Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Relegation Rivals


Recommended Posts

 

Just to pop some context on it, I was thinking the cup when we were in the championship. Man U, won on pens, Liverpool lost on pens, City beat in normal time, ***nal lost in normal time.

 

Then this season, drew against Everton but we're good value, drew at ***nal and City, lost to a last minute goal at Man U, really decent performance against Chelsea when they were flying, spirited comeback against Spurs and almost snatched a point.

 

I generally feel we did pretty well against the big boys under Aitor. Considering we aren't expected to win any of those games, the fact we have had respectable results and competed with them barring the Liverpool at home game backs up my claim - in my opinion.

 

I thought he had a knack for winning the big games too, especially at the top end of the championship. He had his flaws, I'm just saying our performances against the big boys or in big games weren't necessarily one.

 

If you're talking context then lets also say that we only won one of those cup games and you missed out the Everton game that we also lost last season although I can't remember where Everton were in the league at the time.  So we won one, drew two and lost two, failing to score in three of them.  The context therefore is one win in 15 games against those sides being described as doing well.  What does doing badly look like in that case?

 

We seem to be back to not getting battered being seen as good essentially.  How can 3 points and 4 goals in 9 games be seen as doing well?  I don't give a crap who we are, that isn't doing well. Hull and Burnley have both won a couple of games against this lot if I'm not mistaken albeit one of Hull's wins was in the League Cup.  I think that there's maybe only Sunderland who have a worse record than us in these games.  It's a poor record and if you're going to do the last minute goal at Man Utd (it was the 85th and 86th mins to be precise) then surely you have to make the point that our equaliser against City came out of nowhere in the 91st min?

 

People still don't seem to get that when your ambition doesn't extend beyond trying not to lose by too many, narrow defeats aren't something to be proud of at all.  They are what you should be able to achieve when you aren't trying to do anything else.  We're a Premier League team for pity's sake, not League 2.  So if we stick everyone behind the ball and barely attack we should be able to avoid a hammering! We weren't trying to win at Spurs or Old Trafford or even at home against Chelsea and we played in such a way as to make sure that we were 'competitive' without actually looking likely to win. Even against Man Utd we got battered in that game, they were all over us from start to finish and if they weren't such a poor attacking side they would have beaten us comfortably.  As it is they hit the woodwork twice and had a goal disallowed as well as forcing some good saves. 

 

The problem is we were just as 'competitive' in a lot of the games with other opposition with the same basic result, which was a distinct difficulty in winning games.  We haven't managed to beat Palace, Leicester, West Ham, Watford, West Brom, Southampton, Stoke or Burnley either this season.  Just think about that.

 

I love the enthusiasm you bring to your posts CT, I really so. And you're right, both Burnley and Hull have beaten Liverpool once this season as their only major league scalp. The problem here is that we seem to have very different expectations of these games. I look and go "If we don't get battered, I'll be happy, if we get something, bonus! " And that seems a reasonable view given that the two examples you gave have only won 1 more game than us against the big sides. It seems your expectations are higher against them and deem that as not good enough. Look, my opinion is I'm happy with the way that we did against the big boys under Aitor, I thought we always held our own (bar Liverpool at home).

 

 

As for the other results you named, Leicester etc, well that's the nail on the head because they're the games where Aitor has had a mare. See if we get beat in every game against top 6 clubs, no one will bat an eyelid as long as we do well in the games you've mentioned, cos we aren't expected to get anything from them.

 

 

And that's my point really. He did pretty well against the big boys for my expectations, I was satisfied with our performances against them. Doing badly against them would be getting battered every time in my opinion, and therefore I don't think we did badly at all. You see it as us not trying to win, but I don't. What are they gunna do, attack Chelsea from the off? You'll get torn to shreds! On those occasions it is wise to sit tight, defend resolutely and try to nick a goal. And that was the game plan we went with and there are times where it nearly worked, so I have to disagree with you on that part. However, his big problem in the end was we tried to do that against much much lesser teams, but that's not what my point pertains to.

