Boro v Barnsley 1-0 (Fletcher)

[Foogle 2,104]

43 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

We've only won three games, lads and lasses.  Let's not blame bad luck for it.

Can I blame you for it then? 🤠

[Changing Times 12,339]

33 minutes ago, Brunners said:

I think there's a very solid argument to be made that bad decisions have cost us points, especially early in the season. (Brentford and Millwall spring to mind)

Also over the last few games we have started playing better; so there are some positives here for sure.

Also unrelated, but I just watched the inside matchday, and boy was Assombalonga *** when Coulson shot instead of squaring it for him. I don't think I've ever seen him that animated!

You can go through every game and find decisions that go for and against you and they then influence the outcome of the game.  Last night our goal was lucky through bad defending when their lad tried keep possession of the ball when under pressure for some reason.  Our equaliser at QPR was lucky through that terrible back pass.  That's luck we've had in our favour in the last few games. We've won three games this season because we haven't been very good, it's not about bad luck.  We even managed to get ourselves knocked out of the League Cup at the first attempt.  We've won a game, which is great, but it was at home against the worst team in the league and our goal came out of nowhere really.  We certainly weren't the better side at that point. 

So let's just wait and see if we can add a few more wins soon and see where that takes us.  We played well in the first half against Hull, we didn't play well for a lot of last night and we didn't play well for the second half against Hull (with a man down admittedly).  We weren't that good at QPR and relied on them gifting us a goal to get an equaliser in the end because after a bright start to the game we largely fell away.  What we have managed to do is score 5 goals in 3 games, which is giving us a chance to get some points.  I don't think we've looked any better defensively really and our overall play hasn't been better for the most part, with the exception of the first half on Sunday.  For me luck doesn't really come into it over months of football, or rather, there's some good and some bad but poor teams tend to be near the bottom and better sides tend to be near the top.

[Changing Times 12,339]

4 minutes ago, Foogle said:

Can I blame you for it then? 🤠

Aye, that's what I'm here for.  Well, that and the top quality jokes and football analysis 😎

[Changing Times 12,339]

22 minutes ago, Will said:

He's always wanted to leave, in fact he never even wanted to come here.

I don't blame him, it's rubbish 👎

[Foogle 2,104]

31 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

So let's just wait and see if we can add a few more wins soon and see where that takes us.  We played well in the first half against Hull, we didn't play well for a lot of last night and we didn't play well for the second half against Hull (with a man down admittedly).  We weren't that good at QPR and relied on them gifting us a goal to get an equaliser in the end because after a bright start to the game we largely fell away.  What we have managed to do is score 5 goals in 3 games, which is giving us a chance to get some points.  I don't think we've looked any better defensively really and our overall play hasn't been better for the most part, with the exception of the first half on Sunday.  For me luck doesn't really come into it over months of football, or rather, there's some good and some bad but poor teams tend to be near the bottom and better sides tend to be near the top.

I feel like the individual quality of our players should be able to sustain this level of performance. I'm not trying to say it's a high level or anything just that it would pick us up enough points for comfortable safety. Just out of interest, would you say that Woodgate is improving as a manager?

[Brunners 7,982]

I would give him credit that he effectively changed his tactic at half time last night for a massively improved second half. Fair play for that.

[Changing Times 12,339]

12 minutes ago, Foogle said:

I feel like the individual quality of our players should be able to sustain this level of performance. I'm not trying to say it's a high level or anything just that it would pick us up enough points for comfortable safety. Just out of interest, would you say that Woodgate is improving as a manager?

No mate.  I haven't seen any evidence for it so far.  Woodgate got slated after the QPR game for comments about the fans and then criticised for the change he made on Sunday.

 

9 minutes ago, Brunners said:

I would give him credit that he effectively changed his tactic at half time last night for a massively improved second half. Fair play for that.

