Esmond Million's Bung

1 minute ago, red panda said:

err... Fammy? 

Errr he is not injured his omissions have been self inflicted, it might help if you read the thread properly, the post I was answering to was specifically about injuries, my reply was specifically about injuries.

6 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

So let's ignore the half a dozen injuries and a ridiculous suspension and assume that this actually the squad he would have picked anyway shall we?

Baker is the only nailed on starter that I can see who is injured.

Smith hasn't started a league game.

Adelekalum is a punt.

We have looking to replace Fielding all summer.

Wright is probably not a starter.

And neither is Hegeler.

And what makes our plight worse is Wright and Hegeler were known to be injured before the season started and we never even brought a loan in as cover.

It's a lame excuse for me and shows how lacking in quality our squad is when 3 and 4 games in we are having to patch a team together.

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

So who else would you have selected?         

I think that's the point, the very last word in his post was the clue, 'ambition' and the question mark made it an even bigger clue and LJ's tearful post match interview is a further clue.

2 minutes ago, Alan Dicks' Barmy Army said:

I'm intrigued how half the squad went up by train and the rest of them by team coach 

That seems VERY odd 

Let's hope the midfield are on the coach, imagine them trying to find Loftus Road on the tube.

22 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I hadn't realised that Assambalonga was so short, until he squared up to Matty Taylor on Saturday and I realised they were pretty much the same height.  I'd always thought of him as a tall geezer, but he can't be more than 5'9.  Completely out-muscled Hunt though.

He reminds me Jean Claude Darcheville, a right handful.

In his pomp he scored 94 goals in 230 games and made a whole lot more.

7 minutes ago, Super said:

Talksport saying Mcclaren could be sacked if they lose tonight, He is lucky they are playing us.

You are correct and of course LJ must be shitting himself because this is one of the last games he would have chosen after our long poor run and poor start to the season.

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

True.

For both Boro goals we might as well have nodded it into our own net. Cut out the middlemen.  

The first goal was a comedy of errors and a long lumped ball, the 2nd goal at least involved passing and not one tackle, piss poor closing down allowing a simple cross and Hunt had lost Assambalonga he didn't even know he was there until the wrestling match started and one man wanted it more and proved it by scoring, it was probably a foul but Hunt needed to do better and to be much stronger.

1 minute ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I’m sure he is aware and won’t like it. But I still think that’s it’s not in isolation a very useful stat. 

Extreme examples of course - but if you only create one CCC per game but are excellent defensively and prolific when those chances do come then you may win the league. Whereas you may play scintillating attacking football and create 5 CCC per game, but if you squander more than you take and can’t keep the ball out of your own net you may well get relegated. 

All that aside let’s just hope for a positive performance and result tonight. I think the reaction to Saturday was massively over the top, however I do appreciate the fact that it’s not just about these 3 games this season. 

It's a useful because it shows what I have been banging on about for ages, we run out of ideas in and around the opponents box and that makes us easy to set up against as we have seen in every game this season including Plymouth, let us have possession and put 5 men across the 18 yard line and we struggle to score and the longer a game goes on and if ala Boro we haven't already gifted the opposition goals, we will over commit in midfield and then a simple ball over the top will catch us out every time.

As for the highlighted portion, I don't think it was especially given LJ's post match interview and I also think that the discussion was mainly fair and balanced, there will always be the more extreme on either side of any discussion.

49 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I guess you don't have to tackle if you have the ball in the first place.

It wouldn't surprise me if another stat revealed we took the most touches before getting the ball in the opponent's box.

I suggest that as I said to another poster take a look at the Forest equaliser, Bolton's 2nd goal, Plymouth's goal and Boro's 2nd there was not a tackle in sight, that must be important?

21 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

That’s why the clear cut chances stat is nonsense. Combined 5 goals from 2 clear cut chances between us and QPR. Is there even a standard definition or is it down to someone’s personal judgement? 

I think you’d probably find the same at most clubs though. In fact I’d wager the majority of goals in the whole league don’t come from ‘clear cut chances.’

Just looked at the stats of all Boro’s games to date. They’ve created 6 clear cut chances apparently and scored 11 goals.

Agree with the final paragraph, simply put we make it far too easy for teams to create chances against us because we’re piss weak as a team defensively. 

I would have thought that it's simple and obvious really and seek and ye shall find from the EPL index site  'A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range'

Man City are probably the easiest team to explain it with.

In the Charity shield they created 6 clear cut chances but only converted 2 of those.

In their first league game against Arsenal they never created a clear cut chance but scored 2 goals by what would be considered 2 speculative efforts and as we know in the case of BCFC speculative can end up in Ashton Park. In Man City's case the first goal was from outside of the area and the 2nd was 15 yards out with 3 defenders and the keeper to beat.

on Sunday had 5 clear cut chances and scored 6 goals.

You may not agree but there you have it, weirdly last season Manu had the most clear cut chances in the prem 2.35 per game, the bottom line is it is a stat and most managers get off on stats and we know our manager does just that, so I am sure that he is aware.

On 17/08/2018 at 21:49, phantom said:

 

I can recommend a reliable driver and he lives in Backwell so fairly close.

Just now, BRISTOL86 said:

When did I infer otherwise?  

Simply stating that you’d expect a strong correlation between possession and attempts to regain it. 

Calm down it was a question, the question mark was the clue.

As I am merely speculating that the correlation between possession and chances should be higher, maybe that highlights the problem, creativity, the lack of.

Should be a great game tonight QPR have also created only one clear cut chance.

Having said all of that I would say that the Forest equaliser, Bolton's 2nd goal, Plymouth's goal and Boro's 2nd there was not a tackle in sight, that must be important?

4 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Wouldn’t you expect 2) based on 1) ie if you have the most possession you’d make the least attempts to regain it? And 3) is just an inevitable outcome of 1) and 2) ?

Wouldn't you expect more than 1 clear cut chance from 3 games with all of that possession?

Found this from Bristolpost's Gregor McBoatface. So far this season. Number 2 is a worry.

The Robins average more possession than any other team in the Championship
Make fewest tackles per game
Make fewest fouls
Most fouled team per game
Most dribbles

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You'd hope one goes in..woodwork twice, their keeper tipper over also.

I thought we deserved at least one goal for our 2nd half efforts...but at the same time also think Middlesbrough played within themselves 2nd half.

Like a rather negative version of Brighton in November 2016. They went in 2 up at half time then kept their shape etc, like today.

Agree that clearcut chances are hard to define.

Ah hope something we might need to be resigned to for the rest of the season.

LJ more or less summed up what I have been saying, that we never used the width enough and never made enough forward passing moves, in short we run out ideas in and around the box.

Hunt, Brownhill and Paterson all got into very good positions with time to look up and pick out a cross and none of them found one of our players, Paterson, Watkins and ODowda and Taylor all tried skipping across the 18 yard line turning and trying to go in the opposite direction when confronted by a defender, Middlesborough could have dealt with that all day long, what was missing was threading a forward pass into the box, but we do not possess that player and haven't for 3 years, maybe the penny has finally dropped for him, not holding my breath, the only thing missing from his post match interview was the 'no leaders' speech, I don't see any what you would call leaders signed in the summer, the more I think about it the more disappointed I am with our summer recruitment and we are certainly a weaker squad.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thought 2nd half there was more urgency and we had some good chances for sure...hit woodwork.

Felt like Boro were playing within themselves somewhat though, especially after their 2nd. Both their goals felt fairly soft but will watch it back on the highlights later.

 

This discussion is ongoing, there seems to be a lot of discrepancy between what is and what isn't a good chance, the stats say we never created a clear cut chance and I agree, I cannot recall a 'how the **** did he miss that' moment, the keeper made one good save and we hit the woodwork twice all from speculative efforts and we totally missed the target from all of the other speculative efforts, a bit of bad luck maybe but speculative efforts sometimes go in and sometimes they don't.

6 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I don't listen to LJ's interviews, did he really say (after £16m-ish profit from transfers) that we didn't get a striker to replace Djuric because of budget ?

Shocking state of affairs when with one striker banned, you sell the other as the season starts. A really half arsed way to run a club.

 

Well if he did say that it says it all.

Again if true that is a real kick in the nads to the fans and needs an explanation.

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

And the lack of obvious stand in for our first choice striking pair ?

We look we might get away with the keeper and left back situations

Exactly might, hope or let's wing it, bearing in mind Da Silva apparently arrived injured, any further injury to either him, Webster or Kelly and we are truly fooked.

