Thumbheed

56 minutes ago, mondonewc said:

Fair enough, can you just clarify your opinion as I'm curious regards this, "is the suggestion that if Bruno wasn't in the team we'd get relegated, or we are bottom 6 team, suggesting we can't win without him basically implies that, but surely nobody actually thinks this?"

Cheers 

No we wouldn't get relegated and yes we would still win game.

I think you took what I originally said very literally. 

17 minutes ago, mondonewc said:

I wouldn't make the judgement solely by the sample of matches he's missed when the sample is so small, for example, surely you wouldn't make such a statement if he'd only missed one game right? 

This season he's only missed Bournemouth away which we lost 2-0, he was admittedly a huge miss and we were poor that day. 

Six games last season, two against Liverpool, hardly a shock us losing to them, then Wolves and Bournemouth away and West Ham and Palace home, all four finished draws. There's just a huge amount of variance in such a small sample of games, but speaking more literally I genuinely don't understand the statement, is the suggestion that if Bruno wasn't in the team we'd get relegated, or we are bottom 6 team, suggesting we can't win without him basically implies that, but surely nobody actually thinks this? Yet I keep reading this statement that we supposedly can't win if he doesn't play? 

Stats can be useful at times, they can also be complete nonsense, it's very frequent that stats are manipulated to push a certain narrative that often has very little to zero credibility. For example, commentator in Leicester game yesterday "Leicester haven't won a home game from behind since December" or something of that ilk, ok sure, but how many times where they even in that spot? It's completely pointless statement regardless without providing that piece of information, I haven't looked so no idea but wouldn't be shocked to find out it was zero times, and this happens a lot to push a negative agenda with no basis.

 

 

 

I can only use the small sample that's available to me but it tied exactly in with what I observed as well. 

We had less control in midfield, conceded possession a lot more, didn't have as many turnovers and most notably we had no one who was able to break the lines as consistently as Bruno does. You can't underestimate the importance of the latter. 

That spell last year stands out to me not because of the result but how noticeably poor our performances became. We coincidentally returned to form and our performance levels as soon as he returned. 

1 hour ago, mondonewc said:

No offence intended and maybe you didn't mean literally, but it's truly absurd to me that some people really actually think we can't win games without Bruno, based on a completely meaningless sample of games. 

None taken but you're gonna have to show me why it's objectively and observedly untrue.

I can only go by the sample of matches that he's been missing for, right? 

We can win games without Isak, we can't without Bruno. 

Both players are absolute unicorns but history and thr stats tells us that losing Bruno has far more impact on our results than losing Isak.

27 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

You are missing the point too, as nobody is saying that you should still be as good when your better players are out.

 

Where he is tactically limited is where we set up with having a goalkeeper that sweeps up in Pope, meaning we can get away with a higher line, yet when Pope is out and replaced with a keeper that isn’t comfortable sweeping up, we still play with the high line and are done with long balls constantly.

 

 

Ok, so that's Dubravka he has to compensate for, what about Trippiers playmaking skills? What about Joelinton's robustness and physicality in the middle? What about Wilsons hold up play? What about Isak's link up play? What about Willocks driving runs? What about Botman's anticipation and reading of the game?

What tactic compensates for all that? Because that's the task at hand and according to some there's a tactic that would negate all that.

32 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

What the injuries this season has shown is how tactically limited Howe is, he has made hardly any adjustments to the formation or tactics despite having key players missing that make the system work.

 

It appears he has no idea how to compensate for not having a keeper that comes out to sweep up, yet still goes with the same tactics meaning that we are conceding goals for fun.

 

Despite the injuries Europe is still achievable, the chasing pack seem that much worse this season so hopefully we can get it.

Peps win rate goes from 75% to 50% when Rodri is out.

By your own logic that makes him tactically limited as he's unable to adjust his tactics to compensate for that despite having 24 other world class players at his disposal.

Now let's test his tactical nous when 7-8 first teamers are out. 

We need to concede less and score even more. I'd even go as far as saying we should win more games and lose less. 

Thank you for reading my tactical analysis - think I've covered most the points made recently.

My MOTM today. 

Scary to think we probably haven't seem him in full flow and in top form yet. 

That last 20 minutes was what we were doing for the whole of last season and the beginning of this. 

Don't think we've actually seen it for about 6 months now. 

Still might not get to see much of him this season but deary me, we have not missed with this transfer, he looks a player.

Best centre mid we've ever had.

32 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

It's stupid to level anything at Howe, like. His team selections are clearly evidence-based. If the evidence is unreliable or incorrect, that's not his fault. 

 

It's a pity that - for all the good Howe's done - it isn't enough to earn the assumption (from some) that he won't play someone if there's a demonstrable risk that it'll cause a career-jeopardising injury. 

