Newcastle United 2-0 Nottingham Forest (06/08/2022)

[Lazarus]

There was a great bit of play that I havnt seen in any of the highlights so far.

 

Willock was near the far corner and made a lungbusting run towards the touchline to win the ball back and then he got there, he made a sliding tackle and the ball went out of play i think??

 

Anyway, Howe starting applauding his effort before he even got to the touchline and was full of praise for him.

 

Great to see.

[Solitude20]

17 hours ago, Smal said:

This is cool. You don’t see 80%+ field tilt very often at all.

 

It does kind of show we need another more clinical forward with end product though, because we had the ball in their third virtually all game but the xG is only 1.28.

Those progression via carry vs progression via pass stats confirm my doubts, Willock is our weakest point in the current team, not Miggy.
 

Sometimes you have to go back to those numbers to have a bigger picture, and I always believed adding an attacking midfielder will add more to our current team than adding a right winger since Willock doesn’t add much to the way Eddie plays.
 

Let’s go back to the basics and ask, what does Willock offer? He can run with the ball in free spaces/ counter attacks, and he is decent in front of the goal. Since Howe came, we have been playing a possession based football, and just like against Forest, we spent the majority of the game in their half passing the ball around and looking for holes in their defense. Here the ability of Willock to run in empty spaces becomes less important. Why did Arsenal sell him when he was a graduate of their academy? Because (and the numbers show) he isn’t a great passer. He lacks the composure or technical ability to play that type of football. He might be better suited for a team that will play on counter attacks, which was the case for Newcastle before the takeover.  Even his greatest strength (ball carrying) was low against Forest because we cornered them in their area and did not allow them to move forward and create those spaces.
 

ASM on the other hand had outstanding ball carry stats because he relies on his excellent dribbling skills to carry the ball, and that was crucial against Forest in order to penetrate their defenses. But Willock generally relies on speed to carry the ball. There was no space for him to sprint. In such games, we need players who are great at passing or great at dribbling , and Willock offers niether of those things. 
 

this ,in my opinion, explains why we are in for the likes of Maddison who would add a lot more to the game had he been with us last weekend. What’s a midfielder doing if he isn’t progressing the ball through passing or carrying? Joe is a monster at winning the ball back, and that indirectly adds to our possession. Bruno is tasked to play deeper. We must add a more creative midfielder upfront. Willock can be useful in games where we are not expected to win possession for those counter attacks, he could make a great sub then. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Solitude20

[1964]

12 hours ago, POOT 2.0 said:

A better representation of the game (compared to BBC's). Weird that Willock didn't react to Wilson's goal.

 

 

Neither did Almiron, I wouldn't read anything into that other than job done

[The Prophet]

 

While a 7/10 isn't particularly controversial, I'm not sure I was watching the same game. He cut them open a few times with that ball between the centre back and full back.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by The Prophet

[jack j]

He's either clueless or just being an attention seeking cunt. Just looked and his tweets what i presume were  during the game were making it out as though we were playing average

[Smal]

4 minutes ago, Solitude20 said:

Those progression via carry vs progression via pass stats confirm my doubts, Willock is our weakest point in the current team, not Miggy.
 

Sometimes you have to go back to those numbers to have a bigger picture, and I always believed adding an attacking midfielder will add more to our current team than adding a right winger since Willock doesn’t add much to the way Eddie plays. Let’s go back to the basics and ask, what does Willock offer? He can run with the ball in free spaces/ counter attacks, and he is decent in front of the goal. Since Howe came, we have been playing a possession based football, and just like against Forest, we spent the majority of the game in their half passing the ball around and looking for holes in their defense. Here the ability of Willock to run in empty spaces becomes less important. Why did Arsenal sell him when he was a graduate of their academy? Because (and the numbers show) he isn’t a great passer. He lacks the composure or technical ability to play that type of football. He might be better suited for a team that will play on counter attacks, which was the case for Newcastle before the takeover.  Even his greatest strength (ball carrying) was low against Forest because we cornered them in their area and did not allow them to move forward and create those spaces.
 