And who would replace Wiemann? Taylor?

3 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Have to agree...........if it's obvious to the majority of supporters, then surely LJ had to be aware of our short term problem?  So he chose to ignore it, and was prepared to field a weakened side, rather than address it. We then miss the possible opportunity to make a solid start to our season...........and just perhaps end up playing catch up with the top half of the table?  If we were prepared to spend 3.9M Euros on a keeper a few weeks ago [We ended up getting one on a free].....how come suddenly our lack of recruitment is down to finances, when we saved 3.9M and also sold Duric and Bryan [7M?] , this is after we bid for the Columbus keeper.  Doesn't seem to add up? Am I missing something?  What a shame that one of the excellent, brave and insightful journalists who cover City didn't think to ask about that?

It wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't made the same error twice last season by not signing a right back.

To me it's unprofessional and trying to wing it.

3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I don’t disagree that we could and should create more. But like I said you shouldn’t have to score 2 goals every game just to salvage a point. We’ll score a reasonable amount of goals this season IMO but once again it’ll be goals against that will be our downfall. 

Just like 17/18

Just like 16/17

Just like 15/16

Simply have not learned.

It's not the defence that is the problem IMHO, it's the midfield with all of the possession that we have had in the past 2 games, we need to convert that possession into goals when we are on top, but that is impossible when we aren't even creating chances 1 in 3 games says it all.

I cannot see that we will score a reasonable amount of goals and we will concede because of our need to convert nil/nil into wins or chasing the game because we have conceded.

1 minute ago, Cider_boy said:

yes, it is a miss, and not a shot on target. But to say a shot which hit the woodwork automatically isn't a good or clear chance isn't the same thing.

Hitting the post from a really narrow angle may not be a great chance, hitting it from right in front of the goal, it probably was a good chance.

 

Saying that, our problem seems to be that too many of our shots and shots on target are long range. You are more likely to score from a 'good chance' 6 yards out than a good chance 20 yards out.

Take it up with the people who compile the stats, the stats that LJ especially puts so much faith into.

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

Granted few and far between but Patterson (without seeing the highlights properly) had a good chance and tried to go around the defender instead of shooting. Not sure if you'd count the 2nd one that hit the woodwork as clear  but fractions lower and it's in. The first one was unlucky but not what I'd call clear cut, even the one the keeper saved diving to his right , not sure I'd say clear cut.
I did look at their goals though, though we were unlucky. First hits Webster on the back of the head and wrong foots Hunt, I would say we should have won the ball easier though. The 2nd goal is a foul on Hunt, looks like Asombalonga has both hands on Hunts shoulders to win the header, how the Ref didn't see it ?????

How could that be a chance he pretty much stepped on the ball and had a defender in front of him who wanted the ball more.

Both goals conceded were weak defending by Hunt, again the Middlesborough players wanted it more both times.

13 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Well we hit the woodwork two or three times so you can’t get much closer. Weimann had a decent chance first half and we got in behind loads in the second half. Sadly we seem afraid to shoot at times. 

That is classed as a miss, as Brendan Rogers found out at Liverpool.

I think you are clutching at straws, as I said I cannot recall one decent chance, we did get in behind but the delivery was appalling, even you cannot argue with the stats, we did not create one clear cut chance, that is a fact, the best chance might have been the one that Paterson got stuck under his foot but he wasn't strong enough.

I have already said that we were unlucky but that is all we were, the bottom line we do not create enough clear cut goal scoring chances and once more that is born out by the stats, in our 3 league matches so far we have actually created one clear cut chance and presumably that was our first at Bolton.

Also I do not agree with your finger pointing at the defence, both goals came from initially from situations where he had control of the ball in the opponents half and both goals were down to piss weak defending by Hunt, defenders have to be far stronger.

Just now, BRISTOL86 said:

Fair points. Thought I do think that we were actually pretty unlucky in front of goal today. We actually did create a few decent chances and didn’t really get that bit of luck. 

For me the problems are so much worse at the other end of the pitch. 4 out of our 5 goals conceded in the league were just desperately poor defending. 

Sorry I cannot remember a decent chance, not what you call a nailed on goal scoring opportunity, all of our chances were half chances and that is backed up by the stats that show:-

Attack