Leicester V Boro 1-2 (Azaz, Silvera)

[Erimus74 5,259 5.4k]

12 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I’m happy for Silvera to get another go up front after that performance, he’s came back a different player. 

Yes I'd go with that & think Michael Carrick will too

He certainly deserves a run there, he's placed his shots into orbit, missed a couple of good chances & he's scored some nice goals too with Saturday's finish very good 

[Redcar Rioja 8,855 8.7k]

56 minutes ago, Erimus74 said:

Yes I'd go with that & think Michael Carrick will too

He certainly deserves a run there, he's placed his shots into orbit, missed a couple of good chances & he's scored some nice goals too with Saturday's finish very good 

For me Saturday was his most complete performance for us and especially the composure taken for his goal.

[Hammy legend 1,244 1.3k]

Silvera is a young player coming to a new country and a higher standard of football. Last summer us, Stoke and Preston all agreed a fee for him( there might be someone else but I cant remember) so he cant be that bad if a few teams want him. He missed a few sitters early on but also scored the winner at Norwich ,  made Latte Lath's goal at West Brom . He might just come good.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

I’d love to see Silvera blossom here, haven’t been his biggest fan since he’s been here. But from attitude to physical attributes he’s got everything needed to become a good player, with Roger’s gone, Jones injured and Lath still recovering, Silvera has a real chance to impress.

I think he could become like Ramsey, playing in any of the 3 behind the striker, if he sorts his ‘footballing brain’ out he can be even better due to his strength/power that Ramsey lacked a bit.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

4 minutes ago, Hammy legend said:

Silvera is a young player coming to a new country and a higher standard of football. Last summer us, Stoke and Preston all agreed a fee for him( there might be someone else but I cant remember) so he cant be that bad if a few teams want him. He missed a few sitters early on but also scored the winner at Norwich ,  made Latte Lath's goal at West Brom . He might just come good.

From what I remember when he came to England it was to talk with us and Plymouth. He did miss sitters but I always kinda like it when the same player gets a few of those kinda chances, it means they know when and where to be to score goals which imo is harder to coach than finishing.

[Plastic Goat 680 1k]

Just wishing Tony Mowbray all the best.Get well soon Mogga. A real Boro hero.

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

9 hours ago, Barnaby said:

You make your own luck is how I see it...we looked more solid with McNair in the back 3

No, we looked more solid with a game plan that stuck everyone behind the ball, and we rarely ventured forward.  McNair had nothing to do with it.  It was the same against Chelsea in the first leg but McNair didn't play in that one.  It's a logical fallacy, in Latin they say 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', which means 'after therefore because of this'.  In other words because an event occurred first then it must have caused the later event.  At the moment we have a couple of these on this thread.  One is that we changed the system, and won, therefore the change in system is responsible.  This one mentioned by you is that McNair came into the side, and we looked more solid, therefore we looked more solid because McNair came into the side.  Both ignore the context of the game or evidence in previous games.  We weren't defensively solid in this game being quite an important point but not being defensively solid somehow has less importance when the other team don't take their chances.  In the aforementioned Chelsea game we also weren't solid, and we should have lost by a couple, but they missed their own easy chances, and we got away with it.  Then of course people were on that thread after the game saying the same things that they are now for the same reasons. 

I think we need to be careful not to go over the top on the back of a positive result especially when there's enough evidence out there to suggest different things.  This game might have suited this set up to an extent but that doesn't mean that other games will be the same, and again, I don't think we were solid at all anyway, I think people are talking themselves into something that isn't true.  If Leicester take their good chances, not even any half chances, they score 4 or 5 in that game, and nobody is talking about us being solid afterwards.  I've mentioned Rotherham a few times on this thread to try and get my point across better, we've scored 1 goal in two games against them, does anyone on here think they looked solid against us because I certainly didn't.  We screwed ourselves out of two wins against them, and Leicester screwed themselves out of a win against us.  I don't believe Rotherham had much to do with our failings, and I don't believe that we had that much to do with Leicester's.

