|
Post by herbiedumplings on May 24, 2021 11:15:34 GMT
Hence it’s all very our DoF saying on average the team with the most possession wins the game, but in the context of the whole of professional football we are not an “average” team. And as it happens, since Rusk took over the most likely outcome if we dominate possession is actually a draw. (The most likely outcome for games where we had had the most possession was a win while Gannon was still in charge, which is ironic…) if possession is the be all and end all of football then burnley should have been relegated by christmas in all their seasons in the premier league. even games they win they have less possession than their opponents. if you have to have a possession stat then one where teams have it in the final third of the pitch may be more relevant. That’s very true but it’s not something that’s easily obtainable in the public domain. Although unless a team is in the habit of scoring 30-yard screamers all the time, it would seem unlikely that possession in the final third wouldn’t be proportional to possession overall when talking about goals scored and wins. I can see how there might be less of a correlation with possession in the final third and other variables like goals conceded and draws/losses, and hence why it’s not talked about as a rule of thumb (which I’m arguing doesn’t apply to the style of play we use now with the players we have playing for and against us anyway…)
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on May 24, 2021 13:22:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alkringtonhatter on May 24, 2021 13:29:00 GMT
Madden would have buried at least two of those chances. Ah well... win some, draw some.
|
|
|
Post by m14hatter on May 24, 2021 15:51:30 GMT
Still no idea how we haven’t won that.
The first two Reid chances, Bennett’s and Walker’s were all bigger misses than they appeared in the ground at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Durango95 on May 25, 2021 2:32:25 GMT
Don’t know how we were over 90 mins as I couldn’t watch it, bust based on that any other day it looked like a 3/4/5-1 win that. Pisser it wasn’t!
|
|
|
Post by oakwoodbank on May 25, 2021 7:58:40 GMT
Let's forget the play in the middle third because no matter how good that is or has been; the players who should be scoring goals are missing the bull's eye —constantly. That is a problem which needs the attention of the coaching staff. I think it's harsh to say that our 'goalscorers' are constantly missing the bull's eye. With Torquay, we are comfortably the second top scorers in the division. In the second half on Saturday we created enough chances to win several games, with very fine margins and a very good performance from their keeper meaning that incredibly it remained 1-1. -- You seem to kill your argument by writing: "In the second half on Saturday we created enough chances to win several games..." That is exactly my point; really good teams who gain promotion do not miss chances. The actual number of goals County have scored this season are not enough; otherwise we would (and could) have won the league.
|
|
|
Post by FridoBiggins on May 25, 2021 8:43:54 GMT
I think it's harsh to say that our 'goalscorers' are constantly missing the bull's eye. With Torquay, we are comfortably the second top scorers in the division. In the second half on Saturday we created enough chances to win several games, with very fine margins and a very good performance from their keeper meaning that incredibly it remained 1-1. -- You seem to kill your argument by writing: "In the second half on Saturday we created enough chances to win several games..." That is exactly my point; really good teams who gain promotion do not miss chances. The actual number of goals County have scored this season are not enough; otherwise we would (and could) have won the league. In spite of your usual style of disputing everything I say, I'll try to respond. I don't kill the argument and stand by the fact that we created enough chances, but as I state there are fine margins and a very good goalkeeping display to contend with.
Really good teams do not miss chances??!! Where's your evidence for that?
We have scored enough goals to have won the league, particularly as we've not conceded that many. Scoring the most goals over a season doesn't guarantee success. When County won the league in 1966/67 there were a handful of teams who scored more than us.
Collectively we've not quite been good enough and Sutton have been better. That's it for me and I wouldn't point the finger at any particular player or area of the pitch where we've come up short. We've made mistakes at the back, perhaps not created enough chances from midfield and missed some chances up front. That's football and this year we've been 3rd or 4th best. I'm sure you won't agree
|
|
|
Post by ricky on May 25, 2021 8:53:06 GMT
-- You seem to kill your argument by writing: "In the second half on Saturday we created enough chances to win several games..." That is exactly my point; really good teams who gain promotion do not miss chances. The actual number of goals County have scored this season are not enough; otherwise we would (and could) have won the league. In spite of your usual style of disputing everything I say, I'll try to respond. I don't kill the argument and stand by the fact that we created enough chances, but as I state there are fine margins and a very good goalkeeping display to contend with.
Really good teams do not miss chances??!! Where's your evidence for that?
We have scored enough goals to have won the league, particularly as we've not conceded that many. Scoring the most goals over a season doesn't guarantee success. When County won the league in 1966/67 there were a handful of teams who scored more than us.
