice. Wilf right and Chungy left with Ledley and McCarthur deep. If you then want to go more defensive you bring Cabaye on for Townsend and ask him to sit just behind a loan striker.

But no thundercnut decides to bring on Frazer "couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat" Cambell and take off a defensive CM with 4, thats 4 Mins left. The man is a f***witted buffoon who will Guaranteed have us swapping places with the weed.

And what's more Parish is letting it happen. How anyone can defend 6 wins in 41 league games is beyond me.

I have no confidence at all we will beat either Chelsea Watford or Arsenal meaning that we will have 15 points after 19 Games. Or 6 Wins out of 44 Games.

If you or anyone else thinks that is acceptable form for a manager, then you need help.

Edited by dannyh (15 Dec 2016 11.13am)

You know what. You do make some very valid points. I too was a bit confused by the look of the starting lineup. But, the whole square pegs in round holes thing is probably due to him not trusting most of them. The Ward scenario is because he doesn't trust Kelly, or Fryers defending, and Tomkins can probably only play one side at full back. The reason why Townsend is benched is because he wants to play on the same side as Zaha and is sulking, and with Zaha's form it aint happening. Maybe the players cant be ar*** to play for Pardew and then it really is time to get rid. Seriously, I'm not a Pardew lover, but just can't stand it when people just jump on anything to batter him with regardless. I think we are too open at the back and maybe Pardews tactics are a bit gung ho. So hopefully the new man when appointed will balance the ambition to win games. However, we may go back to the, we're drawing, sit tight, and make no subs to change the game scenario. I also can't see us getting anything against Chelsea or Arsenal, but have you really ever expected to? So its a new manager, some player who can be bothered, and another new system. Fingers crossed. Please don't let it be a backward step with a new up and coming manager or Fat Sam. We need a proper master tactician. Not unless we all chip in with our ideas and pass them on. Now where's my old Trevor Francis tracksuit.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Anyone going to acknowledge the bad luck...

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors