Further examination of those quotes Pardew has come out with talking up his team system and approach to games recently now, as we pick apart the frankly ludicrous suggestion that Newcastle could be more dangerous now without the ball than they were in 2012 when playing a 4-3-3 variant that kept possession. That's utter rhubarb. Codswallop of the highest order, and you have to suspect it's another of those lines that Pardew comes out with well before he's actually engaged his brain. Obviously what he means is that Newcastle are now a breaking team, using pace to sucker punch the opposition and capitalising on mistakes by the other team. He means that the system he is currently using - a deep lying, wide 4-3-3 (which becomes a 4-2-3-1 when defending, though he won't admit that now that formation is widely criticised) is designed to stop the other team from playing, limiting their ability to hurt the same team. He's saying the best form of attack is a good defence, which worked for Greece when they won the Euros, but which is contradictory to every natural impulse of the human race. Think of the actual saying: it's the exact opposite. While a good defence and limiting the other team's possession is a good thing for the system we're playing, no knight would go into battle with really good armour put no sword. The result would be stalemate in most cases, and that's the risk Newcastle run if Pardew's no balls philosophy extends further and Newcastle start having even less of the ball. It's dangerous to mis-define how dangerous you are, and Pardew must surely concede that Newcastle are only a threat when they have the ball. As long as they close ranks and are disciplined, the opposition aren't a dangerous, but that definitely isn't the same thing, and there's still no excuse for surrendering more than 70% of possession (which is the way recent games were heading, aside from the West Brom game). So while it's good to see one aspect of the tactics being crowed about, it's key not to forget that Newcastle are reliant on getting the ball and using it well, transitioning quickly out of defence into attack and hitting teams on the break when they over-commit. To simplify it simply as "we don't have the ball, we're mint" is reductive and silly.
