West Ham do play worse football than Palace. Though Palace were ****e against us and losing the home game was probably our worst result this season.
I'm the same, but it still wouldn't sit right. I want us to win things looking good, and under Bruce, if we do win something, that's the way we'd do it.
I can't see a manager changing too much if they find out a formation so near to kick off. I'd concentrate on the way my team played much more than the opposition anyway.
Most people on here like to stick to the old stereotypes; **** knows why, cos it just makes them look daft. The idea that Palace are clearly less attractive to watch than several other teams is just absurd, and a lot of people just see what they want to see.
It's incredible that only a few short months ago they looked odds-on to go back Dann to the Championship.
If your team passed it nicely on the floor, and were the better team against Chelsea and Everton, you wouldn't have 28% possession and 1 shot every week. How many of your wins have been 1-0, with less than 40% possession and less shots than the opposition? We played Arsenal today and had 42% possession, more shots than them and 7 corners to 0. The possession would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the last 30 minutes where they, at 3-0 up, gave us a lesson in ball retention. Before that we had the majority. As usual against the top teams we got beat but played well and competed. We gave them a game and didn't just try to 'soak it up'. Despite that style we still don't concede many and haven't lost by more than 3 all season. I've gone off on a tangent a bit but my point is I'm happy we're playing the long game in building a proper competitive team who participate in games, rather than going for the ultra short-term disrupt the opposition approach. Fair play to Pulis, he had to do it and he's got amazing results and the fact it winds us up proves its effectivity, but I'd still rather play football. The success they get with is the annoying thing. They got promoted on the strength of having 15 penalties last season and got another soft one yesterday. It infuriates me that we haven't been able to buy a penalty for the last few years while one or two teams get them seemingly every week, and it isn't just the big clubs. For a team who wins all its games 1-0 it obviously makes a massive difference.
I don't think possession stats tell the whole story. You can pass the ball backwards and forwards, going nowhere with no real idea of what to do and you get good possession stats. But actually it's just been boring.
We've had three penalties in total this season. West Brom was the only one incorrectly awarded. Just because Allardyce argues with a decision doesn't mean he's right, he says the same thing every week. The Norwich and West Ham ones were both penalties because the defenders tried to get away with pushing an attacker in the box. It's against the rules. We get around three penalties per season, that's been the case for 5 or 6 years now (since we had Altidore) while some teams get well into double figures. Palace would surely have been mid-table if they had a standard number of penalties last season and we wouldn't be having this debate. I'm not sure, but it wasn't really the point I was making. The Palace fan argued that his team pass it nicely on the floor and have been outplaying teams, the stats clearly show that isn't true, which is what I was demonstrating.
Palace fan back again I dont think you understand we do pass the ball but in counter attacking way, we dont pass sideways or backwards, we win the ball back and within 2 or 3 direct but on the floor passes we try and get it into chamakh's feet or to a winger, the amount of time palace spend on the ball is small so the posession stats are always going to be against us. When we dont have the ball we retreat to outside our own box, the opposition can pass it sideways and backwards all day long if posession stats is what they are after.
