For Pardew, Newcastle can claim to be stronger or more dangerous when they don't have the ball. It's a risky strategy, as it means having to rely on the opposition to make mistakes in order to profit, and it simply will not work against teams who don't attack in numbers and don't try to press the issue - like QPR probably will. The Newcastle manager sees defensive discipline as a huge asset to his attack - using a similar approach to his style of play as the motto bestowed on the Newcastle city crest by a grateful King Charles, "Fortiter Defendit Triumphans" ("Triumphing by a brave defence") - but that can only get you so far. You cannot be a danger when you don't have the ball, because you cannot attack, you cannot shoot and you cannot win games. And this is not lost on Pep Guardiola, who concedes that his side of millionaire World Cup winners and superstars cannot play without the ball, and certainly are not "more dangerous" without it:
We play in the other teams half as much as possible because I get worried when the ball is in my half. Were a horrible team without the ball so I want us to get it back as soon as possible and Id rather give away fouls and the ball in their half than ours.
A horrible team without the ball. Not a more dangerous one. Those two images are dramatically different. So to say the two teams are even remotely alike is a massive untruth.
