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

    • To be awkward, because, well, I am awkward, I decided not to include the Premier League season.  Being honest about it, Negredo is easily the best forward from this decade in terms of quality.  Even players like Chambers, Fischer, Espinosa, would probably walk into many of the teams we fielded over the decade.  Given that many of those players did bugger all really, I don't want to pick them so it's Championship players only.                Randolph Fabio  Ayala Gibson Friend          Clayton Leadbitter                  Robson Adomah                Ramirez                 Bamford   It was tougher than I thought really.  GK was easy enough for me as it was really between Randolph and Given and Randolph has been pretty much our best, most consistent player since he signed for us.  Right back was a toughy.  I don't think any of them were especially good for any length of time.  I almost snuck Rhys Williams in there to get him into the side but he wasn't that good as a right back so I didn't.  Hoyte, McMahon, Varga, Fredericks, Kalas, Nsue, Christie, Fabio, Shotton, Howson.  In the end I cheated slightly and selected Fabio as I think he was probably the better player out of that lot.  Nsue probably should have been chosen though as he played more games.  Central defenders speak for themselves.  Maybe could have looked at Williams here because when he was fit, healthy and on top of his game, he was a good player or Wheater before he left but they are not in the same class as that partnership was for us.  Friend is obvious at left back, great value signing and played for a lot of the decade. In midfield, I was a big fan of Robson and would have liked to see him playing in better sides.  I think he'd have done ok for Karanka for example.  But you also have to respect the job that Leadbitter and Clayton did as well so I ended up selecting all three.  I didn't think that the likes of Arca, Butterfield, Whitehead, Bailey, McEachran or the more recent lot had done enough to get into the side. The attacking players were a bit tricky as well.  Adomah I would say is the easiest choice as he did well for us over 3 seasons.  Bamford is the best striker I've seen playing for us in the Championship so would have to select him ahead of Lita, McDonald, Emnes, Juke, Nugent, Assombalonga etc.  I didn't like selecting Ramirez as he only had a 6 month spell with us in the Championship and I think he's a *** but he did have a big impact in that time and he was a good player.  I suppose Tomlin, Traore, and one or two others might have cause to grumble about not being selected but I feel Ramirez had a bigger impact than them. I reckon that team gets promoted fairly comfortably.
    • Well, I'd guess Assombalonga, Randolph, Fry, McNair, Tavernier would probably have higher values than say Ayala, Howson, Shotton, Clayton etc given contract lengths and ages.  So I'm assuming the first group is where the sales would come from if it's highest fees were looking for rather than the second group?
    • Why highly probably? Its certainly possible. But not highly probable. Were 9/4 to go down, so the bookies clearly arent convinced. there currently are 4 teams below us and a few within touching distance above us. People are in hysteria because weve been poor without even considering that there are likely to be 3 poorer teams than us in the division as the results have shown so far.
    • Boro cutting costs and strikers signed from Scotland.  I feel like I've seen this one before 🤔
×
×
  • Create New...