I didn't see that way.  I don't believe we changed anything at all.  The start of the second half went the same way as the first half did, then we knocked a ball forward, their lad dithered on it, Tavernier nicked it and we scored.  After that point they were pushing forward for a goal and leaving more gaps, which is how we ended up with the chances we did in the second half.  I didn't see a change of anything at half time.

[Brunners 7,982]

We did change at half time, I noticed it and woodgate confirmed as much post game.

We weren't having any luck trying to play football in the first half so he changed it to try going over the top into channels which is what led to all our chances.

[Changing Times 12,339]

8 minutes ago, Brunners said:

We did change at half time, I noticed it and woodgate confirmed as much post game.

We weren't having any luck trying to play football in the first half so he changed it to try going over the top into channels which is what led to all our chances.

The game didn't change at all at half time though.  They were still on top in the second half and we were still playing the same way up until the goal.  Our chances didn't come from balls being played over the top either.  The goal came from a break and a ball down the line on the left, which wasn't even a good ball and we shouldn't have got it.  Coulson's chance came from a break and a ball through the middle.  Assombalonga's effort that was saved came from another break and ball through by Ayala and then he couldn't quite square the rebound to anyone.  His other chance came from a Clayton cross if I remember rightly.

Balls over the top didn't lead to any of our chances that I can remember.  The second half started the same way the first half had gone with Barnsley dominating possession and us on the back foot.  They hit the bar before we scored and when we scored it was against the run of play.  They pushed forward even more after we scored because they were looking for an equaliser and we were able to hit them on the break a few more times when they either gave the ball away or we nicked it.  I thought it was pretty clear how things unfolded to be honest.

 

[Brunners 7,982]

I'm not going to bother getting into an argument with you again mate. Agree to disagree.

[wilsoncgp 9,281]

We absolutely started the second half trying to play more direct and into the channels. The first ball went straight out for a throw-in and then the play down the left-hand side for the first couple of minutes was ball after ball being launched down into the left-hand channel by either Fry or Coulson, in play or via throw-ins. I'd go so far as to say the goal actually came from that intention even if it wasn't simply the direct ball, the intention was there, Britt picking up a wide position, Tav racing into the channel in front of him. Ball took a big deflection to head in that direction but the fact Tav was out there when it went that way was no accident.

Having said that, I don't think the rest of the half showed anything like that, we played to counter them and in that sense we were as direct as we could be without lumping it and the chances came where the space was which happened to be more through the middle than either flank.

[Changing Times 12,339]

21 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

We absolutely started the second half trying to play more direct and into the channels. The first ball went straight out for a throw-in and then the play down the left-hand side for the first couple of minutes was ball after ball being launched down into the left-hand channel by either Fry or Coulson, in play or via throw-ins. I'd go so far as to say the goal actually came from that intention even if it wasn't simply the direct ball, the intention was there, Britt picking up a wide position, Tav racing into the channel in front of him. Ball took a big deflection to head in that direction but the fact Tav was out there when it went that way was no accident.

Having said that, I don't think the rest of the half showed anything like that, we played to counter them and in that sense we were as direct as we could be without lumping it and the chances came where the space was which happened to be more through the middle than either flank.

The first ball went out for a throw in?  It's not like it's the first time that's happened and I don't really see what the relevance is?  Our passing all night was fairly inaccurate.  We were doing exactly what we usually do when we're under pressure, which is exactly what what was happening for most of the game.  I don't think we even played that many long balls throughout the game although we didn't have as much of the ball as Barnsley so it's all relative I suppose. 

For the goal,  Britt was in a wide position because we were counter attacking them.  I don't think they even had a man back inside their own half when we began that break, possibly one but no more than that.  Tavernier raced into the channel because that's where the ball ended up going.  He was breaking forward and wanted the ball more centrally where he was running into space.  Here, I just had a look at the highlights and it seems pretty clear to me https://www.skysports.com/football/mboro-vs-barnsley/409560

I'm really surprised that people think there was a significant change of plan from us as it seemed pretty clear that the game went the same way until the goal and then only changed slightly as they pushed forward more.  But anyway, that's how I saw it last night.

