The Fish
-
Posts
56932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Everything posted by The Fish
-
-
Well not really because; Stats can prove that scoring goals wasn't our biggest problem and, instead, conceding goals was our biggest problem. Stats can also prove that you get more points for a 0-0 than you do for a 4-3 loss. Stats can prove that the worst defences are, more often than not, the teams that are relegated and Stats can show that teams who score freely can still go down if their defence isn't up to much cop. You're fixating on a left back, but I'm pretty sure I said defence was the priority. We've signed 2 defenders for the 1st team in 6 windows, when it's been clear for years that our defence was weak. I mean it's ludicrous that we've had 1 (one) 1st team Left Back who's missed nearly 50% of his games through injury (63/c133), but the whole defence has been our weakest area for years. Especially when you consider we've been happy to spend £24m on left wingers when it's never really been a priority.
-
-
-
-
Course it is, that's because they prove you're talking out your arse again. What you hope might happen ≠ what is likely to happen
-
They'll go in for some big lump like Gomis "as cover" for Defoe, then get frustrated when Defoe gets injured and they stop scoring goals. According to our friends down the road, Allardyce has had them playing good football. Could be true, I've not seen them half as much as they appear to have watched us, but I do know that sunderland are a long ball side, with long balls accounting for c21% of their passes. Which is 2nd only to Tony Pulis' West Brom. Long ball doesn't necessarily mean bad football, Leicester played long balls too and have recieved praise for their swashbuckling style. However sunderland are near the bottom of the table (17th) in terms of dribbles per game and Leicester are near the top (3rd).* So that suggests to me that where Leicester are launching and carrying the ball up the field in Counter Attack or Transition situations, Sunderland's high % of long balls and low dribble attempts point more to a hit & hope? Obviously Allardyce schools his teams on set pieces and they're unsurprisingly high up that table (3rd), 31% of their 48 goals came from dead ball situations, and 2nd lowest return from open play behind Pardew's Palace Allardyce's football is the dual edged sword of Premier League football. It's functional and efficient, but it's limited and inflexible. It will likely get them safe each season, but it won't do much more than that in the modern top flight. They'll be blind to it's failings at the minute because it achieved their goals, when their expectations shift and the results (and performances) don't improve to match them, they'll see why Newcastle and West Ham fans didn't warm to that brand of football. A lot of Sunderland fans ask if we regret hounding him out (ignore for a minute the fact we didn't hound him out), blind to the context of where we were when he took the job in the first place. We had regularly been playing in Europe, we had recently witnessed great football under Robson and we could see Allardyce as another stride away from European ambition and towards mid-table mediocrity. *bizarrely Aston Villa are top on Dribbles attempted which may point to individuals trying to do it themselves? tl;dr, Allardyce plays limited football and sunderland fans will soon realise this.
-
Not even 20:00 and you were this drunk?
-
Basically you'd need to loan for either the whole or 1/2 a season. No emergency loans for 1 or 2 months here and there to cover injuries. Worry with long term deals for young players is that if they're integral to your promotion tilt, when they leave you run the risk of signing someone who can't make it in England's 2nd tier, let alone top flight.
-
The changes to the loan market doesn't really benefit us this year. We'd be better off buying experienced Championship players on a short term deal and young players who might be/should be good enough for the top flight.
-
Generic small time football blather thread 2015/16
The Fish replied to The Fish's topic in Newcastle Forum
-
-
No it doesn't at all. It boils down to you fundamentally misunderstanding why Newcastle United were relegated this season.
-
Oh, don't worry, you have the cache to be a right cunt, patronising or otherwise.
-
Andrew Andrew Andrew, don't be a patronising cunt you haven't the cache for that. You have zero credibility when it comes to assessing a player's ability or lack thereof, so when you declare that Alexander Mitrovic is shit, it means nothing. Especially when that young lad performed better than the other strikers at the club. You've also offered no alternatives, I think you believe there's a queue of strikers who can get 15+ a season, just hanging around desperate to play for a relegation troubled side. I'm not "jiggling stats", I'm presenting verifiable evidence to support my assertions. You've done nowt but said "Wuh shud haf bort a shootah" without credible support and then ignored evidence to the contrary (no great shock there). If you want me to buy the crap you're peddling, you'll need to come up with something more compelling than you have thus far.
-
Well done. I'm proud of you, I knew you could do it.
-
He didn't sack him for losing us Premier League status, can't see him being that bothered about a couple of million here or there.
-
It's not bollocks at all. If we'd had a left back instead of playing; a centre back, a defensive midfielder, a different defensive midfielder, a left winger, or a right winger I don't think we'd have conceded as many as we did. We were scoring goals, and we definitely had players with more goals in them. The trouble is we rarely had controlled possession and we conceded too many goals. There's zero guarantee that a striker would have changed our fortunes, but (as evidenced when we got a proper coach in) an improvement to our defence would have garnered better results on the pitch. What you're doing (again) is conflating what you hope would happen with what is likely to happen. You hoped that Marveaux would be better than Jonas and because he rarely played you felt that hope had grounding. You hoped Ferguson would be better than Jonas and despite that lad's career stalling at League 1 Millwall you still think he could have done a job at Newcastle in the Premier League. You hoped that a new unknown striker would deliver more goals to a team that's already scoring, on average, a goal a game but conceding twice. Tell you what, could you give me a striker that could have been brought into this Newcastle side in the January window that would have turned our fortunes around?
-
You muggy little toilet.
-
There were definitely players being picked on reputation and not performances.
-
That's what I do in between dropping truth bombs on here and googling Gok Wan's hot take on tie styles.
-
Aye there'll be some Premier League club willing to spend £8m on Townsend, can't blame him if he goes either.
-
Not yet, but i'M winding down as the big project is being rolled out and my part in it is done and dusted.
-
Absolutely, and blame has to go to McClaren for not getting a tune out of that team and it has to go to the men in charge of recruitment. That said, I personally think it's easier to get average defenders playing well as a unit, than it is to guarantee a striker will score 15+ goals.
-
That's not what I've said, I said we'd have survived had we bought defensive cover in the summer/had a competent defensive coach. The three relegated clubs had the worst defence. We had the 13th best attack Our leading goal scorer had 11 goals, our 2nd had 8 Scoring goals wasn't the biggest problem, that prize goes to the fool we employed as Head Coach. But it was the goals we conceded that sent us down. In our first 10 games we scored 12 goals, we conceded 22! Our last 10 (with a decent coach) we scored 16 and conceded 12. McClaren's stewardship saw us score 28 goals, and concede 53. Basically we, on average, lost games 2-1. A goal a game scored doesn't scream a problem up front, conceding 2 a game says there's a problem at the back.