Lew-T Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21654283 Is this the right way to go? I'll leave it with the professional. Certaintly a different approach to other managers we have had over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Certainly for the medium/long term, improving the overall performance levels will lead to a natural increase in the points tally. Aiming at the points was how McInnes was thinking, leading to him trying to tinker with the team to find the magic solution...based on that alone I know which approach I prefer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Certainly for the medium/long term, improving the overall performance levels will lead to a natural increase in the points tally. Aiming at the points was how McInnes was thinking, leading to him trying to tinker with the team to find the magic solution...based on that alone I know which approach I prefer! Does make sense doesn't it. If the performances are there, the results will come. However, this is football and it doesn't always work like that. Hope it pays off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Does make sense doesn't it. If the performances are there, the results will come. However, this is football and it doesn't always work like that. Hope it pays off It doesn't always work out like that. I remember an FA Cup game at Bournemouth where we had 23 shots / 16 on target and Bournemouth had 2/2. Guess who won 2-1? Of course, it happens the other way, but we don't talk about that Thing is, though, that the performance is all that you can control.The train may not go faster if you lump on more coal but, if you don't - it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Always remember Sunderalnd away on the TV. We were absolutely battered, Welch had his best ever game and Soren Andersen someohow got us a point with a last minute goal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 It doesn't always work out like that. I remember an FA Cup game at Bournemouth where we had 23 shots / 16 on target and Bournemouth had 2/2. Guess who won 2-1? Of course, it happens the other way, but we don't talk about that Thing is, though, that the performance is all that you can control.The train may not go faster if you lump on more coal but, if you don't - it won't. Wow! Sometimes you blow my mind, man........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Always remember Sunderalnd away on the TV. We were absolutely battered, Welch had his best ever game and Soren Andersen someohow got us a point with a last minute goal! Funnily enough, that was what came to mind. I watched it in my local with some Makems and they were beside themselves - particularly as it was "those barstewards that cheated us at Coventry" - great fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Wow! Sometimes you blow my mind, man........................ Hang loose man, and take a deep toke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semblar Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 But the performances over points "argument" is based on the longer term, not a single match. In any one match a freak goal or a wonderful bit of skill can take the points in the face of a strong and committed performance with reasonable skill levels. Over the course of a season though, it's not very likely to happen every week... To add to the steam train analogy, going for points is like adding more coal without checking the water levels. Going for performances is like increasing the availability of coal and water, so that you have the stuff to add.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 But the performances over points "argument" is based on the longer term, not a single match. In any one match a freak goal or a wonderful bit of skill can take the points in the face of a strong and committed performance with reasonable skill levels. Over the course of a season though, it's not very likely to happen every week... To add to the steam train analogy, going for points is like adding more coal without checking the water levels. Going for performances is like increasing the availability of coal and water, so that you have the stuff to add.... A bit complicated for a simple rail enthusiast like myself, but I get your drift No, I'd underline the fact that performance is the element over which we have some control. Not always full control - if we're playing on a quaking bog at Blackpool (how aptly named!) or the Memoswamp, then we're constrained to play in a particular way, but we can still play our best under the conditions. If that goal had been given, would that have meant we performed better? - obviously not. Equally, if the ref had given a dodgy pen for handball, we wouldn't have performed worse. What we can say is that, over time, better performances will bring better results. It's what Cloughie said, it's what SOD says, and more imporrtantly, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 But the performances over points "argument" is based on the longer term, not a single match. In any one match a freak goal or a wonderful bit of skill can take the points in the face of a strong and committed performance with reasonable skill levels. Over the course of a season though, it's not very likely to happen every week... To add to the steam train analogy, going for points is like adding more coal without checking the water levels. Going for performances is like increasing the availability of coal and water, so that you have the stuff to add.... Ah yes, but if you add more coal and water availability, you increase the weight of the load on the train, therefore potentially needing to shovel quicker to maintain the same speed, therefore.....errrrr.....er.......I've lost the will to live now............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIPLEY RED Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Performance over points is all well and good for the longer term but we are bottom and games are running out fast. What ever way we need to get points on the board fast to stay up then next year we can look longer term. One thing for sure. If we don't put more points on the board than 3 other teams we WILL be relegated no matter what the performances are like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Performance over points is all well and good for the longer term but we are bottom and games are running out fast. What ever way we need to get points on the board fast to stay up then next year we can look longer term. One thing for sure. If we don't put more points on the board than 3 other teams we WILL be relegated no matter what the performances are like. And to do that we'll need to improve performances......