Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
BearSmog

Boro v Hull City 3-1 (Gestede (2) Bamford)

Recommended Posts

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough. We may have won by more we may not have I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now even if you agree with some of what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

I mean, in CTs defence here, you literally wrote the words: "He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones"

 

So surely you can see why he's questioning you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago the goal difference was extremely important so an extra goal or two would certainly help. It is so tight around 6th place also goals wise especially if Bristol don’t win tonight. So when you have a team like Hull I think you should definately try to add a goal or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THey did have one really good opportunity just after Cranie was brought on when one of their players got in round the back of Cranie and played it past Randolph only for Fry (I think) to clear from under his own crossbar with one of Hulls strikers very close by. That goes in and we would have been left with a very, unnecessarily, sweaty last 5 mins against one of the poorest professional sides I’ve ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

I mean, in CTs defence here, you literally wrote the words: "He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones"

 

So surely you can see why he's questioning you.

 

Well maybe I should have said he made decisions AND we won the game. But I did say earlier we won so his decisions were good enough. I’ll have to sack that proof reader That’s the forth one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

Actually you said more than that, hence me trying to clarify what you meant.  One of the first things you said was 'Pulis got it right that's all you can say'.  Not that football is black and white of course  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, in CTs defence here, you literally wrote the words: "He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones"

 

So surely you can see why he's questioning you.

 

You're my hero  :heart:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

Actually you said more than that, hence me trying to clarify what you meant.  One of the first things you said was 'Pulis got it right that's all you can say'.  Not that football is black and white of course  :)

 

Of course he got it right we won. Not saying he couldn’t have got it righter though (cos it’s not black and white). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not saying football is black and white it isn’t.  If we lose a different decision may have won it. It may also have lost the game by more it’s impossible to say  however if we lose people can criticise the decisions and no one can say they are wrong. But when we win the decisions were definitely good enough . He made decisions that won us the game so the right ones.  Now on to the next decisions

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

Actually you said more than that, hence me trying to clarify what you meant.  One of the first things you said was 'Pulis got it right that's all you can say'.  Not that football is black and white of course  :)

 

Of course he got it right we won. Not saying he couldn’t have got it righter though (cos it’s not black and white). :)

 

You realise you're still arguing that it's not possible to make the wrong decisions and win, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, you actually are saying it's black and white.  If we win then whatever decisions that were made were correct regardless of how those decisions influenced the game.  We won therefore they were right decisions?

 

No I said the decisions were good enough.   We may have won by more we may not have  I get the impression your arguing for the sake of it now  even if you agree with some of what I say.

 

Actually you said more than that, hence me trying to clarify what you meant.  One of the first things you said was 'Pulis got it right that's all you can say'.  Not that football is black and white of course  :)

 

Of course he got it right we won. Not saying he couldn’t have got it righter though (cos it’s not black and white). :)

 

You realise you're still arguing that it's not possible to make the wrong decisions and win, right?

 

Who gives a crap if you make a decision and win if you win you win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was three vital points but that doesn't cover over that it was an average performance against a very poor side. A few concerning points I noticed:

