Jump to content
IGNORED

Magnusson

Coppello

By Coppello
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted

@spudski agree that we want more creativity from GON than we saw yesterday, but the industry was on a different level. There were 4 or 5 instances yesterday where he made challenges where as he closed down was second best, but desire and bravery made him the winner.

Frankie's kicking is always a subject of debate.  I don't have kittens when he's got the ball his feet, he has a decent touch, not totally reliant on his right peg....and has added 10 yards to his distance.

Some of it is made worse by two things:

1) the tactic of aiming to Joe `Bryan where the margin for error is small

2) Tammy (shock, horror), who is not a target man in the Wilbs sense.  He knows with no fellow striker, the flick-on isn't worth it, and bringing a 60 yard kick down on your chest with two physical centre halves up your backside is tough, thus making Frank's kicking look worse.  Just look at how useful it was second half when Wilbs were on.

I'm not saying Frankie is Edwin Van der Sar, but he's solid enough imho.  He's a better footballer than ROD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@spudski agree that we want more creativity from GON than we saw yesterday, but the industry was on a different level. There were 4 or 5 instances yesterday where he made challenges where as he closed down was second best, but desire and bravery made him the winner.

Frankie's kicking is always a subject of debate.  I don't have kittens when he's got the ball his feet, he has a decent touch, not totally reliant on his right peg....and has added 10 yards to his distance.

Some of it is made worse by two things:

1) the tactic of aiming to Joe `Bryan where the margin for error is small

2) Tammy (shock, horror), who is not a target man in the Wilbs sense.  He knows with no fellow striker, the flick-on isn't worth it, and bringing a 60 yard kick down on your chest with two physical centre halves up your backside is tough, thus making Frank's kicking look worse.  Just look at how useful it was second half when Wilbs were on.

I'm not saying Frankie is Edwin Van der Sar, but he's solid enough imho.  He's a better footballer than ROD.

I suppose we do it because Joe tends to win a lot more of those than he has any right to and if it comes off, we`re in.

As a side note, anyone remember Korey hitting a long diagonal ball to the `JB position` and there was no-one within thirty yards of it? I gueshe just got so used to doing it before his injury that he forgot Joe wasn`t playing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

As a side note, anyone remember Korey hitting a long diagonal ball to the `JB position` and there was no-one within thirty yards of it? I gueshe just got so used to doing it before his injury that he forgot Joe wasn`t playing!

...and he used his driver when a 7 iron was needed....it was massively over hit....and typical,of a player who's been out injured and finding his feet.  Got to say, Korey had a fine return yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

...and he used his driver when a 7 iron was needed....it was massively over hit....and typical,of a player who's been out injured and finding his feet.  Got to say, Korey had a fine return yesterday.

He certainly did. He just collapsed in a heap at the final whistle, he`d put that much in. You`ve got to love the bloke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonM88

JasonM88

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, KURTZ said:

Magnusson was a very good buy, he will only get better, and will no doubt become a City Legend.

He already has good rapport with the Fans, and I hope he's with us for a long time.

 

I disagree with this. I believe in Modern Day football it'll be very difficult to become a legend. Unless we're very successful he'll leave, one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JasonM88

JasonM88

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RedDave said:

Where is this stat from?  I'm doubting it's accuracy.

Statistic website, can't remember the name but a branch out from opta. Also found the average positions of our players yesterday on a different website, IMG_0037.PNG fair to say our plan was to play through the middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, JasonM88 said:

Statistic website, can't remember the name but a branch out from opta. Also found the average positions of our players yesterday on a different website, IMG_0037.PNG fair to say our plan was to play through the middle. 

Don't believe he won 70% of headers against Gallagher at all. Interesting you can't remember the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeAman08

JoeAman08

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, JasonM88 said:

Statistic website, can't remember the name but a branch out from opta. Also found the average positions of our players yesterday on a different website, IMG_0037.PNG fair to say our plan was to play through the middle. 

It's all good and well trying to play through the middle but I think that graphic shows why we struggle to break down teams. No width. We don't get crosses in(don't have to be a traditional cross either) and playing through the middle means our FBs can't get forward as much. Our left sided winger played further right than the right sided one. Also shows why Joe will be preferred as he'd be further up the pitch than Scott was(clean sheet Saturday though). Also the point about Freeman not over there to help would explain why SG was deeper as well. More width will give players a bit longer to make a decision. Also gives more space to play quicker balls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
On 10/22/2016 at 19:46, RedDave said:

I'm aware how opinions work.  You should have seen him at QPR.  Appalling in the air.  

The whole "Magnusson" is poor in the air is exaggerated - even against QPR.  He wasn't perfect but he didn't by any means lose every aerial duel, as some on here have suggested.

To be crystal clear, I was at the QPR game and my perception at the time was that Magnusson was doing okay - not brilliantly but okay.  I didn't particularly notice him losing more balls in the air than anyone else, although I would acknowledge it's not his biggest strength.  The main thing I did see from him at QPR was a really impressive sprint to get to a ball ahead of Chery, who is by no means a slouch.  Up until then I'd never really appreciated quite how quick Magnusson is.

