A few things from last night

Winker · Mar 1, 2017

So what was that flashing thing chucked on to the pitch? Just at the start of the second half, somebody in the NS threw a glittery-flashing light- thing into the 6-yard area to the left of the goal. It then seemed to flash for the rest of the game. Anyone else see it?

Puppet Master · Mar 1, 2017

The tactic seemed to be Baldock drifting out to the wing a bit with Knockaert in a semi-free role cutting in from there. As a result Murray looked a bit like a lone striker. He held the ball up well and looked to play it off to runners but was just a bit sloppy.

seagulls4ever · Mar 1, 2017

Not sure what Tomori being young and played out of position has got to do with anything. As it is, apart from the first half of the second half, he was very poor. You can give reasons why, and they might be justified, but that doesn't take away from him being poor and causing some uneasiness for the rest of the team, who didn't look like they trusted him. Plus, I thought he was meant to be able to play anywhere along the back-four.

HantsSeagull · Mar 1, 2017

sorry if fixtures but did anyone else see Murray and Richie (i think) having handbags at the end after the final whistle on east side of the pitch -Muzza wasn't happy.

*Gullsworth* · Mar 1, 2017

Watched the highlights......yes I know just the highlights but we seemed to play very well....One cleared of the line, goalie made 2 or 3 excellent saves. Stockdale cooked one up but got away with it. Penalty scored....could go either way then luckiest goal you could ever imagine....then the inevitable Georgie winner. Overall sickening way to lose an even game but no shame in losing like that to a top, top team and club. We still looked a good side but admit knackered after the equaliser. Not time to push the panic button yet.

Balders · Mar 1, 2017

seagulls4ever said:
Not sure what Tomori being young and played out of position has got to do with anything. As it is, apart from the first half of the second half, he was very poor. You can give reasons why, and they might be justified, but that doesn't take away from him being poor and causing some uneasiness for the rest of the team, who didn't look like they trusted him. Plus, I thought he was meant to be able to play anywhere along the back-four.

ummm so are you advocating that to cover every position we need at least 3 out and out, Prem/Championship players to cover for injuries/other eventualities. This was not the ideal game to throw on a young inexperienced player who got us out of a hole by playing tidily and well enough in a position that necessitated he had to use his weaker foot (notwithstanding in a lesser quality of opposition he has probably got away with it, hence being "able" to play anywhere along the back four) Give the lad a break, stop looking for a scapegoat when he really wasn't one!

seagulls4ever · Mar 1, 2017

Balders said:
ummm so are you advocating that to cover every position we need at least 3 out and out, Prem/Championship players to cover for injuries/other eventualities. This was not the ideal game to throw on a young inexperienced player who got us out of a hole by playing tidily and well enough in a position that necessitated he had to use his weaker foot (notwithstanding in a lesser quality of opposition he has probably got away with it, hence being "able" to play anywhere along the back four) Give the lad a break, stop looking for a scapegoat when he really wasn't one!

What are you talking about? Where was I advocating that? You don't need to take what I say completely out of context. In my opinion, despite all the surrounding circumstances, he was poor, and very untidy (particularly in the first half, and after they scored). It doesn't matter if was inexperienced, nervous, playing out of position, chucked in the deep end, whatever - he didn't perform well. You can make the case that there were mitigating circumstances, sure - I agree - and I think there were signs that he is a decent player (i.e. the first half of the second half when he didn't put a foot wrong), but overall, last night, losing Pocognoli and replacing him with Tomori was a big hindrance to our cause. But he's not one of our players for the future, we signed him as cover and we needed him to perform when he played, and he didn't do so.

That doesn't mean I'm making him a scapegoat - I am simply commenting on my opinion of his performance - this is a football forum after all. Most of the team didn't play well. That includes Tomori. A lot of people are talking about him on here, and I gave my opinion on his performance. I'm not sure what you expect me to do. Should I lie and say I thought he played well, or should I keep my mouth shut and not say anything?

nwgull · Mar 1, 2017

Wrong-Direction said:
I can never understand how people think professional athletes can get tired?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Why would they not get tired? They're just very highly trained humans; they're not machines. I imagine that the average amateur player would last about 10 minutes playing at the same intensity.

Balders · Mar 1, 2017

no offence meant, just my take on things. I do think that lots of people are very fickle when it comes to accepting results like that, what it does show is passion, which is a good thing.......but with our togetherness should mean "we win as a team and we lose as a team". What if they had scored from Stockdale's mistake, would that have taken some of the attention away from Tomori - I bet it would! There is divided opinion on his performance, I'm in the "he did ok/pretty well" camp, yes I agree that we would have been better with Poc, but I don't think we were that worse and it's not as if CH picked him ahead of Poc.......it was just circumstances. Put it this way I'd rather have Tomori on Saturday before Murray instead of Hemed, for whatever reason, something ain't quite right with Murray....... imho obviously

Dirk Lehmann's Python · Mar 1, 2017

goldstone said:
I thought the substitution of a forward for a midfielder (Kayal for Baldock) was a sign of Chris going back to his bad old ways of tying to hang on to a narrow lead or hang on for a point by taking off a striker. All it does is invite more pressure on our defence. Keeping Baldock on the field would have helped to keep the ball more in their half than ours. I would though have brought Hemed on for Murray at around 70 minutes as Glenn was looking knackered.

Don't agree with this, it's a bit of a myth.

When you're 1 up against a good team they are going to try a seige at the goal, regardless of if you have 1 up front of 4 up front.