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

4 hours ago, Bruce said:

I think we make and miss a lot of decent but not easy chances. I recall Greenwood missing chances similar to Silvera's goal. As Vardy showed, even the best at this level will miss some of those. We seem to miss all of them. Silvera's goal stands out because the quality of the finish us something I don't expect from anyone except Forss or a fully fit Coburn.

There's a stat somewhere which says we've missed either the most big chances or the second most big chances in the league.  It's a stat I could well believe based on what I've seen with my own eyes.  

[BoroSmoggie 3,995 4.3k]

20 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

There's a stat somewhere which says we've missed either the most big chances or the second most big chances in the league.  It's a stat I could well believe based on what I've seen with my own eyes.  

https://x.com/boroform/status/1759550851574546867

[BoroSmoggie 3,995 4.3k]

Why do my twitter links never embed themselves anymore 😤

[Foogle 2,226 3.6k]

13 minutes ago, BoroSmoggie said:

Why do my twitter links never embed themselves anymore 😤

Elon's a Sunderland fan I heard. 

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

7 minutes ago, Foogle said:

Elon's a Sunderland fan I heard. 

He should buy them, and change their name.

[Foogle 2,226 3.6k]

41 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

No, we looked more solid with a game plan that stuck everyone behind the ball, and we rarely ventured forward.  McNair had nothing to do with it.  It was the same against Chelsea in the first leg but McNair didn't play in that one.  It's a logical fallacy, in Latin they say 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', which means 'after therefore because of this'.  In other words because an event occurred first then it must have caused the later event.  At the moment we have a couple of these on this thread.  One is that we changed the system, and won, therefore the change in system is responsible.  This one mentioned by you is that McNair came into the side, and we looked more solid, therefore we looked more solid because McNair came into the side.  Both ignore the context of the game or evidence in previous games.  We weren't defensively solid in this game being quite an important point but not being defensively solid somehow has less importance when the other team don't take their chances.  In the aforementioned Chelsea game we also weren't solid, and we should have lost by a couple, but they missed their own easy chances, and we got away with it.  Then of course people were on that thread after the game saying the same things that they are now for the same reasons. 

I think we need to be careful not to go over the top on the back of a positive result especially when there's enough evidence out there to suggest different things.  This game might have suited this set up to an extent but that doesn't mean that other games will be the same, and again, I don't think we were solid at all anyway, I think people are talking themselves into something that isn't true.  If Leicester take their good chances, not even any half chances, they score 4 or 5 in that game, and nobody is talking about us being solid afterwards.  I've mentioned Rotherham a few times on this thread to try and get my point across better, we've scored 1 goal in two games against them, does anyone on here think they looked solid against us because I certainly didn't.  We screwed ourselves out of two wins against them, and Leicester screwed themselves out of a win against us.  I don't believe Rotherham had much to do with our failings, and I don't believe that we had that much to do with Leicester's.

I agree that we won't have many games where we're packed in defending like we were against Leicester and that we tend to let the result inform our opinion of the performance rather than looking at them both in isolation. 

But I do think whilst we're lacking a bit in the wingers department that a back 3 could suit us in the short term with the personnel available. We can still play on the front foot and try to control the game in that formation. 

[Foogle 2,226 3.6k]

4 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

He should buy them, and change their name.

From the Black Cats to the Musk Rats, I like it! 🤠

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

7 minutes ago, Foogle said:

I agree that we won't have many games where we're packed in defending like we were against Leicester and that we tend to let the result inform our opinion of the performance rather than looking at them both in isolation. 

But I do think whilst we're lacking a bit in the wingers department that a back 3 could suit us in the short term with the personnel available. We can still play on the front foot and try to control the game in that formation. 

Of course we can but then the game is likely to be completely different.  We'll have more of the ball, we'll be the ones pushing forward, we won't be hitting teams on the break, so it will be what we're doing now just with a different shape.  It'll be a version of what we saw under Wilder except that now we have Ayling as a wingback rather than Jones.  I really don't see how this makes us a better attacking team, which is ultimately what our issues are, at least at home.