Watford vs Middlesbrough 2-3 (McGree (2) Coburn)

[Changing Times 15,960 23k]

34 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

It happened during the time when we were signing a mix of wilder players and Club signings so this is pretty much it.

Plus ca change 🤷‍♂️

[Changing Times 15,960 23k]

12 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

Maybe the club thought they needed a more forward thinking midfielder who had better attacking attributes and didn’t want to replace Tav like for like?

McGree isn't a central midfielder though mate.  I mean he isn't good when played in that position.  Would you want him there just out of interest?

 

32 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said:

what a pointless discussion/argument 😄

Well done chaps!

Well we can't always rely on your outstanding contributions 🙃

[LinoJo3 5,785 13.6k]

31 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

McGree isn't a central midfielder though mate.  I mean he isn't good when played in that position.  Would you want him there just out of interest?

 

Well we can't always rely on your outstanding contributions 🙃

Was Tav played as a traditional cm in wilders time here though? I’m hazy on how he set up but I’m sure tavs role was very similar to McGrees is now although yea he had more defensive responsibilities covering whoever was on the left. Either way I can’t identify anyone else we signed as being a replacement for Tav in the team, maybe mowatt?

if you wanna look at like for like then I’d guess silvera is probably closest in that department.

[ChipBarrington 380 1.3k]

I'd say Tavs role in this current side is Hackney. He was our busy transition player and just expected to do a bit of everything.

 

Wasn't there some stat where in his last season here he was the only midfielder in the top 10 for both balls won and key passes?

[Changing Times 15,960 23k]

13 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

Was Tav played as a traditional cm in wilders time here though? I’m hazy on how he set up but I’m sure tavs role was very similar to McGrees is now although yea he had more defensive responsibilities covering whoever was on the left. Either way I can’t identify anyone else we signed as being a replacement for Tav in the team, maybe mowatt?

if you wanna look at like for like then I’d guess silvera is probably closest in that department.

Under Wilder he was yeah albeit he was one of three rather than one of two as we set up now.  As we only really had three midfielders back then it just seems more likely that we signed McGree because we needed more midfielders if anything else. We had Howson, Crooks and Tavernier, and that was it.  Behind those three it was Payero, Lea Siliki, and Boyd Munce.  We clearly didn't rate any of them so they barely played.

I think Mowatt came in because Tavernier left yeah, I don't know if that was because we couldn't get someone in permanently or not. More likely that the crap going on behind the scenes made us reluctant to do some of the business that Wilder would have liked us to do.  I wouldn't call them like for like either but I don't believe Mowatt would have signed had we kept Tavernier if you see what I mean?

Silvera to me is nothing like Tavernier either, he's just a wide attacking player.  The closest comparison we have to Tavernier now I'd say is Hackney.  He does most of the same things that Tavernier can do but he's a central midfielder through and through for me, and someone who could move elsewhere in a pinch if you had to.  Not sure he has the legs of Tavernier but I'd probably trust him a bit more getting the ball in tight situations than I might trust Tavernier.

[boroie 558 1.4k]

9 hours ago, Riverside94 said:

It’s a hard one people criticising MC for not putting subs on. But imagine he puts Silvera and Rogers on at 2-2 and we loose the game he would be getting hammered now. Or even at 2-3 and they pulled level. Probably thought it best to stick as things were going our way and hope we could see the game out. 

the right subs

ie, not silvera. 

[KeithLambsFaxMachine 846 500]

13 hours ago, LinoJo3 said:

We won’t know until we try 🤷‍♂️ 

I don’t get this ‘yea we did well but it was only against….’ We finally look to be turning the corner, we finally look like a functional team again and we finally look to be progressing again. Who cares if we can’t do it against stronger teams, we’re most likely are gonna get a mid table finish so why expect us to perform 100% and beat every team in the league? 
 

It’s not gonna happen, we’re going to have bad games and some bad losses between now and may but that doesn’t have to mean total disaster does it? You’re always going to be left frustrated if you constantly expect this ‘perfection’ of great performances, dominating 95 minutes of every game we play.

Agree, and frankly, why wouldn’t we view Southampton and Watford as stronger teams? Sure, they’ve had a difficult start (as have we), but Southampton have just come down, and Watford are still getting parachute payments (plus, surprisingly good deals from other clubs…)

If you’d asked at the beginning of the season, most people would have said they would be right up there, and they may well be by the end of the season. 

Personally, I’d say it was two excellent performances and we seem to be becoming a stronger team each match. Long may it continue. 

[JCWamma 526 302]

Also saying "it was only against Southampton/Watford" ignores the point that we literally couldn't beat anyone in the league before! Are Southampton and Watford worse than Sheffield Wednesday, QPR, Huddersfield? Beating out of form teams our fans 'expect' us to beat (which I don't agree was the case before those matches anyway but I digress) is still an improvement over where we were. We're clearly better than we were before and that's what matters here.

[Lord_Moose 587 1.1k]

Can’t believe I’ve been able to watch 3 lots of highlights in a week 😍 After the Wednesday game I couldn’t see where 3 points would come from and now we have 6! We didn’t half make it difficult for ourselves but excellent desire from everyone to grind out that win. Bring on Cardiff and keep this run going!