[wilsoncgp 9,281]

I'm saying it changed at the start of the 2nd half because we weren't lumping the ball up the flanks anywhere near as often in the first half as at the start of the second. It wasn't working, the goal came certainly more due to the nature of the counter attack than that tactical change but I think it still may have made a difference in Britt and Tav's runs and positioning. I don't think it was anything that showed any great effect but it definitely happened more at the start of the second half as I was complaining about it to my mate at the time simply because it didn't work.

I don't think Woodgate can take much credit for a tactical change making a difference in terms of winning the game, by and large it was the same in the second half as the first with us being more capable of countering them when they pushed forward for an equaliser.

The plan to counter them and press them did work just enough though, kind of mad watching a team come to us and try to play out from the back. The Barnsley manager saying we had no game plan mustn't have watched us play teams who play the game like that, we've had far more opportunities in games where teams play to our advantage and that's when they're taking risks at the back and leaving themselves open for a counter. Sure, we've missed a great deal of opportunities in games but the opportunities certainly have looked a lot more scarce when the opposition play with a more disciplined defence.

[SmogDane 4,055]

5 hours ago, Changing Times said:

You can go through every game and find decisions that go for and against you and they then influence the outcome of the game.  Last night our goal was lucky through bad defending when their lad tried keep possession of the ball when under pressure for some reason.  Our equaliser at QPR was lucky through that terrible back pass.  That's luck we've had in our favour in the last few games. We've won three games this season because we haven't been very good, it's not about bad luck.  We even managed to get ourselves knocked out of the League Cup at the first attempt.  We've won a game, which is great, but it was at home against the worst team in the league and our goal came out of nowhere really.  We certainly weren't the better side at that point. 

So let's just wait and see if we can add a few more wins soon and see where that takes us.  We played well in the first half against Hull, we didn't play well for a lot of last night and we didn't play well for the second half against Hull (with a man down admittedly).  We weren't that good at QPR and relied on them gifting us a goal to get an equaliser in the end because after a bright start to the game we largely fell away.  What we have managed to do is score 5 goals in 3 games, which is giving us a chance to get some points.  I don't think we've looked any better defensively really and our overall play hasn't been better for the most part, with the exception of the first half on Sunday.  For me luck doesn't really come into it over months of football, or rather, there's some good and some bad but poor teams tend to be near the bottom and better sides tend to be near the top.

I here you, lad... 

But, there is a thing called variance, and you need a much bigger sample than 18 games, before luck evens itself out. 

If you know anything about poker... a coinflip (50/50) situation .. you can lose like 16 out of 20 .. and then you have been unlucky... But if you won 16 out of 20, then you would have been lucky .. But, if whe have a much bigger sample like 10 million hands, the luck would be about even. 

The situations we have had with bad luck and bad refs is way higher than the times we had the luck go our way ... But maybe when all 46 games have been played, we might have had something more going our way, so the variance evens itself out.

Cheers

[sanddancer 1,967]

22 minutes ago, SmogDane said:

I here you, lad... 

But, there is a thing called variance, and you need a much bigger sample than 18 games, before luck evens itself out. 

If you know anything about poker... a coinflip (50/50) situation .. you can lose like 16 out of 20 .. and then you have been unlucky... But if you won 16 out of 20, then you would have been lucky .. But, if whe have a much bigger sample like 10 million hands, the luck would be about even. 

The situations we have had with bad luck and bad refs is way higher than the times we had the luck go our way ... But maybe when all 46 games have been played, we might have had something more going our way, so the variance evens itself out.

Cheers and glad that’s been cleared up because I thought we had played crap. No hang on we did and that’s why we are down in the basement. To be fair I understand what you insinuate but that’s not the reason for our down fall.