Run-in

[desperado]

42 minutes ago, Rival Son said:

Can’t be right. From what I read, it’s all the crap defence and, especially, George Johnston’s fault.

Christ knows how we’re third and only conceded 39 goals. 

George Johnston can’t defend, isn’t a footballer and does 600 passes sideways and backwards.

Toal is the worst captain we’ve ever had.

Tutu shouldn’t be playing FB and Christie is past it.

Conway isn’t a FB and is overrated.

Forino comes out of it largely unscathed, but let’s be honest he’s prone to a mistake and can be clumsy at times.

Just some of the nonsense I’ve read on social media over the last few weeks. 

 

 

 

[Stig]

8 hours ago, desperado said:

Christ knows how we’re third and only conceded 39 goals. 

George Johnston can’t defend, isn’t a footballer and does 600 passes sideways and backwards.

Toal is the worst captain we’ve ever had.

Tutu shouldn’t be playing FB and Christie is past it.

Conway isn’t a FB and is overrated.

Forino comes out of it largely unscathed, but let’s be honest he’s prone to a mistake and can be clumsy at times.

Just some of the nonsense I’ve read on social media over the last few weeks. 

 

 

 

The issue with the defence is that under any pressure they tend to concede, and then the opposition sit back and don't attack again.

Our biggest problem is creating better quality chances, rather than taking a ton of pot shots from anywhere. But if we did make these better chances and score first there's not much evidence to say our defence would handle a team attacking us. Would be nice to test the theory though

[desperado]

28 minutes ago, Stig said:

The issue with the defence is that under any pressure they tend to concede, and then the opposition sit back and don't attack again.

Our biggest problem is creating better quality chances, rather than taking a ton of pot shots from anywhere. But if we did make these better chances and score first there's not much evidence to say our defence would handle a team attacking us. Would be nice to test the theory though

That’s a good theory and I know it’s one you and a few others have used this season.

Certainly a more intellectual way of appraising our defence than some of the other crap I’ve read.

For balance I’m not saying our defence is brilliant and shouldn’t be criticised. But there’s been quite a lot of hysterical player criticism, a lot of which is unnecessary and can’t be true in its entirety.

I think on reflection SS will critique his decision in not recruiting more in this area. Regardless of which division we’re in next season we’ll see some changes.

But I also think to give the current defenders no credit in achieving one of the better records in the division would also be wrong. Despite the balance of our play, it’s hardly like they’ve had no defending to do, that they haven’t contributed to some good performances, that they haven’t played well and had some really good games. Certainly Johnston, Toal, Forino, Tutu and Conway all fall into that bracket at some point this season.

But like the rest of the squad they have their inconsistencies and vulnerabilities, but nowhere near as bad as some will have you believe.

Edited March 31 by desperado

[Johnnyrotten]

3 hours ago, Stig said:

The issue with the defence is that under any pressure they tend to concede, and then the opposition sit back and don't attack again.

Our biggest problem is creating better quality chances, rather than taking a ton of pot shots from anywhere. But if we did make these better chances and score first there's not much evidence to say our defence would handle a team attacking us. Would be nice to test the theory though

Agreed on both points.  We don't spend much time defending.  Without checking stats, it feels like we are usually the team chasing a goal, whether its because we are losing by H-T away, or drawing at home.  The theme is usually that we have to break down a packed defence, hence GJ makes more passes than anyone in the league and we try a lot of shots while the opposition rely more on breakaways and set pieces. 

And its OK taking pot shots if you have the quality to make them count, as we see in EFL goals highlights every week.  With the occasional exception (ACD, CBT), we just don't possess that skillset, and that's a choice of SS in not signing that type of player, and instead signing eg Dalby, Burstow, EE, Kenny.  Yes they have other qualities, but we lack the ability to shoot from any sort of distance with power and accuracy.

[Johnnyrotten]

2 hours ago, desperado said:

I think on reflection SS will critique his decision in not recruiting more in this area. Regardless of which division we’re in next season we’ll see some changes.

But I also think to give the current defenders no credit in achieving one of the better records in the division would also be wrong. Despite the balance of our play, it’s hardly like they’ve had no defending to do, that they haven’t contributed to some good performances, that they haven’t played well and had some really good games. Certainly Johnston, Toal, Forino, Tutu and Conway all fall into that bracket at some point this season.

But like the rest of the squad they have their inconsistencies and vulnerabilities, but nowhere near as bad as some will have you believe.

Agree with that too.  GJ has had some great games and his much criticised distribution is streets ahead of Toal, Forino (and Forrester), but they have all played well individually at times.  My own view is that they are left exposed by the tactics too often (recent goals conceded at Reading, Rotherham and Vale the latest examples - plenty others too).

And some good defending eg v Doncaster at home goes unnoticed because folk only want to talk about the awful game and dropped points.  If you fail to win and defend well nobody wants to know.

And then the fact that the 3 keepers we've had haven't exactly been watertight, I feel sure we would have conceded less this season if SS had got that position right from day one.

[gonzo]

Our defence and goalkeeper aren't good enough for an automatic promotion place in my opinion.

We don't score enough of the chances we create to warrant automatic promotion, in my opinion.

We are 3rd. And 3rd for a reason. Best of the rest but just not quite good enough for a proper autos push.

To be top 2 you need that well oiled machine with every part a consistent 7 or 8 out of 10 every week and just be exactly that, consistent.

Unfortunately we are anything but and that's our downfall. For me we are decent goalie and a CB away from a consistent push. 

Still think we will win the play offs like. 

[Johnnyrotten]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Our defence and goalkeeper aren't good enough for an automatic promotion place in my opinion.

We don't score enough of the chances we create to warrant automatic promotion, in my opinion.

We are 3rd. And 3rd for a reason. Best of the rest but just not quite good enough for a proper autos push.

To be top 2 you need that well oiled machine with every part a consistent 7 or 8 out of 10 every week and just be exactly that, consistent.

Unfortunately we are anything but and that's our downfall. For me we are decent goalie and a CB away from a consistent push. 

Still think we will win the play offs like. 

Agree with that re needing to be consistent.  The away form alone just isn't what a top 2 team looks like.

I'm not sure we can yet claim to be best of the rest.  If we stay 3rd after the next 7 games I'll agree we are the 3rd best team, and I'd then go along with your confidence in winning the play offs.

As it stands we can finish anywhere from 3rd to 9th realistically, given the fixtures, and I'd say wherever we finish will be a fair reflection of our season.

I'd add to the new GK and CB - a goalscorer.  If we'd had a McGoldrick, Marriot, Wootton or Ballard  playing most weeks in this team I'd have backed us to get a lot closer to Cardiff.   

[DirtySanchez]

9 minutes ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Agree with that re needing to be consistent.  The away form alone just isn't what a top 2 team looks like.

I'm not sure we can yet claim to be best of the rest.  If we stay 3rd after the next 7 games I'll agree we are the 3rd best team, and I'd then go along with your confidence in winning the play offs.

As it stands we can finish anywhere from 3rd to 9th realistically, given the fixtures, and I'd say wherever we finish will be a fair reflection of our season.

I'd add to the new GK and CB - a goalscorer.  If we'd had a McGoldrick, Marriot, Wootton or Ballard  playing most weeks in this team I'd have backed us to get a lot closer to Cardiff.   

If we'd signed Marriott by based on his stats over the last few years, I would have passed 

[Johnnyrotten]

58 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

If we'd signed Marriott by based on his stats over the last few years, I would have passed 

Yes fair enough, maybe it was just a purple patch for a few months this season.

And I'm not saying its easy.  Huddersfield thought they'd signed 3 goalscorers for about a million each in Charles, Taylor and May and look how that turned out.

Then Taylor looks real quality at a relegation struggler (Wigan) - not logical.

Its SS's problem to solve, that if we don't sign a goalscorer we probably won't get to top 2 level.  

Edited March 31 by Johnnyrotten

[DirtySanchez]

6 minutes ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Yes fair enough, maybe it was just a purple patch for a few months this season.

And I'm not saying its easy.  Huddersfield thought they'd signed 3 goalscorers for about a million each in Charles, Taylor and May and look how that turned out.

Then Taylor looks real quality at a relegation struggler (Wigan) - not logical.

Not saying its easy, just a comment that if we don't sign a goalscorer we probably won't get to top 2 level.  

McGoldrick is 38 and whilst he did it at Derby, he dropped down to league two, though for him obvious reasons

I'm not sure we would play to his strengths though 

Wooton has been at Stockport for a few years now (?) and given they've been in the play offs and a rival, plus they are loaded, I doubt they would have sold him 

Ballard prior to signing for Leyton Orient this season had been massively underwhelming so hardly a proven scorer

I don't think any of those signings would have got hearts racing and had we signed them I think folk would have been disappointed 

[wakey]

3 hours ago, gonzo said:

 

To be top 2 you need that well oiled machine with every part a consistent 7 or 8 out of 10 every week and just be exactly that, consistent.

 

tbf at this point, to be top 2 you'd just need to be slightly better than us.

[Johnnyrotten]

2 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

McGoldrick is 38 and whilst he did it at Derby, he dropped down to league two, though for him obvious reasons

I'm not sure we would play to his strengths though 

Wooton has been at Stockport for a few years now (?) and given they've been in the play offs and a rival, plus they are loaded, I doubt they would have sold him 

Ballard prior to signing for Leyton Orient this season had been massively underwhelming so hardly a proven scorer

I don't think any of those signings would have got hearts racing and had we signed them I think folk would have been disappointed 

I wasn't saying we should have signed any of them, as you say nobody had heard of Ballard (just as we hadn't heard of Kelman at Orient or Olaofe at Stockport till they scored against us last season and then both got sold to Charlton).  I'm just saying if we did have someone of that calibre we'd be nearer the top 2.  Getting them isn't easy, but if we don't have people at the club who have the ability (and money) to find these players we'll struggle to progress.

Orient have found 2 in 2 years, Stockport the same, Peterboro do it year after year, that's the task (on top of having a good squad obviously).