 

I agree with this Dave. I feel he did the right things against the big boys. Trouble is he did almost the same against everyone else ,your right in that you have to sit tight against Chelsea and try to be in the gama till the end ( you could easily be out of it withinn 20 mins ). But if you try to be just in the game against the bottom half teams your letting them off the hook so to speak

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 551
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    51

  •  

    32

  •  

    27

To be fair, whilst I don't fancy our chances since we've won 4 games all season, it is now in our hands given the 6 point difference, better goal difference and 2 games in hand. And our next 3 games..

 

***nal - already drew away from home and played v well

Bournemouth - beat em 2-0

Sunderland - beat em 2-1

 

Can't say I fancy our chances against City, Chelsea, Southampton and Liverpool - but most might still be under pressure to get a result against us.

 

It's the hope that kills you, but at least we're not dead and buried just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We played two of them at home. The one away game of the three that we played we lost it and we were abysmal. That's not even factoring in the fact that Swansea and Hull have both improved since we played them the first time around. We played 27 games this season with Karanka as manager and we won 4 of them, the last one coming in December. Comforting...

 

Okay you win a 0% win rate is more comforting...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to pop some context on it, I was thinking the cup when we were in the championship. Man U, won on pens, Liverpool lost on pens, City beat in normal time, ***nal lost in normal time.

 

Then this season, drew against Everton but we're good value, drew at ***nal and City, lost to a last minute goal at Man U, really decent performance against Chelsea when they were flying, spirited comeback against Spurs and almost snatched a point.

 

I generally feel we did pretty well against the big boys under Aitor. Considering we aren't expected to win any of those games, the fact we have had respectable results and competed with them barring the Liverpool at home game backs up my claim - in my opinion.

 

I thought he had a knack for winning the big games too, especially at the top end of the championship. He had his flaws, I'm just saying our performances against the big boys or in big games weren't necessarily one.

 

If you're talking context then lets also say that we only won one of those cup games and you missed out the Everton game that we also lost last season although I can't remember where Everton were in the league at the time.  So we won one, drew two and lost two, failing to score in three of them.  The context therefore is one win in 15 games against those sides being described as doing well.  What does doing badly look like in that case?

 

We seem to be back to not getting battered being seen as good essentially.  How can 3 points and 4 goals in 9 games be seen as doing well?  I don't give a crap who we are, that isn't doing well. Hull and Burnley have both won a couple of games against this lot if I'm not mistaken albeit one of Hull's wins was in the League Cup.  I think that there's maybe only Sunderland who have a worse record than us in these games.  It's a poor record and if you're going to do the last minute goal at Man Utd (it was the 85th and 86th mins to be precise) then surely you have to make the point that our equaliser against City came out of nowhere in the 91st min?

 

People still don't seem to get that when your ambition doesn't extend beyond trying not to lose by too many, narrow defeats aren't something to be proud of at all.  They are what you should be able to achieve when you aren't trying to do anything else.  We're a Premier League team for pity's sake, not League 2.  So if we stick everyone behind the ball and barely attack we should be able to avoid a hammering! We weren't trying to win at Spurs or Old Trafford or even at home against Chelsea and we played in such a way as to make sure that we were 'competitive' without actually looking likely to win. Even against Man Utd we got battered in that game, they were all over us from start to finish and if they weren't such a poor attacking side they would have beaten us comfortably.  As it is they hit the woodwork twice and had a goal disallowed as well as forcing some good saves. 

 

The problem is we were just as 'competitive' in a lot of the games with other opposition with the same basic result, which was a distinct difficulty in winning games.  We haven't managed to beat Palace, Leicester, West Ham, Watford, West Brom, Southampton, Stoke or Burnley either this season.  Just think about that.

 

I love the enthusiasm you bring to your posts CT, I really so. And you're right, both Burnley and Hull have beaten Liverpool once this season as their only major league scalp. The problem here is that we seem to have very different expectations of these games. I look and go "If we don't get battered, I'll be happy, if we get something, bonus! " And that seems a reasonable view given that the two examples you gave have only won 1 more game than us against the big sides. It seems your expectations are higher against them and deem that as not good enough. Look, my opinion is I'm happy with the way that we did against the big boys under Aitor, I thought we always held our own (bar Liverpool at home).