Whilst my views on QPR are based on what I saw, rather than a stats site, I have taken a look at whoscore.com's statistics for the game.  The bottom line is both our central defenders struggled a bit against Sylla, who won 8 aerial duels.  The best any of our team did was win 4 aerial duels, and that was both Tammy Abraham and - shock horror - Magnusson.  They said that Flint meanwhile won 3.  

https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1085001/LiveStatistics/England-Championship-2016-2017-Queens-Park-Rangers-Bristol-City

I accept that what this does not give us a percentage, so I've taken a look at sofascore.com, which is a German site.

http://www.sofascore.com/de/bristol-city-queens-park-rangers/bsib

They scored slightly differently and had Flint down as winning 5 out of 13 aerial balls (just over a 3rd), and Magnusson winning 4 out of 12, a third.  Neither of which of course is great when Sylla won 11 out of 19.

However one stat site has Magnusson winning 1 more duel than Flint, and one has him winning 1 less.  I'm not sure either really justifies the argument of singling Magnusson out in a game where both our defenders struggled.

I'm not for a second suggesting Magnusson is better in the air than Flint.  He isn't, although I do think he is a better all-round defender.  However I do think that, especially given its not one of his strong points, Magnusson is nowhere near as bad as some would suggest. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The whole "Magnusson" is poor in the air is exaggerated - even against QPR.  He wasn't perfect but he didn't by any means lose every aerial duel, as some on here have suggested.

To be crystal clear, I was at the QPR game and my perception at the time was that Magnusson was doing okay - not brilliantly but okay.  I didn't particularly notice him losing more balls in the air than anyone else, although I would acknowledge it's not his biggest strength.  The main thing I did see from him at QPR was a really impressive sprint to get to a ball ahead of Chery, who is by no means a slouch.  Up until then I'd never really appreciated quite how quick Magnusson is.

Whilst my views on QPR are based on what I saw, rather than a stats site, I have taken a look at whoscore.com's statistics for the game.  The bottom line is both our central defenders struggled a bit against Sylla, who won 8 aerial duels.  The best any of our team did was win 4 aerial duels, and that was both Tammy Abraham and - shock horror - Magnusson.  They said that Flint meanwhile won 3.  

https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1085001/LiveStatistics/England-Championship-2016-2017-Queens-Park-Rangers-Bristol-City

I accept that what this does not give us a percentage, so I've taken a look at sofascore.com, which is a German site.

http://www.sofascore.com/de/bristol-city-queens-park-rangers/bsib

They scored slightly differently and had Flint down as winning 5 out of 13 aerial balls (just over a 3rd), and Magnusson winning 4 out of 12, a third.  Neither of which of course is great when Sylla won 11 out of 19.

However one stat site has Magnusson winning 1 more duel than Flint, and one has him winning 1 less.  I'm not sure either really justifies the argument of singling Magnusson out in a game where both our defenders struggled.

I'm not for a second suggesting Magnusson is better in the air than Flint.  He isn't, although I do think he is a better all-round defender.  However I do think that, especially given its not one of his strong points, Magnusson is nowhere near as bad as some would suggest. 

 

I've watched the game back and my view that he was poor in the air that game hasn't changed.  I don't recognise the above stats and have seen incorrect data on stats sites more than once before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I've watched the game back and my view that he was poor in the air that game hasn't changed.  I don't recognise the above stats and have seen incorrect data on stats sites more than once before.

Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to watch the game again to check what I thought and I accept you aren't going to change your mind. I'd never accept any one stats site on its own, and all have slightly different definitions of aerial duels, but I do think looking at two or three gives you a decent idea overall of what happened.

 

Certainly I feel the data from the stats sites resembles what I witnessed on the night and your description of Magnusson's performance doesn't really resemble my recollections of the game. But we may just have to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to watch the game again to check what I thought and I accept you aren't going to change your mind. I'd never accept any one stats site on its own, and all have slightly different definitions of aerial duels, but I do think looking at two or three gives you a decent idea overall of what happened.

 

Certainly I feel the data from the stats sites resembles what I witnessed on the night and your description of Magnusson's performance doesn't really resemble my recollections of the game. But we may just have to disagree.

Always accepted we will disagree.  When has anyone changed their mind on OTIB (me included)?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ska Junkie

Ska Junkie

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, JasonM88 said:

Statistic website, can't remember the name but a branch out from opta. Also found the average positions of our players yesterday on a different website, F fair to say our plan was to play through the middle. 

Wouldn't that be negated by the fact that Freeman and Paterson swapped sides after 40 minutes? If both hogged their respective side lines and them did the same on the other side, they would show an average position in the middle wouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benni

Benni

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Whitchurch1966 said:

I thought he was out muscelled at QPR, won very little in the air, no right foot, distribution poor, there I was thinking he might need a rest and suddently people are giving him legend status, shows what I know.

Yes, seems to be very little

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 8menhadadream said:

Wouldn't that be negated by the fact that Freeman and Paterson swapped sides after 40 minutes? If both hogged their respective side lines and them did the same on the other side, they would show an average position in the middle wouldn't they?

Exactly right.....or left!

interesting that Matthews average position was both wide and advanced....I could t get over at his barrow he was first half.

Stats are useful but not the be-all and end-all, in a dynamic game like football.  Baseball (and moneyball) is a set of repetitive scenarios, and stats have more meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...