Boro vs QPR 2-1 (Conway, Dijksteel)

[TeaCider24 17,814 22.9k]

https://www.instagram.com/share/p/BAOoG3dqQG

I'd forgotten that Dijksteel had never scored at the Riverside before.

What a goal to break his duck with.

[Leesider 1,342 1.4k]

1 hour ago, ladyspite said:

That's not the point though 

We just go up and collect the £250 millions

Couldent care less if we lose 38 games lol....

I couldn't disagree more . We were depressing enough under Karanka & Agnew. Torture to watch that season. 

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

33 minutes ago, Leesider said:

I couldn't disagree more . We were depressing enough under Karanka & Agnew. Torture to watch that season. 

It’s kind of to be expected though isn’t it, as fans we have to be willing to take it on the chin and not get all petty about it. It can be done but it’s unlikely to be pretty or entertaining. Can our fans handle that?

[Redcar Rioja 8,855 8.7k]

One thing that stands out to me is that the poor sides like Stoke and QPR in particular seem really bad, unlike the Rotherham's of the past who would be well drilled and organised on the day. Why that is I have no idea but I don't think it'd because we were so great despite having a lively start last night. A win is a win and under the circumstances and low levels of confidence we must be grateful for anything that comes our way, but QPR had a few chances that could have pulled them level or heaven forbid won. The one clean through at the end of the first half blasted wide, the diving Travers save tipping it past the post and the late save from their Keeper could have put a very different slant on things.

I'm not even sure that had we had our first choice CB's the prognosis would have been any better as we weren't really under any pressure although playing it out with Howson and Borges looked a lot more controlled and measured. Hackney forced a great save and Burgzorg culled a few Seagulls with his effort so it can be argued both ways but against a half decent side we would have been pummelled in my opinion.

The next couple of games are good opportunities to get some momentum but my views on Carrick's tenure haven't changed on the back of last night. I wasn't going to watch it until I heard the ridiculous notion that we were going with three at the back and Burgzorg as a RWB. In the end I watched the entire game and whilst we were certainly more direct in the opening stages and QPR struggled I'm still not convinced. There have been too many false dawns under this Manager and I don't see that changing other than the enforced changes he had to make last night. Sorry to pee on the celebrations, and it's better than a defeat, but I felt luck was on our side more than we looked reinvigorated.

[Rob 6,209 9.5k]

47 minutes ago, Leesider said:

I couldn't disagree more . We were depressing enough under Karanka & Agnew. Torture to watch that season. 

I still will never get my head around agnew in for longer than more than 1 game, did we really think we will get monk at the end of the season? or think agnew really had it after he got dunked on in his 2nd appearance as coach 

such a huge mistake not getting someone in who would of joined while we were premier league and at least let them have a chance of keeping us up or working with the players so on relegation he knew the team inside out and who needed to stay or go.

[TeaCider24 17,814 22.9k]

Having just seen Sheffield Wednesday's equaliser against Norwich, I think I'll relax about Norwich being a threat.

It makes that Ayling and van den Berg head clash against Preston look like expert defending.

[Erimus74 5,259 5.4k]

3 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

One thing that stands out to me is that the poor sides like Stoke and QPR in particular seem really bad, unlike the Rotherham's of the past who would be well drilled and organised on the day. Why that is I have no idea but I don't think it'd because we were so great despite having a lively start last night. A win is a win and under the circumstances and low levels of confidence we must be grateful for anything that comes our way, but QPR had a few chances that could have pulled them level or heaven forbid won. The one clean through at the end of the first half blasted wide, the diving Travers save tipping it past the post and the late save from their Keeper could have put a very different slant on things.

I'm not even sure that had we had our first choice CB's the prognosis would have been any better as we weren't really under any pressure although playing it out with Howson and Borges looked a lot more controlled and measured. Hackney forced a great save and Burgzorg culled a few Seagulls with his effort so it can be argued both ways but against a half decent side we would have been pummelled in my opinion.

The next couple of games are good opportunities to get some momentum but my views on Carrick's tenure haven't changed on the back of last night. I wasn't going to watch it until I heard the ridiculous notion that we were going with three at the back and Burgzorg as a RWB. In the end I watched the entire game and whilst we were certainly more direct in the opening stages and QPR struggled I'm still not convinced. There have been too many false dawns under this Manager and I don't see that changing other than the enforced changes he had to make last night. Sorry to pee on the celebrations, and it's better than a defeat, but I felt luck was on our side more than we looked reinvigorated.

