I don't buy the argument that the team which has the most possession and/or shots necessarily deserves to win or has played better or dominated. Sitting deep, ceding possession, and counterattacking is just as valid a way of playing football as Spanish tiki-taka . If you're playing like that and you take the lead then there's even less reason to commit men forward, so you'll have even less shots (especially when you're predicted to be much weaker than your opponents and you're playing away like Newcastle were). Of course a team playing that style will then have less shots and less possession than the team who they're playing because they don't need to keep chasing goals but it's overly reductive to say that means they were dominated.
The Jets had a clear plan for how to play us, and they took the chances they did create. Sure they had a bit of luck with Durante's injury and some lenient refereeing on their constant fouling, but that's just the way it is. We also had a bit of luck ourselves with the deflection for Roly's goal. We also could have minimised the impact of an injury to one of our ageing CBs if we'd signed some specialist cover there over the long months of the off season - so it's partly bad luck for us but also a large amount of poor planning that created that situation.
Despite the possession and shots stats I still think there were some major issues around the shape and pattern of our play, and we shouldn't just write it off as a game we dominated but were unlucky to lose.