  • The few times when we didn't just hit the ball long to Gestede we actually played some decent football in spells. In the build up to our first goal we started passing it around in defence - which was greeted by noticeable boos from a section of fans - until Ayala(I think) passed to Downing, who slowly carried the ball forward and slipped the ball through to Traore, he then spread the ball wide to Shotton who put in the cross which created the goal. It was simple football but very effective. We need to find some more of that patience if we're going to open teams up with some quality. I'm hoping that as we play this style more we'll realise when the right times are to get the ball onto the ground in defence and look to pass through teams.
  • I'm trying to understand the logic in Pulis putting for a third central midfield and a fifth defender on the pitch. If it's purely a tactical thing then it's madness as it's counterproductive and it will come back to bite us. In his after match comments he said that we lacked fitness - which is evident when you see the likes of Leadbitter and Downing struggling like that - so maybe he thinks we can't keep pushing forward anywhere near as effectively after 60 minutes so just opts to get as many players behind the ball as possible. We have very limited quality back up wing/#10 options like an unfit Harrison and a terrible Johnson so maybe that is forcing his hand a bit for the time being. The only consistent substitutes Karanka would make in the closing stages seemed to predominantly be of the creative/attacking players, so maybe Pulis doesn't have the bench options currently to do similar like-for-like substitutes and maintain energy in the forward areas. 
  • Also, this links back to the previous points, I don't think our style of football (generally hoofing the ball up for our attacking players at most opportunities) will help our players conserve their energy in certain spells when and perform for a solid 90 minutes in one style as they seem to be wasting loads of energy needlessly by chasing them balls and scrapping high up the pitch out of possession. Our forward four players seem to be having far more short sharp bursts of energy pressing, which zap energy far more, instead of having periods to recharge when in possession where we could pass the ball around and slowly drain the opposition's legs and concentration while probing for an opening. I don't think many footballers will be able to scrap high up the pitch for a full 90 minutes like Pulis wants us to. I'm guessing this final 30 minutes of games where we go ultra defensive is as a result of the wasted energy and/or poor fitness in the first 60 minutes. We could manage 90 minutes under Monk, albeit littered with individual defensive mistakes, but still something is concerning that we're only capable of 60 minutes of Pulis' style now. Something seems to have changed.
  • Pulis needs to be far more proactive to opposition's short and cutback corners. Hull had two dangerous short corners just before we scored, yet we didn't see the danger coming. We got caught out similarly against Reading for Martin's goal from the edge of the area. I think we seem that concerned with marking everyone in the box for headers that we're not drilled for the other possibilities. Pulis needs to respect the league a bit more and realise that teams don't just hoof the ball in the box from corners. Any opposition scout/manager that has watched our games will have noted it as an area of complacency/weakness.
  • While we defended fairly well in open play I was shocked at how poorly composed we were on the ball in deep defensive areas. The amount a scuffed clearances and poor decisions when passing the ball was alarming. In particular, Fry scuffed an awful lot of clearances but I can understand him being rusty after the past few months and being named as a starter so narrowly before the game.
  • Besic done well in spells but there were a few occasions where he was out of position which left gaps on the edge of our box which could have resulting in us conceding if Hull had moved the ball better. One time in the first half stands out like a sore thumb as he was way out of position. He seems to be similar to Clayton on the ball but better suited to more advanced areas as he has more of a burst of pace and composure in attacking areas. That mazing wander through Hull's defence was a joy. It was reminiscent of McEachran's footwork in tight areas.
  • For all that Gestede is a good target to cross at in the box and is a physical presence, he's a very poor targetman when trying to play off him with his back to goal as his close control is akin to a centre-back playing as a makeshift striker in the final throws of a game as whenever the ball goes to him it often doesn't lead to the move resulting in much. He took his two goals really well so I can't complain too much I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we defended fairly well in open play I was shocked at how poorly composed we were on the ball in deep defensive areas. The amount a scuffed clearances and poor decisions when passing the ball was alarming. In particular, Fry scuffed an awful lot of clearances but I can understand him being rusty after the past few months and being named as a starter so narrowly before the game.

 

Are you sure you aren’t getting mixed up between Friend and Fry? I honestly can’t remember Fry scuffing one clearance but Friend mi*** everything he touched. One nearly cost us a goal and resulted in Ayala having a right go at him. At one stage Friend even got an ironic cheer from the south stand when he successfully connected with a clearance. He just seemed to be having one of those nights.

 

I also feel you’re being very harsh on Rudy. He won the majority of the hopeless balls we played up to him in the air, a few which could have resulted in assists had our other players read the flick ons. It’s pretty difficult for him to link up with other players in the team when our tactics leave him as isolated as he is. He won the majority of long balls, scored two goals and hit the post. I don’t think you can ask much more from him. Some fans (not saying this is you p_mards) are just trying to find any excuse to have a go at him which I completely understand after his idiocy against Norwich. The guys beside me started slating him deeming him useless because he failed to control a Bamford pass blasted at him from 2 yards away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear right that Wolves made a defensive sub at 2-1 and didn't win the game  :omg:

 

 

Friend has a lot of those nights and days now unfortunately.  I think a combination of the Premier League and dare I say his age has buggered him unfortunately  :frown:

 

 

You can never be too harsh on Gestede, he's a proper donkey.  There should be a donkey smiley but there isn't so I'm going to use  :eggplant: instead.  He was ok at best against Hull despite the two goals and he really isn't an especially good target man a lot of the time.  His movement for an 'attacking' player is awful really.  I wouldn't expect him to run channels and flit around all over the place but half the time he doesn't even move in the penalty area to make space for himself.  It's like he just wants to stand there and wait for the ball to come to him.  Maybe it's a confidence thing I dunno but for the most part he's just a big bloke and there's not much else to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Latest Posts