No need to apologise, your opinion/comments are as valid as someone who throws himself 100% behind MC

I agree, 3 wins out of 4 & with a chance of beaking in the playoffs, if we win on Saturday & results go our way, but as much of waking up this morning with a spring in my step, I still want a change of management next season

[Rob 6,209 9.5k]

2 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

One thing that stands out to me is that the poor sides like Stoke and QPR in particular seem really bad, unlike the Rotherham's of the past who would be well drilled and organised on the day. Why that is I have no idea but I don't think it'd because we were so great despite having a lively start last night. A win is a win and under the circumstances and low levels of confidence we must be grateful for anything that comes our way, but QPR had a few chances that could have pulled them level or heaven forbid won. The one clean through at the end of the first half blasted wide, the diving Travers save tipping it past the post and the late save from their Keeper could have put a very different slant on things.

I'm not even sure that had we had our first choice CB's the prognosis would have been any better as we weren't really under any pressure although playing it out with Howson and Borges looked a lot more controlled and measured. Hackney forced a great save and Burgzorg culled a few Seagulls with his effort so it can be argued both ways but against a half decent side we would have been pummelled in my opinion.

The next couple of games are good opportunities to get some momentum but my views on Carrick's tenure haven't changed on the back of last night. I wasn't going to watch it until I heard the ridiculous notion that we were going with three at the back and Burgzorg as a RWB. In the end I watched the entire game and whilst we were certainly more direct in the opening stages and QPR struggled I'm still not convinced. There have been too many false dawns under this Manager and I don't see that changing other than the enforced changes he had to make last night. Sorry to pee on the celebrations, and it's better than a defeat, but I felt luck was on our side more than we looked reinvigorated.

it's the championship, if your part of the inconsistent pack then expect random results and hijinks 

[Bruce 2,974 2.3k]

7 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

I'm not even sure that had we had our first choice CB's the prognosis would have been any better as we weren't really under any pressure although playing it out with Howson and Borges looked a lot more controlled and measured

It's ironic but so far we have not missed Clarke. In fact, if he was playing yesterday instead of Howson, I think we would have been poorer. Howson was happy to go marauding forward with the ball and has the passing range to be effective with it. When he did that you could see Morris covering behind him. There's a clip on the extended highlights where you see Howson do that, look around and then think "oh yeah, better get back to the halfway line."

 

[ExfootyLimbs 55 92]

7 minutes ago, Bruce said:

It's ironic but so far we have not missed Clarke. In fact, if he was playing yesterday instead of Howson, I think we would have been poorer. Howson was happy to go marauding forward with the ball and has the passing range to be effective with it. When he did that you could see Morris covering behind him. There's a clip on the extended highlights where you see Howson do that, look around and then think "oh yeah, better get back to the halfway line."

The irony is that howson ought to play most games at centre half alongside Dael Fry, anyone who tells me that Edmundson or even van de berg is better than howson is just clueless and that includes our delusional manager. 
Howson was magnificent last night and just oozes class and he should be considered for centre half for next season if it means getting another season out of him. 
he’s like another midfielder as he steps forward calmly with the ball and his positional ability means he’s rarely exposed to pace.

wonderful to watch and worth the entrance fee alone to witness that display last night 
 

[Redcar Rioja 8,855 8.7k]

Howson at CB is fine if we can play football on the ground but at set pieces or up against 6ft 4" Strikers and he will get found out. I was amazed that Cifuentes didn't try and exploit that last night with his big unit up front but he got zero service and more or less played with ten men. With the ball on the ground we looked far slicker and more joined up with Howson and Borges but that's only half the job description.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

1 hour ago, Redcar Rioja said:

One thing that stands out to me is that the poor sides like Stoke and QPR in particular seem really bad, unlike the Rotherham's of the past who would be well drilled and organised on the day. Why that is I have no idea but I don't think it'd because we were so great despite having a lively start last night. A win is a win and under the circumstances and low levels of confidence we must be grateful for anything that comes our way, but QPR had a few chances that could have pulled them level or heaven forbid won. The one clean through at the end of the first half blasted wide, the diving Travers save tipping it past the post and the late save from their Keeper could have put a very different slant on things.

