Author Topic: We were not unlucky to lose  (Read 1801 times)

Offline cottage expat

  • tjl
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2019, 09:41:49 PM »
Any PL team that scores two own goals and loses to a team that doesn't have a single shot on target doesn't deserve to stay up. Makes the Keystone Kops look well organized.

Offline andyk

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 776
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2019, 09:25:11 PM »
Just looking at the highlights again and have to say Rico was very poor for both goals

The first one is hit hard by Hendrick, but a good keeper would have reacted and got something on it. His hand is stationary again.
The second one goes straight through him too.  i know it's off his own player, but he doesn't seem to have the instincts of a top class  keeper. Diff saves, for sure, but most keepers in the Prem would have got, at least, one of them.

Offline bog

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4861
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2019, 09:27:09 PM »
Don't agree at all. They were hanging on in the second half. CR made changes at the break and we really went at them.

 092.gif


Offline JoelH5

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 2894
    • My latest release - Selfish (feat. Courtney Bennett)
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2019, 10:10:34 PM »
Just looking at the highlights again and have to say Rico was very poor for both goals

The first one is hit hard by Hendrick, but a good keeper would have reacted and got something on it. His hand is stationary again.
The second one goes straight through him too.  i know it's off his own player, but he doesn't seem to have the instincts of a top class  keeper. Diff saves, for sure, but most keepers in the Prem would have got, at least, one of them.

Lol.. what? Both balls were drilled in hard. How could he react in time? Both Odoi and Bryan had more time to react than Rico and both completely messed that up. He couldn't come out an stop the ball being riffled across the box or the player would just side foot it in at his near post. In no way at all was Rico responsible for either of those goals.

Offline spikey norman

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 710
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2019, 10:38:29 PM »
Phil Thompson who was commentating on the game on Soccer Saturday said that our second half improvement was mainly due to the introduction of Cairney.
He said that Cairney was the only player looking to pass the ball forwards and make things happen.
Thompson said others looked nervous and were passing the ball sideways or backwards scared of making mistakes.

Offline andyk

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 776
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2019, 11:49:54 PM »
Just looking at the highlights again and have to say Rico was very poor for both goals

The first one is hit hard by Hendrick, but a good keeper would have reacted and got something on it. His hand is stationary again.
The second one goes straight through him too.  i know it's off his own player, but he doesn't seem to have the instincts of a top class  keeper. Diff saves, for sure, but most keepers in the Prem would have got, at least, one of them.

Lol.. what? Both balls were drilled in hard. How could he react in time? Both Odoi and Bryan had more time to react than Rico and both completely messed that up. He couldn't come out an stop the ball being riffled across the box or the player would just side foot it in at his near post. In no way at all was Rico responsible for either of those goals.

I might be a bit harsh  but the first one is hit hard and passes his right hand by an inch or two. He doesn't move that hand. Bryan is right behind him and was probably expexting his keepervto get something on it.
Second one , yes more difficult but it goes straight through his flailing hands.
Apart from those two incidents , he had virtually nothing to do. The only other time he was called on, just before they scored, he went for a cross, missed it completely and they hit the post.

Sorry but he's not Premiership standard. Unless the ball is fired straight at him or hit from 30 yards away,  it goes in the net.
We should be looking for a good, agile keeper.



Offline rogerpnowinFlorida

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4365
  • I AM POINTING A PEN AT THE CAMERA THAT TOOK THIS
    • Theatre Production
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2019, 12:03:42 AM »
When your luck is out it stays out. Why these lucky goals are always against us I can´t comprehend. We deserved all 3 points. Cairney came on & the game should have been ours. He has his faults but should play in his best position & Seri should make way. Seri is a luxury we can´t afford.

Luck etc is so important, ours will change and that's why I know we will escape relegation.

Offline Woolly Mammoth

  • Cliffy Dean
  • ****
  • Posts: 23133
  • Not one step back.
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2019, 12:28:49 AM »
Luck is an explanation for someone else’s success.
Even the atheists are praying.
The only way our luck will change, is if and when the club sign the necessary experienced players, no expense spared, to orchestrate the clubs climb over and above three other unfortunate clubs.
Otherwise I fear the current squad members who are selected are not capable as a team to avoid the trap door.

Offline MJG

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2174
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2019, 08:58:46 AM »

Thompson said others looked nervous and were passing the ball sideways or backwards scared of making mistakes.
Thats not how I saw it. It was the closest (2nd half) we have played a possession based game we did under SJ. 70%+ shows that. Yes you can say Burnley sat back but Id disagree with that. We gave it a go, played with patience and looked to create things. Vietto had I think 3 or 4 good goes, we hit the woodwork.
There was an element of lack of confidence which would be expected and while we didnt really create clear cut one on one chances I thought we were the better team and were unlucky to not get a draw at least. But you alos have to make your won luck.
I was surprised at the subs and the move to Diamond but what it did do is play TC in the advanced position with pretty much two strikers in front of him which you could still do with 3 CB's in the team.


