The Plymouth game was individual errors, I give Rooney a pass on that one.
Yesterday they could have scored quite a few more, there were lots of dangerous breaks, saving tackles, goalmouth clearances etc. We are conceding a lot of deflected goals but isn't that because we're conceding lots of shots/chances? In contrast we could have conceded way more goals in other games, take Sunderland, Boro, Hull, and Cov as examples, so whilst we've be unlucky to concede some, we've also been lucky at other times not to concede more.
Leicester we played ok but as I said on here post match, I thought we played right into their hands and were too open, and feared we would be exposed again moving forward.
bcfste
That’s really interesting and corroborates the eye test really, ie XG for > XG against for Cardiff and Plymouth, but XG against is consistently too high in almost every other game. Interesting that we are tending to concede more than our XG against though, which substantiates my theory about individual mistakes - if I’m correctly interpreting the data.
Plymouth could also have scored more with better finishing. This is an unpopular view but I thought we were lucky to come back with a point.
Yeah it shows amongst other things that Ruddy is letting a lot of shots go in that shouldn't be
But I think that was happening before the managerial change too, he let soft ones in against Milwall, Preston and Watford, and the same stat was present then (Goals conceded higher than the XG) and who can forget Bielik's wonderful header against Preston.
Unless there just having more higher quality chances. I mean ruddy is "underperforming" but you know depending on the chance some one on one's aren't a full 1.0 of xg and teams seem to have plenty of them against us
2.0 > xg game could be a 3-5 scoring game if players take their chances it's just a way to assess the quality. You could probably do some analysis to show that teams XG against us is higher per shot on target if you really wanted to drive the point home.
Meaning more mistakes etc. It's not an entirely accurate measure (XG) but it's something to compare.
Plymouth could also have scored more with better finishing. This is an unpopular view but I thought we were lucky to come back with a point.
But youre ignoring the chances we’re missing.
Yes opposition could have scored but then so could we.
And if you watch almost any other game even in the prem sides have chances because almost everyone is playing the same system we are. The difference is better players, some of ours are technically deficient and will fall down the leagues. Promising kids aside no one ever comes in for our players.
better coaches too, we plucked ours from the MLS, which tends to be where managers go once they failed elsewhere, see bacon face
It's tough isnt it - the decision to get rid of Eustace wasnt necessarily the wrong one - but the key was in making the right decision with the replacement.
I fully understand, and even agree, about the playing style needing to change as it is the more likely way to create a sustained period of "success".
Oxford are a better example of seemingly getting this right - replacing Robinson last season while in a bit of free fall with Manning. He only made small tweaks given they were in a relegation battle. Kept them up then over pre season and this season they looked a vastly different side than last season.
So much so Manning has been poached by Bristol City (where he's started quite well too) - Oxford themselves went and repalced with another coach known for a similar playstyle.
We went name over CV - hell there's been many saying it was Rosenior who was the brains at Derby (and given how hull play you'd argue this looks more and more evident)
My Blue HeavenSanderson is the new Harlee Dean apparently
Honestly
It’s nothing to do with the manager who’s pretty much been rubbish everywhere he’s been
All about opinions and mine is that Sanderson never has been very good.
Under Eustace he consistently gave away needless free kicks and regularly collected yellow cards. Easily pulled out of position creating space for the opposition.
That being the case it's no wonder that the current situation has resulted in him becoming a total bomb scare.
Was part of the tightest defence in the league though?
When was our defence the "tightest"?
Certainly a lot tighter and better organised than now but not th tightest.
I've just assumed that Sanderson has been playing with an injury in recent weeks as he's looked immobile at times.
This is the best group of players we've had for some time (talent-wise). The injuries aren't helping but we've looked defensively dire ever since Rooney took over. People are free to ignore the evidence in front of their own eyes as much as they like but the inevitable's going to happen with Rooney so it's just a case of when rather than if.
Dirty BertieWhen was our defence the "tightest"?
Certainly a lot tighter and better organised than now but not th tightest.
It literally was the joint best in the league
wookieThey haven’t been working for weeks either.
The evidence is in front of everyone - whatever system we are trying to play doesn’t suit the players we have.
Good managers find a way to get the best out of the people they manage - bad managers do the opposite.
We’ve being doing that routine on goal kicks for weeks. How do you think we lost Buchanan to injury?
Prior to Buchanan being the fullback to go forward from goal kicks it was Laird and then Aiwu.
Look at the big picture - are we better now than before we changed managers? Does it look like we are improving? Should we carry on doing what we are doing and expect to miraculously improve with the squad we have and can’t radically change?
Pointing out single instances that may or may not be the same is futile - it is the overall picture that matters.