    • Sorry to leave you waiting, work has been a bit hectic. I've broken your points into 3 areas.  1. The point I'm trying (and failing) to make is that from Woodgate's original press conference it seems he has a preferred style that he would like to play. This style is his ultimate end goal, how he would like us to play. This is obviously not going to happen overnight, hence why we have spent the pre-season and first few games playing "his style". It is my opinon that this is laying the foundations for us to play this way. At the present moment in time I do not feel the squad can competently play this style and as such we have reverted back to a style that the players have a familiarity with, that they can play. When Jokanovic took over Fulham, I'd argue that the free flowing style they went up with was certainly not how they started playing under Jokanovic in his first 6 months in charge. But I'd almost guarantee that he was training the group of players he had certain elements of his preferred style.  2. I'm one of the first to acknowledge that we weren't going to be signing 10 players due to our financial constraints. But to answer your question I do feel that if we had got another couple of wide players in, we may have seen Woodgate persist with "his style". I do also feel however that to get to this end point in style it would take more than just the summer window and the upcoming window. By saying this about signings I'm not admitting that we would be a swash buckling side that would sweep all before them, but it would be seen as another piece of the puzzle to help us towards Woodgate's style. Again adding to the foundations that are slowly been knitted together, like the fact we played a certain way during pre-season and the first couple of games.  Basically what I'm trying to get across is that I feel we are aiming for a certain style of play and that we are adding bit by bit certain elements of this style. Whether it is the pressing element, like we saw in the Luton, Brentford, Hull and Bristol City games (in my opinion), interestingly we played a 4-3-3 in 3/4 of those games. Or whether it is by the need of having more squad depth to allow us to try and play a 4-3-3 on a more frequent basis. 3. I've kind of half answered this in the bit above. It is of my opinion that we would see a 4-3-3 a lot more often this season if we had signed another winger (or 2) in the summer. The fact that we didn't for me is a key reason in us playing a back 5 often. I also feel a big problem is our total lack of creativity in the team. I also do not feel that we are a player or 2 away from implementing Woodgate's system. Jokanovic signed 11 permanent players in his first full season at Fulham, I don't think we need quite as many but certainly there are key positions we need filling. A striker who will press, wingers/inside forwards, a play maker in the middle, a defensive midfielder and for me a centre half that is comfortable with the ball at their feet.
    • Can see why he'd turn down Watford hardly a stable situation we offer him a blank slate type job with a shrinking wage budget I bet he'd back himself to build up a squad next summer. The last bit about SOME board members is pretty hilarious when the reason these stories are appearing is I'm pretty sure a bad result vs Charlton and they already know what they'll have to do by lining up a replacement ASAP. I'll go on record as saying I'll take any manager with any sort of decent track record give me Shteve Mclaren back if you can wrangle it Hughton/Warnock are best case scenario's I guess shame we limited our last hunt to Jokanovic and Woodgate the only reason JWs still employed is people can't swallow how badly they screwed up and are dragging it on out of their own pride at this point I suspect the JW supporters on the board are Bausor, Bevington and Gibson I can't imagine Joyes or Lamb are the 1s dragging this on.
    • A couple of years ago this club would have been an attractive proposition, I just don't know if Houghton who has managed Newcastle and Brighton in the PL would want to start al over again trying to build a squad on  a small budget.  That was the  idea of bringing Bola and Dijksteel in to address the fullback problem and its nothing short of disastrous, 2 of the worst fullbacks I've ever seen in a Boro shirt.
    • There are a lot of short-term problems for us at the moment due to injuries and suspensions, but with the right manager in place like Hughton we should avoid relegation comfortably as we still have a lot of quality within our squad. We also have a January window coming up to patch up the areas of concern like at fullback and on the wings until the summer transfer window. Boro having to now operate sensibly and stopping wasting money is no reason for us to have no realistic expectations of a top 6 finish next season. We're losing loads of money because we've made terrible decisions in the transfer market signing average Championship level players for inflated fees and appointing inadequate managers. Once we start making the right decisions, we'll stop losing so much money and, in turn, will start building a good squad within a modest budget. It is possible to be run sensibly and get promoted. Burnley, Sheffield United and Norwich are testament to that.
×
×
  • Create New...