Collectively we've not quite been good enough and Sutton have been better. That's it for me and I wouldn't point the finger at any particular player or area of the pitch where we've come up short. We've made mistakes at the back, perhaps not created enough chances from midfield and missed some chances up front. That's football and this year we've been 3rd or 4th best. I'm sure you won't agree We can point to games where the ref let us down, or we missed a vital penalty but we have to be honest and say we weren’t quite good enough but that’s no disgrace where the margins are so narrow . This has been a transitional season, going full time, change of manager, no 12th man. If we do finish third it’s still very good, Jim alluded to that earlier in the season. There could be more to come this season but if not, hopefully we’ll fix the too many draws home problem for next season.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on May 25, 2021 9:29:00 GMT
Don’t know how we were over 90 mins as I couldn’t watch it, bust based on that any other day it looked like a 3/4/5-1 win that. Pisser it wasn’t! In summary: - Poor for the first 45 and lucky to be level at HT. We dominated the ball, but moved it too slowly (and in front of them) letting them get back into shape, resulting us being forced wide and MSH crossing to no one / Reid being isolated. We really missed Bennett / Cardwell to occupy the CBs. - We still were the better side on the ball and created enough opportunities to score 1 or 2. MSH's early chance after a wonder ball by Rooney was the pick of the bunch. Our goal was very fortuitous though. - Frustratingly, we were a mess at the back. Dodgy passes, poor touches and lapses in concentration galore and while their goal also had an element of luck, it had been coming. Hinchliffe rescued us a couple of times and ultimately they had the better chances and probably should have gone in ahead. In fact it was beyond frustrating as we were so much the architects of our own downfall with the defensive mistakes coupled with the wrong tactics in attack. - At HT, Rusk thankfully realised his mistake and brought on Bennett for Rydel. Previously we had been playing 3-4-2-1 with Walker and Newby as 2 x 8/10s behind Reid and it just didn't work. Neither got in the game really and Reid was dominated. - We switched back to the usual 3-4-1-2 with Walker at LWB and it changed the game instantly. Bennett almost scored within 5 mins and as you saw we had a host of chances from then on, but somehow couldn't score (I think we hit the woodwork at least 3 times?!). The game was pretty much played in their half. As you say - 3/4/5-1 would have been fair. While Bennett didn't score (and probably should have from his header that hit the bar), I just hope Rusk has learnt a valuable lesson for the POs. Reid is not a lone striker and will perform much better with Bennett or Cardwell alongside him. We didn't (and don't need to) lump it to the big man, he just occupies another defender and gives Reid space/ potentially someone to run off. We also get a lot of joy down the wings - MSH ran their LWB ragged in the 2nd half - and crossing to just Reid simply doesn't work unless we're on the counter.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on May 25, 2021 9:54:12 GMT
While Bennett didn't score (and probably should have from his header that hit the bar), I just hope Rusk has learnt a valuable lesson for the POs. Reid is not a lone striker and will perform much better with Bennett or Cardwell alongside him. We didn't (and don't need to) lump it to the big man, he just occupies another defender and gives Reid space/ potentially someone to run off. We also get a lot of joy down the wings - MSH ran their LWB ragged in the 2nd half - and crossing to just Reid simply doesn't work unless we're on the counter. making reid a lone striker makes the lad look an average player at best. whilst he has height i do not think he has the physical presence to do the job. its been tried before but failed. bennett or cardwell gives an extra body in the box to attack any crosses that come over. then when we get a corner just put the ball in the danger area and let our players attack it. we have a few lads in the side good at this and forget some of the training ground routines that only seem to come off once the game is really won.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on May 25, 2021 10:38:46 GMT
While Bennett didn't score (and probably should have from his header that hit the bar), I just hope Rusk has learnt a valuable lesson for the POs. Reid is not a lone striker and will perform much better with Bennett or Cardwell alongside him. We didn't (and don't need to) lump it to the big man, he just occupies another defender and gives Reid space/ potentially someone to run off. We also get a lot of joy down the wings - MSH ran their LWB ragged in the 2nd half - and crossing to just Reid simply doesn't work unless we're on the counter. making reid a lone striker makes the lad look an average player at best. whilst he has height i do not think he has the physical presence to do the job. its been tried before but failed. bennett or cardwell gives an extra body in the box to attack any crosses that come over. then when we get a corner just put the ball in the danger area and let our players attack it. we have a few lads in the side good at this and forget some of the training ground routines that only seem to come off once the game is really won. I can only see it working in games where we're playing on the counter and there's space for him to run in behind / down the channels. Even then the quality of ball to him and supporting runs would have to be top notch. As you say, he doesn't have a big physical presence so chances are he'd be tightly marked and the ball would come straight back.
|
|