 

Re the injury, I think it's possible that there's been an oversight somewhere, but it's equally possible that it's genuinely just a peculiar case and the lad has been unfortunate. That thing about some specialists thinking he'd ruptured it and some thinking he hadn't just seems absolutely wild to me. I find it incredible that such a thing can be misdiagnosed, which supports the view that it's a really weird case. 

 

There is also the less belligerent reason, and it's an entirely fresh injury. 

I'm firmly behind Howe but I do believe he's had a significant part to play in our injury crisis by virtue of his squad management. 

Rafa was the only manager I can remember who had a marked affect on our injury list and made me realise the impact of good squad management.

Perhaps it's naivety, perhaps it's just a case of wrong injuries at the wrong time or perhaps it is is just freak bad luck (although I refer to his last season at Bournemouth) but something needs to change and I don't think it's the medical staff which is a lazy conclusion imo.

We're owned by the Saudi's.

I reckon I can stomach taking money from NFT's tbh

Have full sympathy for Forest. 

If PSR is about safeguarding clubs, then how exactly does potentially relegating them and killing their revenue stream help that cause?

Similar to us really, just a club looking to invest and grow. 

Really hope Howe sticks with this formation

15 minutes ago, 1964 said:

Why don't we get the best of both worlds and employ Phil Mitchell

As well? Sure, if its an option but if I had to choose one it'd be Giles.

Phil Giles is the best option from people I've seen linked to us. 

10 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Yes, 7th is the bottom end of what I would have considered a successful season and therefore would be happy with.

 

Being lower than that at some point in the season is one thing, but being a number of places lower than that is not something that I am happy with, no. Chelsea win their game in hand and we are 11th. A long way back from 7th. 

 

I'm not entirely sure what's so outrageous about that position but clearly it's bothering you so no problem if you'd rather leave it there.

Surely surely you can see the gaping wide contradiction between thinking that at the beginning of the season 7th was the minimum we should be achieving whilst also thinking we wouldnt be good enough to make up a 3 point gap to get to 7th with a quarter of the season left?? 

Both of those things can't be true ffs 

Anyway 

5 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

No I wouldn't. We are three points off but there are also three teams we need to overtake. 

 

Before the season I'd have 7th as the lower end of what I'd be happy with, I'm not going to be happy at having to play catch-up on that target with 10 games to go. 

You'd have taken 7th and nothing less.

So the difference between the season being a relative success is (objectively speaking) 1 more win and 1 less loss, and furthermore you would not be happy being lower than that position at any point of the season, irrespective of whether we still have over 25% of the season still left to play. 

I know I said I'd end it with my previous post but I think I definitely will now seeing as though that's your actual position 👍

54 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Right. But "7th" and "not 7th" are not the same thing though are they?

 

Regardless of how close you are, if your position was "I'd be happy with 7th" and what's on offer is "not finishing 7th" then its fair to say you aren't happy with how things have gone?

What's on offer is not "not finishing 7th" it's objectively speaking being '3 points off 7th with 10 games to go'.  (Plus 2 QF's)

Put another way, if you were told at the beginning of the season that after 28 games you'd be 3 points off 7th, then would you put significant money on us finishing 7th from that position?

Will leave it here though as I think we'll probably be going round in circles for a good while. Don't want to derail the thread. 

15 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

6th - 7th is probably about par for the season and would be a decent finish, especially given how it's panned out. But given the position the club was in coming into the season I wouldn't have taken it.

What position was the club coming into the season? And what realistically would you have taken out of interest?

Quote

 

13 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Yeah but how far do you go? Two wins the other way and we're 14th?

 

You must see how "two wins off sixth" and "you said you'd be happy with seventh" are not the same thing? 

I think it's pretty clear you go with how far away we are from what you'd have taken (6th/7th) vs where we actually are, no? Unless I've misread your post?

So the difference between what you'd have taken and where we actually are is literally 2 wins.  

10 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Yes but we aren't 7th are we? Even in your scenario we're "two wins off sixth" 

So the difference is just 2 extra wins? That's it, that's the key and significant difference, right?

Madness.

4 minutes ago, Miercoles said:

 

4-1 PSG has to be one of the legendary results for the club too, seeing that was pretty fucking magical.

It's up there with Barca 3-2, if not better.

Core memory game, that. 

11 minutes ago, Shak said:

 

Why would anyone?

 

"We'll get horrendous draws in all the cup competitions and consequently win nowt. Also we'll be 10th with ten games to go. Deal?"

"2 QF's and 6 points off 6th with 10 games to go"

"No thanks"

I'm struggling to comprehend how the difference between taking the above and something I assume you'd have taken (6th/7th) is just 2 extra wins this season?