Flooding the midfield is the best way of stopping that, but unfortunately we conceded a shit goal before the sub was made and just looked totally shot after that.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

LamieRobertson · Mar 1, 2017

seagulls4ever said:
What are you talking about? Where was I advocating that? You don't need to take what I say completely out of context. In my opinion, despite all the surrounding circumstances, he was poor, and very untidy (particularly in the first half, and after they scored). It doesn't matter if was inexperienced, nervous, playing out of position, chucked in the deep end, whatever - he didn't perform well. You can make the case that there were mitigating circumstances, sure - I agree - and I think there were signs that he is a decent player (i.e. the first half of the second half when he didn't put a foot wrong), but overall, last night, losing Pocognoli and replacing him with Tomori was a big hindrance to our cause. But he's not one of our players for the future, we signed him as cover and we needed him to perform when he played, and he didn't do so.

That doesn't mean I'm making him a scapegoat - I am simply commenting on my opinion of his performance - this is a football forum after all. Most of the team didn't play well. That includes Tomori. A lot of people are talking about him on here, and I gave my opinion on his performance. I'm not sure what you expect me to do. Should I lie and say I thought he played well, or should I keep my mouth shut and not say anything?

Aye all about opinions...mine was that after a nervy start Tomori had a fine game and didnt unsettle the back four....Newcastles two wide men had no joy in that second half and swapped over....unfortunately Atsu had a little more joy on Brunos side to get that cross in for there winner...it was a cracking ball to Atsu, although some might say Bruno should have cut it out...i'm not sure i fall into that camp..nevertheless Tomori had coped with those long diagonals very well (in the second half)...with a team like Newcastle (highest scorers?) there are always going to be chances no matter how well a team defend

perseus · Mar 1, 2017

I wonder how the long ball merchants of Newcastle will get on against the passing sides of Huddersfield, Reading and Fulham? Half their team cannot tackle w/o fouling.

hola gus · Mar 1, 2017

Silverhatch said:
It was a great ball BUT it happened soon after AK went off to be replaced by Solly. Solly immediately went narrower than AK (might have been told to do so). That left a big space in front of Bruno and he always advances up the pitch slightly to fill that gap.

Wanted Akpom to come on for Murray and keep Baldock on the pitch. Also wanted Kayal to ****ing sit right on top of Shelvey and see the game out at 1-1. You could see, for the first time in a couple of years, that the player's heads went down after their (Fluke) goal. If it'd been a wonder goal then I'm pretty sure the players, management and supporters would've accepted it and we'd have not lost our heads and held out for the draw. Loads of twists and turns to come but still in a good position. But not so good for my Championship winning bet... Sob.

Proper spot on this. Akpom for Murray was the substitution needed. Baldock could drop in working hard like he does, and Akpom could of stretched BOTH centre halfs with his pace and movement. I feel Hughton went to cautious although maybe he also wanted Murray to stay on and help defend set pieces.

crasher · Mar 1, 2017

24 hours later (more or less) and I'm feeling fairly positive. The strange thing about last night was how Newcastle looked much more dangerous in the first half (after we'd scored). Second half it was looking like we'd closed the game out until that bizarre equaliser. And then we went to pieces.

I think that IF we did go up, we'd better get used to frustrating games like this. We work hard, play OK, get in front and then see a team with a bit more quality - because of their spending power - power past us in the finishing straight. The Premier League would be like that pretty regularly I fear.

But the last few days have told us that we're quite a lot better than Reading and almost as good as Newcastle. It's not a bad place to be.

warmleyseagull · Mar 1, 2017

Just watched the Skysports highlights just to be sure I was at the same game as some other posters, and was quite relieved that I was there after all. The highlights show that either side could have won, we more than competed, and the equalizer was a freak. Most of us know that, just some, perhaps out of frustration at the result, choose to emphasise the negative. Sure there were some but there are in every game; overall we were just the wrong side of Lady Luck. Move on...

Invicta · Mar 1, 2017

good post, 2 or 3 changes to freshen up on Saturday

Harry Wilson's tackle · Mar 1, 2017

We're DOOMED! McWhoHe OUT!!!!

Sorry. Flashbacks :facepalm:

GoldWithFalmer · Mar 1, 2017

crasher said:
But the last few days have told us that we're quite a lot better than Reading and almost as good as Newcastle. It's not a bad place to be.

All that remains is we are better than Udders at the business end and the jobs pretty much done.

Weststander · Mar 1, 2017

Rohan Ince's Python said:
Don't agree with this, it's a bit of a myth.

When you're 1 up against a good team they are going to try a seige at the goal, regardless of if you have 1 up front of 4 up front.

Flooding the midfield is the best way of stopping that, but unfortunately we conceded a shit goal before the sub was made and just looked totally shot after that.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Agree. So why not flood the midfield when you are being outplayed, on 60 minutes with the right substitution/s?

Dirk Lehmann's Python · Mar 1, 2017

Weststander said:
Agree. So why not flood the midfield when you are being outplayed, on 60 minutes with the right substitution/s?

Because we still looked dangerous at the back and the only chance Newcastle created were a free kick and us putting them through on goal. You could argue Hughton waited too long but the goal was **** all to do with the midfield, just a terrible punch by Stockdale and a freak finish.

NOBODY complains about going 5 in midfield when a team hangs on - it's seen as "game management". But when it doesn't work the manager gets the blame. Very odd.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

A few things from last night

CUM ON FEEL THE NOIZE

non sequitur

New member

Well-known member

My Hair is like his hair

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Not awoke

Broad Blue & White stripe

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Seaweed! Seaweed!

Well-known member

New member

Share this page