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 What's that old saying , "It's a results based business" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Definitely. Performances = Results, eventually. Results = Not necessarily a good performance. In a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 As O'Driscoll says, he is more than willing to listen if somebody can come to him with a way of 'playing crap' yet winning 46 games. The beauty about football is that it is much easier than probably every other sport to get results you do not deserve. But in general, if you play well more than you play badly you should do OK. Without wanting to sound too much like SO'D by mentioning 'processes and outcomes' it seems fairly obvious to me that going it forwards it makes much more sense to analyse the performance on a Saturday afternoon rather than the result. Afterall, the result is gone and there is nothing you can do about it now, whereas with the performance you can either look to improve or replicate. If we put in 11 performances we can be proud of between now and May we will give ourselves a chance, simply saying 'well we need to get 17/18/19 points from those games' isn't going to get you anywhere. Consistently get the performances right and the results will look after themselves. When McInnes' time was coming to an end I posted on here that although the table looked bleak it could and probably should have actually been much worse. The points we achieved under McInnes and our goal difference actually flattered us for how poor the majority of our performances were. We could have taken absolute hidings away at Leicester, Bolton and Millwall and at home to Hull, Charlton and Derby yet only lost those games by one or two goal margins. Yet under SO'D I would say we have only been soundly beaten in the Cardiff and Palace games. We could actually feel a bit hard done by to have only taken one point from Leeds, Blackburn and Blackpool and that is a cause for optimism. On any given day a result could either be incredibly lucky or make you feel like you've been robbed. However over a large period of time you will end up where you deserve to from the quality of performance given. A good example for me is the two Blackburn away games this season. Of course we lost both of these 2-0, but with a much better performance in the league game. The week after the horrendous performance in the cup we gave a similar performance at home to Leicester and lost 4-0. The week after the good performance in the league game, in which we should have been taking home at least a point, we gave a similar performance and beat Forest 2-0. It goes without saying that results are the most important thing and will ultimately seal our fate, but it is the performances we give that will achieve the results we crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelRobartes Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I think that what he's saying is that he's only interested in the things that he can affect, hence why he said he doesn't look at the league table or other teams' results. I'm sure that he actually does but he's got a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Its not rocket science. Better and consistent performances will pick up points. It was common sense for O'Driscoll to start at the beginning by installing some structure in to the team which has started to show results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Its not rocket science. Better and consistent performances will pick up points. It was common sense for O'Driscoll to start at the beginning by installing some structure in to the team which has started to show results. Yes and that's all well and good but what if the results don't match our performances and we drop points? Games are coming and going fast, we need to do everything possible to pick up points and if that involves by playing dirty then so be it. Performances IMO are not first priority at this stage of the season and where we are in the league table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Yes and that's all well and good but what if the results don't match our performances and we drop points? Games are coming and going fast, we need to do everything possible to pick up points and if that involves by playing dirty then so be it. Performances IMO are not first priority at this stage of the season and where we are in the league table. Why are you assuming that by performance he means attractive or attacking football? He said he was happy with the performance Saturday and that game would certainly go down as 'playing dirty'. We worked our socks off, made hundreds of tackles in midfield and our backline was solid as a rock. I'd like to know how you propose we pick up enough points to keep us up while playing rubbish football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why are you assuming that by performance he means attractive or attacking football? He said he was happy with the performance Saturday and that game would certainly go down as 'playing dirty'. We worked our socks off, made hundreds of tackles in midfield and our backline was solid as a rock. I'd like to know how you propose we pick up enough points to keep us up while playing rubbish football? ' playing dirty ' doesn't always mean rubbish football now does it? Over the last few weeks or so, the lads have played very well and SOD came out saying that he was looking for organisation. I can understand that. Now after the Blackpool game, he came out saying that he was looking for performances over points. That's not first priority at this stage surely? Since he's been here he has said some strange things. ' I haven't looked at the league table ' was my personal favourite. But if it works for him and the team, I won't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Yes and that's all well and good but what if the results don't match our performances and we drop points? Games are coming and going fast, we need to do everything possible to pick up points and if that involves by playing dirty then so be it. Performances IMO are not first priority at this stage of the season and where we are in the league table. Fair enough! Show me a way of improving results without improving performance and I'm with you. I believe the Italians are quite good at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 ' playing dirty ' doesn't always mean rubbish football now does it? Over the last few weeks or so, the lads have played very well and SOD came out saying that he was looking for organisation. I can understand that. Now after the Blackpool game, he came out saying that he was looking for performances over points. That's not first priority at this stage surely? Since he's been here he has said some strange things. ' I haven't looked at the league table ' was my personal favourite. But if it works for him and the team, I won't complain. I'm saying the stark opposite of playing dirty means rubbish football. For me you are making the mistake of assuming that by performance he is only talking about what we do when we have the ball. By any definition I can think of for 'playing dirty' our performance Saturday would cover it. When he says he is looking for performances things like organisation, discipline, commitment etc can be included in it, and these are the things we will need to stay up. When I said rubbish football I meant absence of all these things as well as any lack quality on the ball. I was asking why you think we have a better chance of staying up playing poorly than we do playing well? I think you'll find you are mistaken about O'Driscoll as well, I have seen him say he concetrates on the performance numerous times over the years including many times since he has been our manager. He has not 'came out' with this after Blackpool. In the interview from a few years ago that has been posted on this forum a few times he openly