Seri is missed and we lack real pace going forward. Teams struggle against pace and we need to break much quicker. I know injuries haven’t helped.
I feel it’s time for LR to have a ‘slight’ rethink about our approach. We have stemmed the goals conceded by retaining possession a lot better but also as a result nullified our attack. There were a couple of instances on Saturday that Greavesy could have played the ball out to Ebiowei but instead turns back and played it inside to retain possession. The fact is Ebiowei was one on one and would have been a much more progressive ball. Perhaps Elder needs another chance. Slater also made himself available and took the pass from defence - he then beat 2 men, unfortunately heading towards our own goal before giving it back to Macca. If he’d took it on the half turn he would have seen we had a good opportunity on our right to get at them. I like Oscar but he can be very frustrating in his decision making. Longman (who I thought was our brightest player) came inside played it into Oscars feet and was on for the return, in at goal - Oscar turned inside and played a sloppy pass which led to a counter attack. It does seem at times that pass, pass, pass, keep possession at all costs is so ingrained in the squad that we are turning good attacking options down for the sake of keeping the ball. I’m certainly not an advocate of lumping it but think we need to add a more positive approach to our possession play.
…there was also an occasion Ebiowei had a man in front and a man behind him. He tried to beat the man behind so he could pass it back to Greavesy. Surely if you need to beat one of them it might as well be the man in front of him as he would have been away down the left. Another example of negative mindset that will ultimately not bring us opportunities to score goals.
Agreed. Many times a forward makes a run, the man in possession dallies and the chance is lost. This usually results in forwards deciding to make fewer runs (Connelly excepted). There has to be an end product to the possession, we are so slow that we are usually faced with a massed defence and no way to break through.
The interesting thing (square pegs round holes) is that if you watch ant ME you tube, he's played on the right cutting in...
This is the point. Of the forward players only Oscar has has had an extended run of consecutive games. The rest have been in and out and unable to gain momentum. That or square pegs in round holes. And people wonder why we look disjointed going forward and decent at the back where our defensive unit have played consistently.
I actually thought we had found it with Connolly, and then it got cut short with injury, hopefully, this partnership can flourish going forward.
Loss % not as relevant as PPG, could have a worse loss % and a higher PPG which would keep you up. So that isn't the slam dunk you seem to think it is. He could of course eclipse these stats after 30 games but could also become worse. The draw merchant also had a much better side than Shota had last year of which he accrued half his stats with.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't his loss % directly tie into the PPG? Hence why at this stage Rosenior's is higher Also Rosenior's PPG is about 1.37 which gets you 63 points which gets you to about 10th last season. Shota's record was 1.1 PPG which gets you 51 points which is about 22nd. Bit misleading to say Liam's is only "slightly" better when you're talking about a 12 position swing in the table
When a manager is sacked the pundits talk about his win perecentage. Not how many points per game he got.
Stats are not very helpful unless there’s context 31 draws and 15 wins gets you 76 points, that was enough for 6th place last season Win percentage 32%
No, if I won 5 games and lost 2 my loss% would be the exact same if i drew 5 and lost 2. Whilst the PPG would be significantly lower. Good point though on the PPG, im prepared to give him summer and same sort of time Shota had but I think those calls of "we are lucky to have him" "he is destined for the top" are far wide of the mark.