Creating more good chances, against better defenses than the last two' also-rans' we have played, is quite a tall order I would suspect. Not impossible by any means, but seemingly improbable.
What Mcnally said
- Thread starter K E M P
- Start date
-
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
-
Creating more good chances, against better defenses than the last two' also-rans' we have played, is quite a tall order I would suspect. Not impossible by any means, but seemingly improbable.
I do hope you were joking?
Err, Cardiff and West Ham were the 'also rans'.
We didn't create that many good chances against Man City (two on target) and that is what I am alluding to. We create against the lower ends of the tables sides, often quite easily but still rarely score, but nowhere near as often against he top half sides, giving even less chance of scoring.
i don't think we are definitely going down, nobody can say that, but the signs are not looking good if we score what 4 in 10 games. we have been creating chances for lots of games and not scoring, so how is that going to change, i'm not sure. confidence will be an issue
Of course I was joking, oh if you are limiting it to shots on targets that's a different story, I thought redmond blazed over, as did Pilkington (could have laid it back) RVW slid into the net and missed the ball, these were quality openings
I think we are talking about actually scoring from chances created, then I think it is fair to make the presumption that a shot needs to on target to begin with, bar the odd fortunate deflection (but we don't even get many of those those season).
Openings I will not disagree with, the option available or choices made when the openings arrive are something else, and needs a fair bit of work. That is something I don't see happening overnight though, as this mostly comes with experience, and speed of thought, sometimes under pressure.
The goals could come if we played the right formation with the right personnel. I know we didn't against citeh, but surely every man and his dog could see Redmond is better on the right, he is playing better and offering more threat than Snoddy has for much of the season, on the right! And that with Pilks fit or nearly fit that they should of started again! For a team that does not score goals with inverted wingers, he isn't half stubborn in sticking with it. He's mucked around with 4-4-2 with inverted wingers. 4-5-1 with inverted wingers, he's changed personnel to change the dynamic within both formations, often forced by injury but he has tinkered. So why would he not just give non-inverted wingers a go? Not because injury robbed him of Snoddy, not for just one game against one of the strongest teams in the division. But actually against those around us, what does Snoddy have on him that means he plays irrespective of form and reason?
I know I'm not alone in thinking that inverted wingers is not working for us, but can someone explain why we are persisting with a tactic that has been underwhelming on the goals for, for 1 3/4 seasons?
We will not change, we will not score goals and we will definitely get relegated, because CH is a pigheaded fool and cannot see his own mistakes and limitations.
There you go I've said it!
Bah!
I know I'm not alone in thinking that inverted wingers is not working for us, but can someone explain why we are persisting with a tactic that has been underwhelming on the goals for, for 1 3/4 seasons?
We will not change, we will not score goals and we will definitely get relegated, because CH is a pigheaded fool and cannot see his own mistakes and limitations.
There you go I've said it!
Bah!
You don't believe me when I tell you General, so how about reading Meulenstein's comments after Fulham's draw with Man Utd? Or young Dan Burn's comments about defending against orthodox wing play after the same match.
In our last two defeats, both away from home, we have had 40 shots in total, 12 of which were on target and we scored one goal, enjoying the lion's share of possession in both games.
In comparison, our opposition in those matches only mustered 25 shots, 11 on target and four of those went in.
It's not that we're playing badly or not creating chances because that just isn't true, we're just not putting them in the net and I just don't understand how some people consider this to be entirely the manager's fault.
In comparison, our opposition in those matches only mustered 25 shots, 11 on target and four of those went in.
It's not that we're playing badly or not creating chances because that just isn't true, we're just not putting them in the net and I just don't understand how some people consider this to be entirely the manager's fault.
You clearly weren't at the game or if you were you had your blinkers on - or perhaps maybe you're just being as "pig-headed" as you consider our manager to be. Redmond and Snodgrass switched sides many times throughout the game last night and they probably spent as much time playing on one wing as the other, as is the case in many of our games, though you wouldn't believe it from reading on here
A germ of truth in there somewhere, hard as it is to admit it. As individuals go, they are all pretty decent players (not top 6 caliber obviously). As a team unit, maybe not as effective as it could be and certainly not as effective as it needs to be.
I've been banging on about how much we concede per shot/per shot on target for ages. It's ridiculous and I don't have any explanation for it. We consistently concede from just about every other or every three shots on target, whereas it takes us about eight (on average) to score.
I don't know whether Ruddy's to blame? Or the defence?
I saw a stat which said that Hooper's conversion rate is a healthy +20%, which means it certainly isn't his fault!
You clearly weren't at the game or if you were you had your blinkers on - or perhaps maybe you're just being as "pig-headed" as you consider our manager to be. Redmond and Snodgrass switched sides many times throughout the game last night and they probably spent as much time playing on one wing as the other, as is the case in many of our games, though you wouldn't believe it from reading on here
Yeah, Redmond switched wings all the time.
Though such was Snodgrass's absence when he went on the left, it might as well have been just Redmond moving around
So you have to ask the question. Are the players not good enough or is it the manager/coach? Or maybe a bit of both.
I personally think we have a good enough team to be in this league. But that's just me.
Snodgrass was a bit poor, had some good moments, I would have preferred he was subbed early on. I know there has been a lot of drama surrounding him but Hoolahan would have added to Redmond's creativity, Snodgrass wasn't cutting it for me.
J
JKCanary
Guest
I think the players definitely have enough ability to keep us up, but over the course of the season an awful lot of them have been under-performing.
Why though?, because CH can't get the best out of them, same with GH last season, people are saying it's not the managers fault but it's his job to get the best out of the players.
J
JKCanary
Guest
Fair question Fenland. In my opinion, recently and especially in the games we could/should be getting points from, CH has been setting us up correctly and the team has been getting in good positions and creating chances - it's not really his fault that the players are making the wrong decisions and/or not finishing the opportunities.
Saying that, my main criticism of CH is his apparent inability to know how to change the course of a game. Whether that's down to poor substitutions, tactical rigidity, both, or otherwise, I'm not entirely sure.