I'm not even sure that had we had our first choice CB's the prognosis would have been any better as we weren't really under any pressure although playing it out with Howson and Borges looked a lot more controlled and measured. Hackney forced a great save and Burgzorg culled a few Seagulls with his effort so it can be argued both ways but against a half decent side we would have been pummelled in my opinion.

The next couple of games are good opportunities to get some momentum but my views on Carrick's tenure haven't changed on the back of last night. I wasn't going to watch it until I heard the ridiculous notion that we were going with three at the back and Burgzorg as a RWB. In the end I watched the entire game and whilst we were certainly more direct in the opening stages and QPR struggled I'm still not convinced. There have been too many false dawns under this Manager and I don't see that changing other than the enforced changes he had to make last night. Sorry to pee on the celebrations, and it's better than a defeat, but I felt luck was on our side more than we looked reinvigorated.

It’s because teams like Stoke and QPR are trying to be good, so instead of setting up to *** house it they set up to play, pass it around etc. the problem is the players aren’t good enough so the whole thing just looks awful.

As for us I don’t think it was luck really, yes they should have scored before half time but Burgzorg should have scored for us before that. The keeper header in the last minute was a major let off though. We really seemed to struggle when QPR switched formations and took the bald guy off, could barely get hold of the ball.

[AnglianRed 7,876 18.1k]

3 hours ago, Jooky85 said:

Shall we bookmark this and come back when we've lost 8 in a row in the Prem and demanding a change in manager and to 'give it a shot'?

Not calling you out specifically, but I think we as fans are guilty of saying we'd be happy to be a yo-yo club and pocket the cash, but when the reality of losing every week hits I don't think that would actually be the case.

You just need to remember what it was like when we got promoted under Karanka.

While it was nice being able to rub shoulders with the big boys again, the performances & results were grim!

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

1 hour ago, ExfootyLimbs said:

The irony is that howson ought to play most games at centre half alongside Dael Fry, anyone who tells me that Edmundson or even van de berg is better than howson is just clueless and that includes our delusional manager. 
Howson was magnificent last night and just oozes class and he should be considered for centre half for next season if it means getting another season out of him. 
he’s like another midfielder as he steps forward calmly with the ball and his positional ability means he’s rarely exposed to pace.

wonderful to watch and worth the entrance fee alone to witness that display last night 
 

VDB is better than Howson at the back.  There you go.  Howson only ever looks decent there when we are playing games where we aren't under pressure.  He gets caught ball watching repeatedly as well, which is a lousy trait to have for playing as a defender.  Of course he strolled through the game yesterday, well the first 70 mins or so, they all did because QPR weren't arsed at all.  They looked every bit a team with nowt to play for.  When they got the ball they hardly committed players forward, they didn't try to use the big fella at all, and they routinely gave the ball away with what should have been simple passes.  Without the ball they retreated into their own half and left Frey to press by himself.  We look fine when teams are passive against us regardless of who is playing.  Our problems stem from teams actually pressing us into mistakes when we have the ball, a lack of movement in midfield/attack which reduces the options for our defenders, and the fact that we try and play out at times when we absolutely shouldn't.  Because QPR were so passive we were able to play through them almost at will, and as a result we suddenly looked better as a team, but also the individual players looked better as a result.  It's not a coincidence that Iling-Junior finally looked like a footballer, and that Hackney and Morris probably had one of their best games as a partnership - this is what happens when you have nowt to play against.  It was only after they got that goal back from nothing really that QPR seemed to think that it might be worth trying a bit as they might end up getting something out of the game.  I take it you've been watching football for a long time so you've seen this countless times before, and I'm probably telling you things that you know fine well.  What matters with us, and is going to matter between now and the end of the season, is if we can look as comfortable when we're playing against teams that aren't going to let us play, and quite frankly aren't just worse than us to begin with.

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

3 hours ago, Jooky85 said:

Shall we bookmark this and come back when we've lost 8 in a row in the Prem and demanding a change in manager and to 'give it a shot'?

I'd like to think that this team could lose more than 8 in a row in the Premier League if we try hard enough 👍