Offline Berserker

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8998
  • Sadly my enthusiam is often way above my expertise
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2019, 10:29:32 AM »
I'm not sure it's luck. Our problem this season is that we have problems both end of the pitch. We can't defend, which wouldn't be so much of a problem if we could score lots of goals, which we can't, and the opposite is true.
Obviously the perfect scenario would be a team that could score goals and defend, but teams our size in the Premier league wouldn't be able to accumulate a squad that could do that.

Not sure why we are bad both ends of the pitch, I'm not a footballing brain. Probably our midfield don't help either

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


Offline RaySmith

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5745
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2019, 10:39:18 AM »
But unlucky on Saturday, hitting the woodwork and denied a good shout for a  pen, not forgetting 2 (!) own goals within minutes of each other, after going 1 up with a great goal.

Felt gutting being there, and really felt for he players, who gave their all.
Mitro summed it up, perhaps, with his open handed gesture when he  came over to clap the fans, as if saying 'what more can we do?'

Offline FFC1987

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 496
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2019, 10:47:00 AM »
I have little to no sympathy regarding our loss Saturday. We got our noses in front from a lovely goal, then just dropped off completely and invited pressure with little to no pace on the break to unsettle the Burnley back line. We went into the second half and Burnley did the same ie dropping off and we simply didn't put away our chances/create enough to score goals.

In a nutshell, it's the story of our season. We give away extremely cheap goals and we aren't clinical enough to cover up those defensive lapses. We reek of a team who just aren't capable at this level.


Offline RaySmith

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5745
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 11:00:43 AM »
They , to their credit, came  at us and pushed us back - but to concede two own goals is surely bad luck.

And we had the better of the second half and were unlucky, while they didn't have a shot.
So, they deliberately sat back - with only a one goal lead? Well, it nearly didn't work for them did it? us hitting the woodwork and denied  good pen shout.

I feel for the team, because whatever they did wrong, they really gave their all.
Football is a game of human -beings and emotion, involving real people, not some computer  game.

So, as a fan I feel sorry for the players in my team, after  they gave their all in a good performance against a tough side  away, and were definitely very unlucky not to get at least a point, and the manner of  the defeat, and its importance.

Offline spikey norman

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 710
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2019, 12:37:03 PM »

Thompson said others looked nervous and were passing the ball sideways or backwards scared of making mistakes.
Thats not how I saw it. It was the closest (2nd half) we have played a possession based game we did under SJ. 70%+ shows that. Yes you can say Burnley sat back but Id disagree with that. We gave it a go, played with patience and looked to create things. Vietto had I think 3 or 4 good goes, we hit the woodwork.
There was an element of lack of confidence which would be expected and while we didnt really create clear cut one on one chances I thought we were the better team and were unlucky to not get a draw at least. But you alos have to make your won luck.
I was surprised at the subs and the move to Diamond but what it did do is play TC in the advanced position with pretty much two strikers in front of him which you could still do with 3 CB's in the team.

Sorry I should have clarified that Thompson was referring to our passing in the first half and that things improved when Cairney came on.

Offline ToodlesMcToot

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4571
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2019, 01:28:30 PM »
When your luck is out it stays out. Why these lucky goals are always against us I can´t comprehend. We deserved all 3 points. Cairney came on & the game should have been ours. He has his faults but should play in his best position & Seri should make way. Seri is a luxury we can´t afford.

Exactly.... it is written in the stars at the moment

have we tried playing Seri further forward, with Cairney and Chambers in behind? I don't think so. Maybe Seri with fewer defensive responsibilities would create more going forward. This is grasping at straws. just asking if it's been tried. I don't think so.


Offline simplyfulham

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 808
Re: We were not unlucky to lose
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2019, 01:28:30 PM »
Um, both players looked good when they came on. Cairney circulating passes while Seri dropped back to receive and allowed Chambers to get forward. I'm pretty sure they can play with each other just fine. Both asked for the ball just as intensely. Come on...
You won't win on this Matt!! I see no reason why the 2 of them can't play in the same team, who else have we got?

At the moment the reason is we can't play 4 at the back. If we get better defenders maybe they can both play but whilst we only have two centre mids it should remain Seri and Chambers.

This idea they can’t play together is pretty nonsensical really. So is the idea that Seri is a tough tackling midfielder while Tom makes zero effort in defence.

In reality, the biggest difference between them is Cairney is better at working under pressure further forward and gives us a platform to play and build attacks higher up. Seri wants to pick the ball up deeper to get a bit more space to start attacks.

Both are good players, Cairney is better for getting the most out of Mitrovic.