How long do we give him?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The only reason I quote that is because people have been going on about 13 shots on goal the past couple of days <ok>
 
Tony_Munky_Canary said:
"14 attempts at goal" now is it? The number seems to keep going up and up <laugh>

In all seriousness though, were there really that many actual attempts on goal? I know this figure includes those off target, and I wasn't at the game, but I watched it all online and if I'm being honest I am struggling to remember many more than half a dozen or so what you'd call proper efforts on their goal.

And pot shots from 20+ yards against a keeper known for his shot-stopping ability just sound like they are making the numbers up to me as we never really threatened their goal from any of them. RVW and Fer's headers were the only two real efforts of note that I recall.
Click to expand...

Shots 13; on target 4; off target 7; blocked 2. [FourFourTwo StatsZone powered by OPTA] Goals do get scored from 20 yards. Redmond had one good effort saved low down at the post if I remember correctly. <ok>
 
I love how different possession stats are depending on what report one is reading. Surely it can't be that difficult for reporters/journos/papers and the like to get hold of official data (is it still Opta?).
 
It's hard to know which one is correct because so many stats on tv or websites is different lol. But from the game I was watching although I wasn't counting, we did create enough and should have at least scored 1 of them.
 
Drunky said:
.... But from the game I was watching although I wasn't counting, we did create enough and should have at least scored 1 of them.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why all the subsequent hubbub is just so unnecessary. <ok>
 
robbieBB said:
I read your post. You said "I'm not calling for his head just yet but if results don't improve quickly I'm afraid I will". "Quickly" puts you in the same frame as the other posters whose time scales range from 6 games to Christmas. I don't believe for a moment you mean as long even as Christmas. In answer to your question about green shoots/improvement/grounds for optimism, (a) see Rob's post above, (b) go back over my recent posts on various threads (I realise you haven't been on the board recently so you have probably missed some of the discussion). <ok>
Click to expand...

Hell no mate, if we're in the bottom three come the end of October that's the time to take action. Remember that with the horrendous run in we have, we need to get points on the board quickly.
 
kickitoff-throwitin said:
Hell no mate, if we're in the bottom three come the end of October that's the time to take action. Remember that with the horrendous run in we have, we need to get points on the board quickly.
Click to expand...

Don't you then have the situation where it's a new manager, he has to get to know the squad, the ability of the players etc., or would you say a good manager would have the ability to take up the mantle and run with it from the off?
 
What, like Paul Lambert did, or even the Rodent when he first took over and led us on a 13 match unbeaten run? I know circumstances were different, and I'm not making a real comparison, just highlighting this 'taking time to get to know your players' myth. <ok>
 
Charlton are a great example, sacked Curbishley for 'only' finishing 10th or something and then look what happened <yikes>

Just re-emphasising I am not calling for anyone's head or suggesting we change managers, my gripe is that we're likely to see another season of turgid football - though obviously I'd love to be proved wrong <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back