Who Can Still Defend Pardew's Substitutions?

No neither do you therefore you have no idea how they do in training and what goes on behind the scenes so you have as much idea as me as to why Pardew decided to play Sammy ahead of HBA and yet we have to take your word as gospel. The person probably who does know best about these things is Pardew.

 

I have no problem with you preferring HBA to Sammy or to your thinking that would have been a bettr option. It's a game of opinions. What is getting up my nose and perhaps a few other peoples is your assertion that preferring Sammy, or whoever, is illogical.

Sammy and HBA have been muchof a muchness so far this year. The manager knows both of them better than we do. he prefers Sammy for that match. Someone else may have preferred HBA. Niether decision is more logocal than the other - - certainly not on the information available to you and me.

You may be right. You may be wrong. Stating your opinion in more and more extreme language doesn't improve your chance of being right

 

I agree I just don't see the need to get upset with him over it. I wish he was better with substitutions but I've accepted he isn't at present. Maybe he will be when he has more choice and continues learning.

 

I was upset with him after Norwich and Swansea (fuming and raging actually) but I still respect him and really like him as our manager. Just had to vent my frustration at him that day and I still do believe that he's very weak at making substitutions.

Hope he can prove me and many others wrong on Wednesday though

 

I totally dispute that. I recognised Pards lack of reason in his subs weeks and weeks ago. And said as much (unsurprisingly). I also say it as soon as they happen whether they come off or not. If they do come off I take it back. Apart from Shola against Spurs I am yet to be proved wrong.

 

But Pardew has been in the game for 25 years as people insist on telling me. How much more does he need to learn that HBA was tailor made for that match on Satday and the Norwich game?

 

How many times do substitutes win points for a team? It is certainly not a weekly thing, so basically what you are saying is that Pardew is not going to make an inspired substitute decision every week and claiming that makes you right. It would be like if I said the lottery number this week are not 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 and then saying I was right because they did not come up.

 

No. I am saying that in 16 Premier League games I have been left scratching my head and confused in at least 10, 11 maybe 12 of them. Its a regular occurance that has lead other people on this forum to start this thread for example. Plus other websites and reviewers stating the words "Pardew. Baffling. Substitution." in the same sentence.

 

You mean the same people who were baffled when Shola came on against Spurs?

 

Yea. Exactly. That sub turned out to get us a point. Was it through genius or luck, who knows. However it turned out well for Pards so no-one said a word. However if Shola had done his Bambi on ice act, every man and his dog would jump all over it.

The reason I am going on so much is because these head scratching decisions have been going on all season long. When will it end?

 

Well if it continues everytime a substitute does not make a dramatic impact, or your favourite player is not picked, I will suspect it will not end.

 

I'm finding it frankly ridiculous that there are suggestions that the substitions stopped us from winning against Swansea. Our failure to score despite considerable possession and a failure to convert one of a number of chances during the first 70 minutes stopped us from winning.

Substitutions are a lottery, sometimes they work other times they don't. Acting wise in hindsight is all very good but it is pretty unfair to be overly critical to a manager who is doing as well as he is, especially as we will never know if your own personal choice of subs would have done any better.

I didn't agree with all the changes he made but his explanation for his reasoning shows that he had a plan and he wasn't just throwing on the best player on the bench and hoping for the best. Personally I prefer that approach.

... and yes he does see more of the players than us so if he thinks Sammy is the guy to deliver from the right and not HBA then I trust his judgement.

 

Never said HBA is my fav player. The choice of getting him on the pitch seemed as obvious and blatant as the nose on your face. Thats all.

 

All of this. Ben Arfa isnt god. He would thrive in very open games but in this case they had just parked the bus and tried to hit us on the break.

 

Dont accuse me of this. I am one of the few people on here that states things before they happen and comes up with things to prevent potential problems or possible solutions. I dont work in hindsight. Its the reason why so many people think I am a madman.

Just saying.

 

Ben Arfa isnt god. But he is better than Sammy and Obertan. No?

 

Nobody said substitutes stopped us from winning. But putting on the rather experienced and skilful Ben Arfa would probably have made a bigger impact than putting on Vuckic or Sammy , irrelevant of where you put them on the pitch.

By no means am I saying we would have won the game but we would have had a better chance in my opinion had we given HBA 20 minutes to get into the game and start finding gaps and holes in Swansea's defence.

 

Your question is basically "When will your opinion be more like Pardew's ?".

The answer to that is probably when one of you has learned more about football. I'll leave it to you to decide who needs to be educated.

 

We're just going to keep going around in circles then?

 

as far ass Sammy goes, not on the evidence so far this season