ASM on the other hand had outstanding ball carry stats because he relies on his excellent dribbling skills to carry the ball, but Willock generally relies on speed to carry the ball. There was no space for him to sprint. In such games, we need players who are great at passing or great at dribbling , and Willock offers niether of those things. 
 

this ,in my opinion, explains why we are in for the likes of Maddison who would add a lot more to the game had he been with us last weekend. What’s a midfielder doing if he isn’t progressing the ball through passing or carrying? Joe is a monster at winning the ball back, and that indirectly adds to our possession. Bruno is tasked to play deeper. We must add a more creative midfielder upfront. Willock can be usefil in games where we are not expected to win possession for those counter attacks, he could make a great sub then. 

Interesting analysis. I do agree that Willock maybe can't offer much when we have the ball against a low block. He barely got on the ball, really. Bruno had nearly twice as many touches.

 

Willock's main strength on Saturday was his defensive actions and counter press. Completed the most tackles (4/4, including 3 in the opposition third) and had the highest % of successful pressures. He's obviously good at pressing high up the pitch which we've clearly been focusing on.

[Solitude20]

8 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

While a 7/10 isn't particularly controversial, Im not sure I was watching the same game. He cut them open a few times with that ball between the centre back and full back.

7 out of 10 is the highest score in that games. It isn’t bad at all. Plus, we dominated the game through teamwork rather than individual brilliance of some players. 
 

Edit: I probably need a new pair of glasses. Burn and Schar got 7.5

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Solitude20

[Conjo]

Ratings is all relevant to what opposition team and other players are scored at though isn't it?

 

Only Schar and Burn got a better score. Provided none of the N.Forest players got above 6.5 that would make Joelinton & Bruno the joint second best players on the pitch according to Hope, which I think is a fair assessment.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Conjo

[jack j]

1 minute ago, Conjo said:

Ratings are all relevant to what opposition team and other players are scored at though isn't it?

 

Only Schar and Burn got a better score. Provided none of the N.Forest players got above 6.5 that would make Joelinton & Bruno the joint second best players on the pitch according to Hope, which I think is a fair assessment.

Schar and Burn had fuck all to do for the majority of the game so not sure how he can score them higher than the 3 midfielders who ran the show

 

[The Prophet]

I was more talking about his analysis than the rating itself. We weren't "blinded by flicks". In defence he broke up play and won plenty of fouls. In attack he cut them open a number of times.

[Conjo]

2 minutes ago, jack j said:

Schar and Burn had fuck all to do for the majority of the game so not sure how he can score them higher than the 3 midfielders who ran the show

 

 

Schar scored our opening goal. Burn was flawless defensively. Forests most talented attacking player didn't get a sniff at goal due to him.

 

Edit: I should clarify, I had Joelinton as my motm. I don't think it's unreasonable (certainly not to the extent that people feel the need to have a go at the journalist on twitter ) to rate our CB's higher though despite that I disagree with it.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Conjo

[Kid Icarus]

Tbh, I tend to rate based on how much I enjoyed a player's performance. Couldn't care less if Forest were weak or whatever, every single one of those players was on it in one way or another from start to finish. 

 

If you start out by giving Pope, who had literally nothing to do, a 6.5, then giving Trippier a 5.5, Willock a 6, and Bruno and Joelinton 7s makes no sense when none of them put a foot wrong while also having much more to do. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[madras]

18 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Tbh, I tend to rate based on how much I enjoyed a player's performance. Couldn't care less if Forest were weak or whatever, every single one of those players was on it in one way or another from start to finish. 

 

If you start out by giving Pope, who had literally nothing to do, a 6.5, then giving Trippier a 5.5, Willock a 6, and Bruno and Joelinton 7s makes no sense when none of them put a foot wrong while also having much more to do. 

 

 

 

Bit of a throwback to last season (Jan onwards) when it was seeminhly nothing to do with how we played, the other teams just didn't turn up.......week after week after week.

[Tiresias]

7 maybe harsh but depends how parsimonious your scoring is. Joelinton imo was better than Bruno and definitely worthy of MotM

[Hanshithispantz]

Giving Bruno a 7 is absolutely comical like 

 

Even more so nowadays given the ease we can all access match data. We pinned Forest in for 90 minutes becuase every player on the pitch grafted their bollocks off, moved well and were great in possession.