 

 

As for the other results you named, Leicester etc, well that's the nail on the head because they're the games where Aitor has had a mare. See if we get beat in every game against top 6 clubs, no one will bat an eyelid as long as we do well in the games you've mentioned, cos we aren't expected to get anything from them.

 

 

And that's my point really. He did pretty well against the big boys for my expectations, I was satisfied with our performances against them. Doing badly against them would be getting battered every time in my opinion, and therefore I don't think we did badly at all. You see it as us not trying to win, but I don't. What are they gunna do, attack Chelsea from the off? You'll get torn to shreds! On those occasions it is wise to sit tight, defend resolutely and try to nick a goal. And that was the game plan we went with and there are times where it nearly worked, so I have to disagree with you on that part. However, his big problem in the end was we tried to do that against much much lesser teams, but that's not what my point pertains to.

 

I agree with this Dave. I feel he did the right things against the big boys. Trouble is he did almost the same against everyone else ,your right in that you have to sit tight against Chelsea and try to be in the gama till the end ( you could easily be out of it withinn 20 mins ). But if you try to be just in the game against the bottom half teams your letting them off the hook so to speak

 

I agree with you agreeing with Dave, Rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We played two of them at home.  The one away game of the three that we played we lost it and we were abysmal.  That's not even factoring in the fact that Swansea and Hull have both improved since we played them the first time around.  We played 27 games this season with Karanka as manager and we won 4 of them, the last one coming in December.  Comforting...

 

Okay you win a 0% win rate is more comforting...

Perhaps Agnew could be better judged had he been in charge the 1st 27 games of the season rather than the last 4. 27 games 4 wins with Karanka in charge not very comforting and the chairman obviously thought the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We played two of them at home.  The one away game of the three that we played we lost it and we were abysmal.  That's not even factoring in the fact that Swansea and Hull have both improved since we played them the first time around.  We played 27 games this season with Karanka as manager and we won 4 of them, the last one coming in December.  Comforting...

 

Okay you win a 0% win rate is more comforting...

 

I don't think it's comforting.  I have no idea why he has been given the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I love the enthusiasm you bring to your posts CT, I really so. And you're right, both Burnley and Hull have beaten Liverpool once this season as their only major league scalp. The problem here is that we seem to have very different expectations of these games. I look and go "If we don't get battered, I'll be happy, if we get something, bonus! " And that seems a reasonable view given that the two examples you gave have only won 1 more game than us against the big sides. It seems your expectations are higher against them and deem that as not good enough. Look, my opinion is I'm happy with the way that we did against the big boys under Aitor, I thought we always held our own (bar Liverpool at home).

 

As for the other results you named, Leicester etc, well that's the nail on the head because they're the games where Aitor has had a mare. See if we get beat in every game against top 6 clubs, no one will bat an eyelid as long as we do well in the games you've mentioned, cos we aren't expected to get anything from them.

 

And that's my point really. He did pretty well against the big boys for my expectations, I was satisfied with our performances against them. Doing badly against them would be getting battered every time in my opinion, and therefore I don't think we did badly at all. You see it as us not trying to win, but I don't.  What are they gunna do, attack Chelsea from the off? You'll get torn to shreds! On those occasions it is wise to sit tight, defend resolutely and try to nick a goal. And that was the game plan we went with and there are times where it nearly worked, so I have to disagree with you on that part. However, his big problem in the end was we tried to do that against much much lesser teams, but that's not what my point pertains to.

 

Thanks bud I appreciate it.  

 

Burnley also beat Everton and if we're counting our draw against them then it's only fair to count their win I'd say?  I think they also got a point at Old Trafford and against Chelsea as well so that's 8 points compared to our 3.  Hull have managed 5 points.  Hull's second win came in the League Cup semi final so I was reluctant to count it but as you brought up the cup games it seemed fair enough.  Both Hull and Burnley have more points than us in these games.  Hopefully that will change between now and the end of the season and give us a shot at staying up.