says that when someone comes to him with a sure fire way of winning 46 games while 'playing crap' he will listen. Until then our best bet is to try and play as well as we can (both on and off the ball) every time we step on the pitch and hopefully get the results our peformances deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 It would seem that O'Driscoll has a formula that he's used at all the clubs he's managed. Namely an organised team structure. That's not exactly rocket science either and no doubt O'Driscoll is not the father of such a formula. It is basic common sense that was lost on McInnes. If a team is organised and playing to a structure then performances will improve and thats exactly what has happened at City since he arrived. City were not organised or structured under McInnes hence the problems that SoD has inherited. Basically within out decent performances that stem from organisation and structure you won't win many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I'm saying the stark opposite of playing dirty means rubbish football. For me you are making the mistake of assuming that by performance he is only talking about what we do when we have the ball. By any definition I can think of for 'playing dirty' our performance Saturday would cover it. When he says he is looking for performances things like organisation, discipline, commitment etc can be included in it, and these are the things we will need to stay up. When I said rubbish football I meant absence of all these things as well as any lack quality on the ball. I was asking why you think we have a better chance of staying up playing poorly than we do playing well? I think you'll find you are mistaken about O'Driscoll as well, I have seen him say he concetrates on the performance numerous times over the years including many times since he has been our manager. He has not 'came out' with this after Blackpool. In the interview from a few years ago that has been posted on this forum a few times he openly says that when someone comes to him with a sure fire way of winning 46 games while 'playing crap' he will listen. Until then our best bet is to try and play as well as we can (both on and off the ball) every time we step on the pitch and hopefully get the results our peformances deserve. Well maybe we think differently to what performances are about. You see performances as organisation, commitment and disicpline, I see it differently. Or maybe I just completely misunderstood what SOD said and you were completely right. Either way we both want the same result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 It would seem that O'Driscoll has a formula that he's used at all the clubs he's managed. Namely an organised team structure. That's not exactly rocket science either and no doubt O'Driscoll is not the father of such a formula. It is basic common sense that was lost on McInnes. If a team is organised and playing to a structure then performances will improve and thats exactly what has happened at City since he arrived. City were not organised or structured under McInnes hence the problems that SoD has inherited. Basically within out decent performances that stem from organisation and structure you won't win many games. Look, we all know you don't/didn't like McInnes but blimey, give it a rest. You never pass up an opportunity to have a pop at him do you? Its basic common sense that any manager appointed has a level of organisation and ideas but sometimes it doesn't work out even for the want of trying.....perhaps that was lost on you. SOD does what he does very well, its tried and tested. He's been coaching and managing players two or three times longer than either of our last 2 managers. I think most football fans can see the difference between up and coming manager learning his trade and a proven one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearded_red Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Well maybe we think differently to what performances are about. You see performances as organisation, commitment and disicpline, I see it differently. Or maybe I just completely misunderstood what SOD said and you were completely right. Either way we both want the same result I wouldn't say thats how I see performances at all, but I would say the boring things such as these are just as important if you want to be a good team as flair, pace and skill while on the ball and therfore should be thought about when evaluating a team's performance. Bearing in mind O'Driscoll has publicly said he was happy with the performance Saturday it would appear he tends to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 It doesn't always work out like that. I remember an FA Cup game at Bournemouth where we had 23 shots / 16 on target and Bournemouth had 2/2. Guess who won 2-1? Of course, it happens the other way, but we don't talk about that Thing is, though, that the performance is all that you can control.The train may not go faster if you lump on more coal but, if you don't - it won't. makes no difference if the engine is diesel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Look, we all know you don't/didn't like McInnes but blimey, give it a rest. You never pass up an opportunity to have a pop at him do you? Its basic common sense that any manager appointed has a level of organisation and ideas but sometimes it doesn't work out even for the want of trying.....perhaps that was lost on you. SOD does what he does very well, its tried and tested. He's been coaching and managing players two or three times longer than either of our last 2 managers. I think most football fans can see the difference between up and coming manager learning his trade and a proven one. I never said anywhere that I didn't like McInnes. Like most of us I realised that he was out of his depth and like many got bewildered by his constant chopping and changing the starting 11. That said it wasn't until November last year that I thought he ought to be sacked. I was forlornly hoping that he'd turn things around. If you think McInnes's teams were organised why have all the players interviews since So'D arrived said that the big difference is that the team have become more structured and organised under his tutelage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I never said anywhere that I didn't like McInnes. Like most of us I realised that he was out of his depth and like many got bewildered by his constant chopping and changing the starting 11. That said it wasn't until November last year that I thought he ought to be sacked. I was forlornly hoping that he'd turn things around. If you think McInnes's teams were organised why have all the players interviews since So'D arrived said that the big difference is that the team have become more structured and organised under his tutelage. Replace like for "rated" then. I've not said his teams were organised, not sure where that came from. We are all aware of his failings and the constant tinkering that was a clear sign he was struggling,but to say he lacked basic common sense is just an insult. SOD himself said the previous manager had some good ideas, the team just lacked some organisation. That shows to me it's his experience as well as his ideology that's bringing the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.