 

Trippier was involved loads too. 5.5 is insane.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Hanshithispantz

[HaydnNUFC]

Thanks for going after Bruce but it's time to say how many shit takes Craig Hope has come out with recently.

[Lush Vlad]

I don't mind Craig Hope and at least he had the bollocks to call out Bruce on his general shitness.  But I have often found his takes to be very glass half empty and negative.  Just needlessly pessimistic or a bit contrarian, seemingly for the sake of it.  It's like he goes against the grain for clicks and publicity.   

 

I know it's the sports pages, so it's different.  But it does kind of make sense when you look at the paper he writes for.  

[Happinesstan]

1 hour ago, Solitude20 said:

Those progression via carry vs progression via pass stats confirm my doubts, Willock is our weakest point in the current team, not Miggy.
 

Sometimes you have to go back to those numbers to have a bigger picture, and I always believed adding an attacking midfielder will add more to our current team than adding a right winger since Willock doesn’t add much to the way Eddie plays.
 

Let’s go back to the basics and ask, what does Willock offer? He can run with the ball in free spaces/ counter attacks, and he is decent in front of the goal. Since Howe came, we have been playing a possession based football, and just like against Forest, we spent the majority of the game in their half passing the ball around and looking for holes in their defense. Here the ability of Willock to run in empty spaces becomes less important. Why did Arsenal sell him when he was a graduate of their academy? Because (and the numbers show) he isn’t a great passer. He lacks the composure or technical ability to play that type of football. He might be better suited for a team that will play on counter attacks, which was the case for Newcastle before the takeover.  Even his greatest strength (ball carrying) was low against Forest because we cornered them in their area and did not allow them to move forward and create those spaces.
 

ASM on the other hand had outstanding ball carry stats because he relies on his excellent dribbling skills to carry the ball, and that was crucial against Forest in order to penetrate their defenses. But Willock generally relies on speed to carry the ball. There was no space for him to sprint. In such games, we need players who are great at passing or great at dribbling , and Willock offers niether of those things. 
 

this ,in my opinion, explains why we are in for the likes of Maddison who would add a lot more to the game had he been with us last weekend. What’s a midfielder doing if he isn’t progressing the ball through passing or carrying? Joe is a monster at winning the ball back, and that indirectly adds to our possession. Bruno is tasked to play deeper. We must add a more creative midfielder upfront. Willock can be useful in games where we are not expected to win possession for those counter attacks, he could make a great sub then. 

 

 

 

He should have been a much bigger presence in the box, on saturday. 

[54]

7/10

 

[Lush Vlad]

Anyway, on the game.  I thought Forest were utter shite, like embarrassingly bad.  But then bar some sloppy play in the final third, we were brilliant from start to finish. 

 

So how much of their awfulness was due to our high energy and press?  And how much of it was due to them having Jack Colback, Sam Surridge and plenty of other Championship level players starting in the Premier League?  

 

As usual, it's probably somewhere in the middle.  But Hope has gone for the edgy take and gave out a load of L'Equipe style player ratings. 

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

It’s the justification rather than the rating itself that’s irksome. In a routine 2-0 win, it’s unlikely anyone’ll warrant a 10, so a seven for him makes sense. 
 

But to say people are getting carried away by flicks and whatnot is unnecessary. He was everywhere and played a massive part in us controlling the game.

[Hanshithispantz]

5 minutes ago, 54 said:

7/10

 

All of this should be very easy for a sports journalist to find as well 

 

[Lush Vlad]

He deserves a 7 for the flicks alone!  Not that often in a game at the highest level.  You see someone casually playing the game, like he's fucking about in the back garden with his kids and his dog. 

 

 

[gbandit]

Puts together a highlights package from one game that some players would love to have across half a season, 7/10, and that’s your lot 

[Gallowgate Toon]

5 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

It’s the justification rather than the rating itself that’s irksome. In a routine 2-0 win, it’s unlikely anyone’ll warrant a 10, so a seven for him makes sense. 
 

But to say people are getting carried away by flicks and whatnot is unnecessary. He was everywhere and played a massive part in us controlling the game.

Maybe it's just because he's making points that we now disagree with but feels like his general tone has shifted a bit towards being a bit more antagonistic over the summer. Ultimately, he writes for the Daily Mail...