Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
OldManGravz

Boro v Barnsley (A) 2-2 (Braithwaite, Assombalonga)

Recommended Posts

Duvel, you're still ignoring one thing with regards to dominance. When Barnsley sat back, we created numerous chances. Was that what Barnsley planned? I don't think if you asked the Barnsley manager that he was happy gifting opportunities to us. I didn't watch the Derby v Forest game but if Forest created opportunities, I don't think Rowett would have been pleased with that as a result of sitting back either.

 

When you sit off and defend your lead, your main concern is stopping chances from being created, block the crosses, win the headers, like Karanka's defence was so often capable of doing. Barnsley didn't do that. They sat off and allowed us more possession but we still created numerous chances to score. Less so after the equalizer (which I'll remind you again, we still had close to 60% of the ball for the remaining 30 minutes) but we still had 2 really good chances to score before they had theirs.

 

I'm not saying we didn't have periods where we were on top in the game and some chances but that isn't dominance, dominance would be us in complete control of the game from start to finish. They hit the post at 2-2 and we could have easily of lost the game that is not dominance! If we are choosing stats to argue a point what were the possession stats after we made it 2-2? They were pretty even.

 

I think we have completely different definitions of what constitutes dominance in a game of football, I should have left it where we were yesterday because we're never going to agree on it. I respect your opinion that's fine, I think I'll leave it there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when we won the game at City thanks to a Sun Jihai own goal, does that mean City didn't dominate us from start to finish? Come on now, you're making blanket statements and you were having a go at me for over-simplifying what you were saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when we won the game at City thanks to a Sun Jihai own goal, does that mean City didn't dominate us from start to finish? Come on now, you're making blanket statements and you were having a go at me for over-simplifying what you were saying.

 

I can't remember that game :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know for certain but I'd be interested in say the last five yrs in the top 5 European leagues how many teams have won the league with below 50% possesion.   I'd bet Leicester are the only ones

The discussion yesterday was whether Barnsley sat off a little bit when they took the lead, I suggested this was part of the reason our possession stats were so high. When you look at the stats after we scored our second goal both teams had a similar amount of possession and both teams had chances to score. For this reason I find it hard to accept the suggestion that we dominated the game.

 

I watched Forest v Derby yesterday and after Derby scored an early goal they sat off Forest and let them have the ball for the rest of the first half. While Forest had a lot of the ball you always felt that derby could have pushed on if they needed to and got a second goal which they did in the second half. Now ask a Forest fan how they saw the game and lots of them will say they dominated the first half after Derby scored, ask Gary Rowett and he'll say their priority at 1-0 will have been to protect what they had first and foremost.

 

It happens in the majority of football matches; a team is on top, scores a goal and then sits off and protects the lead. Its usually the players on the pitch protecting what they have and becoming overly cautious its not necessarily a sign of being dominated.

 

I think sometimes you've got to take your rose tinted specs off if you are trying to analyse a game. At 2-1 up why would Barnsley press us and commit men beyond the ball? Its far more sensible to keep your shape and protect the lead.

 

I go the argument, but people were using Leicester as a barometer that said you can win things having low amounts of possesion.  As I said I don't have the exact figures but I'd bet it's very very rare

 

Chelsea when they won CL :-P

 

That was one game wasn't it. Top 3 teams in the premier league Man City Chelsea and Spurs. All dominate possesion . yes you can win with less possesion but it's still nowhere near the norm

 

No, the champions league is not one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion yesterday was whether Barnsley sat off a little bit when they took the lead, I suggested this was part of the reason our possession stats were so high. When you look at the stats after we scored our second goal both teams had a similar amount of possession and both teams had chances to score. For this reason I find it hard to accept the suggestion that we dominated the game.

 

I watched Forest v Derby yesterday and after Derby scored an early goal they sat off Forest and let them have the ball for the rest of the first half. While Forest had a lot of the ball you always felt that derby could have pushed on if they needed to and got a second goal which they did in the second half. Now ask a Forest fan how they saw the game and lots of them will say they dominated the first half after Derby scored, ask Gary Rowett and he'll say their priority at 1-0 will have been to protect what they had first and foremost.

 

It happens in the majority of football matches; a team is on top, scores a goal and then sits off and protects the lead. Its usually the players on the pitch protecting what they have and becoming overly cautious its not necessarily a sign of being dominated.

 

I think sometimes you've got to take your rose tinted specs off if you are trying to analyse a game. At 2-1 up why would Barnsley press us and commit men beyond the ball? Its far more sensible to keep your shape and protect the lead.

 

I go the argument, but people were using Leicester as a barometer that said you can win things having low amounts of possesion.  As I said I don't have the exact figures but I'd bet it's very very rare

 

Chelsea when they won CL :-P

 

That was one game wasn't it. Top 3 teams in the premier league Man City Chelsea and Spurs. All dominate possesion . yes you can win with less possesion but it's still nowhere near the norm

 

No, the champions league is not one game.

 

The final is or are you saying they gave up possesion every game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I go the argument, but people were using Leicester as a barometer that said you can win things having low amounts of possesion.  As I said I don't have the exact figures but I'd bet it's very very rare

 

Chelsea when they won CL :-P

 

That was one game wasn't it. Top 3 teams in the premier league Man City Chelsea and Spurs. All dominate possesion . yes you can win with less possesion but it's still nowhere near the norm

 

No, the champions league is not one game.

 

The final is or are you saying they gave up possesion every game

 

I'm just saying that the champions league is not one game. But they also did concede possession in almost every game through the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chelsea when they won CL :-P

 

That was one game wasn't it. Top 3 teams in the premier league Man City Chelsea and Spurs. All dominate possesion . yes you can win with less possesion but it's still nowhere near the norm

 

No, the champions league is not one game.

 

The final is or are you saying they gave up possesion every game

 

I'm just saying that the champions league is not one game. But they also did concede possession in almost every game through the campaign.

 

So you agree with giving up possesion. Or have I got that wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...