 

If your expectations are zero then by definition anything more than zero will be viewed as success. However I don't think it's realistic to have zero expectations over 12/14 games even against better opposition. In a one off game against Chelsea would I expect to win? Of course not.  But across 12/14 games against the top sides I would expect to win at least once and pick up points elsewhere.   Compare us to everyone else in the division and see how we did.  From what I can see only Sunderland have a worse record and that's just one draw fewer.  We've done the second worst in the league to date and there's no way that can be seen as doing well regardless of your expectations.  It is a poor record, almost the poorest in fact. 

 

We managed it in previous seasons following promotion so why not now?  Watford managed it last season, Bournemouth did, even Norwich got 4 points although only in draws.  The season before Burnley did it despite relegation as did Leicester with only QPR failing to. It's not a rare thing, other teams have managed it so why are we a special case?  I keep asking this question because for some reason we are judged differently to anyone else and I can't work out why this is?

 

We have four opportunities between now and the end of the season to improve this record and as it happens it would obviously be incredibly useful if we do find some wins now, starting tomorrow night ideally.  But I just can't see how the second worst record in the league equates to doing well regardless of expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnley and Hull have played 3 more games against the top six than us, (in the league at least, I didn't look at the cup) so playing with the numbers is tricky. What I would say is that across the board Burnley have been much better than us all season and the Hull wins (Liverpool in League and Man U in cup) have both come under Silva where they've been nothing short of outstanding.

 

For the differences are so small between our records in that they've only picked up a couple more points than us, that it tells me that it's fair to not expect anything from them. Although I think that's what makes this an interesting debate, is that those 2 or 3 more points Hull have may be the difference in the end! So in that sense, it might end up that you're absolutely right. But then I'd also say that we can all agree that the problem lies in those games we talked about in earlier posts; Hull away, Swansea, Palace, Watford.

 

What I will say is if there is ever a time to steal some points it has to be tomorrow. With ***nal's form and how desperate we are for points, surely it is now or never?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Well, tomorrow is certainly a better bet than either Chelsea or Liverpool away for example so now or never feels like an apt description. My fear would be that after last week the ***nal players will feel they need a performance but my hope is that the clear issues they have behind the scenes lead to another half ***d effort. Whatever they do we need to be right up for it.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I've been trying to say. I don't think our record against the best sides is the reason for our position. We've won four games this season, we've been poor against everyone pretty much. It was just when you said we'd done well against the better sides and I started to think about it and it didn't ring true for me. Yeah not getting hammered is a good thing but barely scoring a goal and not winning a single game doesn't feel like a good thing to me and when I started having a look at some other team's results, it seemed like we were quite poor by comparison.

 

As you rightly point out the list of games I mentioned tells it's own story. To expand upon it, we've played 31 games this season and we've only beaten Sunderland, Bournemouth, Hull and Swansea. We've only scored more than once in four games! We failed to scored at all in 15 games. I mean all of that is terrible however you want to look at it. As a team you take points wherever you can get them but I'm not looking at our games against Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool and co. and blaming them for where we are certainly. I do think they are part of it though as many of the other games are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am understanding you, I was just pointing out something else as a part of the conversation. I know that you disagree that I said that Aitor generally did well in the games against the big boys, my point was that you supported that by pointing to Burnley and Hull, who've each won 1 this season in the league (or Burnley 2 if you count Everton) which I argue isn't much different. That leaned toward my argument that my expectations of our results were fairly realistic. However, what I will say is though their results have been better, I've always been encouraged by our performances against them under Aitor over his whole tenure, which is more what my original post was meant to refer to. The fact we've never got battered and snatched some results tells me (or at least in my mind) that our approach was a pretty good one in those games.

 

But it's all neither here nor there I suppose since it's Aggers in charge tomorrow either way. I don't even know if I want us to win because then I'll only get my hopes up lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...