Re McGoldrick, not sure of the relevance of either his age, the fact that he had a couple of (very successful) years in L2 or that some fans would have been underwhelmed.  All that matters is that he can score all types of goals as well as being a good footballer whether he's scoring or not.  He's played about 150 games in the last 4 years, while we've signed a lot younger players that spend half the season injured.

[RUREADY2ROLL]

Down to the last six games now with four at home. To get in the playoffs I think we need 5 more points and 3rd or 4th place 10

[Leyther_Matt]

Top two finish 16/1 on Bet365

Same bet is 66/1 on Paddy Power

It’s the hope that kills you 

[noxid]

So a win and a Cardiff loss on Monday followed by an away win at the big one in Cardiff next Saturday and the points gap is down to 2 points with 4 games still to play. Shows how those poor results against Port Vale etc have cost us big time 

 

[frank_spencer]

2 hours ago, noxid said:

So a win and a Cardiff loss on Monday followed by an away win at the big one in Cardiff next Saturday and the points gap is down to 2 points with 4 games still to play. Shows how those poor results against Port Vale etc have cost us big time 

 

Cardiff still have their Port Vale game to play so it's not that straightforward.

But I agree the result at Vale was embarrassing 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 hours ago, noxid said:

So a win and a Cardiff loss on Monday followed by an away win at the big one in Cardiff next Saturday and the points gap is down to 2 points with 4 games still to play. Shows how those poor results against Port Vale etc have cost us big time 

 

Yes, but it has been like that for around 10 games or so. 

Just haven't capitalised on their slip ups.

When you look at the table, and see the number of wins we have had, and look down, plenty have a similar number.

Those pesky draws have cost us. 

[Traf]

Draws kill you. End of.
You're better off winning one and losing one.

We're currently 18-15-7 for 69pts
25-1-14 although highly unlikely gives you 76pts

[wakey]

Cardiff would need to lose 4 of their last 7 for us to catch them (if we won all 6 of ours).

tint appnin

[RUREADY2ROLL]

12 minutes ago, wakey said:

Cardiff would need to lose 4 of their last 7 for us to catch them (if we won all 6 of ours).

tint appnin

3 of their last six because we hav to win all of ours - still not happening though 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

We have 18 points to play for.

That gives us 87.

In other words Cardiff need a further 11 points to be guaranteed. 

From 7 games.

They could draw all 7, including against us, and us winning the other 5 would also see us pip them.

In other words, they don't have to lose so many.

That being said, they're not going to drop off so dramatically.

[Johnnyrotten]

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Yes, but it has been like that for around 10 games or so. 

Just haven't capitalised on their slip ups.

When you look at the table, and see the number of wins we have had, and look down, plenty have a similar number.

Those pesky draws have cost us. 

There would be a lot more draws if we hadn't got a load of late winners.

Or if we'd equalised at Port Vale, that would have gone down as another wasted draw, when in reality it would have given us a useful extra point.

We've drawn a lot of games because we haven't been good enough to win, not because we've been unlucky or deserved more.  The draws instead of defeats (Reading, Rotherham, Orient, Barnsley, Blackpool twice, Doncaster away, Lincoln twice) are the reason we're virtually guaranteed to be in the play offs instead of being 8th.

[Johnnyrotten]

3 hours ago, Traf said:

Draws kill you. End of.
You're better off winning one and losing one.

We're currently 18-15-7 for 69pts
25-1-14 although highly unlikely gives you 76pts

But it isn't a choice.  We've just drawn 1, lost 1 then won 1.  We didn't have a choice to win a couple, a point at Vale would have come in handy, but while SS correctly got credit for yesterday, he ballsed up at Vale and deservedly lost.  Not sure how draws kill you but losses (all 7) don't.

[Traf]

13 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

But it isn't a choice.  We've just drawn 1, lost 1 then won 1.  We didn't have a choice to win a couple, a point at Vale would have come in handy, but while SS correctly got credit for yesterday, he ballsed up at Vale and deservedly lost.  Not sure how draws kill you but losses (all 7) don't.

I think you understand the point I was making, so I won't explain it further.

7 losses isn't bad at all in the grand schemes of things. 
Only winning 54.5% of the games we haven't lost has cost us promotion.

We've become hard to beat (generally), but haven't won often enough IMO.

[Johnnyrotten]

1 hour ago, Traf said:

I think you understand the point I was making, so I won't explain it further.

7 losses isn't bad at all in the grand schemes of things. 
Only winning 54.5% of the games we haven't lost has cost us promotion.

We've become hard to beat (generally), but haven't won often enough IMO.

I do get the point you're making, 15 draws out of 40 games looks like a lot of wasted opportunities to win games, fair enough.

My point is that to someone looking at our results from the outside, you'd think we'd thrown points away by drawing too many.  Bournemouth have drawn the same number as us from 9 less games and I'd guess they've tossed a few points away by being pegged back from winning positions and should be higher up the table, just because that would be the law of average for a team that's drawn so many.

That's not the case for us, we've seen the games, we've snatched draws from defeats and victories from draws a lot more than the other way round, and I'm grateful for those extra points and recognise the fight that the team has shown to score late goals so many times.