Front foot, attacking, football (merged)

[Chivs]

29 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Hull - 1.67 xG vs 1.25 xG. We had 15 shots at 0.08 xG per shot, so on that metric created a lot of low quality chances and should have lost the game (Hull less but better quality chances)

Millwall 2.74 xG vs 2.22 xG. Better xG per shot (0.25 xG).

So, against Hull we barely threatened in real terms. And we should have lost the game. Millwall was basketball and the xG was massively impacted by Twine two yards out (about 0.8 xG)

The irony today is everyone is saying we played and attacked well. Better control/domination attacking wise than at any other point in the season. We had 2.51 xG vs 0.77 so dominated the game more than any other but the xG/shot wasn’t great.

What are you arguing? That we were worse tonight than other weeks? Millwall Is the only game this season with more xG but the deviation between the two teams was markedly less.

Every stat says we played better tonight than at any point during the season. Just be happy with that! 

Didn't we draw tonight, and win on Saturday?

[Davefevs]

48 minutes ago, mozo said:

Yes, but we probably had more shots today than 99% of Championship games this season, including Leeds fixtures.

If you're telling me you can't get behind the team unless they have 28 shots on goal, then you're gonna be disappointed.

The point making is we have gone into games with a positive intent this season.

Some games, like Sheffield Wednesday or Coventry, we lost our way, but the stats are still in our favour.

Today we showed great character to get back on the front foot. We also got back on the front foot against Swansea to dominate them.

Hull again dominated away from home.

This is a tough league by the way, but there seems to be an expectation of perfection.

 

 

 

Most games, not all.

38 minutes ago, mozo said:

I'm arguing that we've had a positive intent all season. Simple as that.

Most of the season, not all.

======

If you want to then generalise that “overall”, “on average”, etc, we have had more positive intent “this” season, I’m with you.

You just keep using “all”.  Imho we haven’t, but that’s just my opinion and my challenge of your opinion.

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Most games, not all.

Most of the season, not all.

======

If you want to then generalise that “overall”, “on average”, etc, we have had more positive intent “this” season, I’m with you.

You just keep using “all”.  Imho we haven’t, but that’s just my opinion and my challenge of your opinion.

What often gets over looked is that whilst there may be an overall more positive intent that has come at the expense of being less positive in defence. 

When we go forward it looks like we could score but on the defence it looks like we might concede. 

We need to get that balance right. 

Edited 12 hours ago by W-S-M Seagull

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Chivs said:

Didn't we draw tonight, and win on Saturday?

Home, Away, Result, Performance, Strength of Opposition are all variables.

Middlesbrough are significantly better than Stoke, especially Statistically for one.

However we may have troubled a load of sides playing like we did tonight.

[Ian M]

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Twine missing has been the key. Frustrating not to win, still concerning that we don’t convert chances but a big improvement tonight. Albeit they were poor, one of the worst defensive sides in the league I’ve seen for a while. 

Is that correlation or causation though? We would need to see Twine used or not when available in a Hogg game plan to know better.

[TDarwall]

4 hours ago, Ian M said:

Is that correlation or causation though? We would need to see Twine used or not when available in a Hogg game plan to know better.

Absolutely.

The argument has been made that the good run last season was despite, not because of Twine.

People are now saying the last 2 results are because Twine didn't play.

Truth is, we could have played exactly as we did the last 2 games & lost both. 

Yes we created loads of chances last night, but we did v Millwall when Twine came on.

I don't think anything has massively changed; we're creating chances but take a low % of them, but we give up loads of chances at the back. I think the outcomes are more predicated on how good the opposition are at taking their chances - which gives me the collywobbles for Sat!

My take on Twine is that he plays well when the team do. He's not necessarily good enough to drive the performance himself. 

Personally I think Birds best games have been at 10 & he does seem adept at making chances (his run/pass for the equalizer).

 

[One Team]

6 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Twine missing has been the key. Frustrating not to win, still concerning that we don’t convert chances but a big improvement tonight. Albeit they were poor, one of the worst defensive sides in the league I’ve seen for a while. 

Is it too late to get a refund?!

[Silvio Dante]

15 minutes ago, One Team said:

Is it too late to get a refund?!

Between him and McNally I reckon our Burnley scout spent more time in the Royal Dyche than Turf Moor!

[bexhill reds]

23 minutes ago, One Team said:

Is it too late to get a refund?!

Nah mate, sold as seen...

[Silvio Dante]

40 minutes ago, TDarwall said:

Absolutely.

The argument has been made that the good run last season was despite, not because of Twine.

People are now saying the last 2 results are because Twine didn't play.

Truth is, we could have played exactly as we did the last 2 games & lost both. 

Yes we created loads of chances last night, but we did v Millwall when Twine came on.

I don't think anything has massively changed; we're creating chances but take a low % of them, but we give up loads of chances at the back. I think the outcomes are more predicated on how good the opposition are at taking their chances - which gives me the collywobbles for Sat!

My take on Twine is that he plays well when the team do. He's not necessarily good enough to drive the performance himself. 

Personally I think Birds best games have been at 10 & he does seem adept at making chances (his run/pass for the equalizer).

 

It’s an interesting debate.

What Twine is, is generally passive in the press. Hes a player who waits for the ball to come to him. Can he pick a pass? Yes. Is he skilful? Yes. But, and this is the key point, as you say he isn’t necessarily good enough to drive the performance himself.

I said after Saturday we don’t win that game with Twine in the side because the press is less. Similarly, although I acknowledge correlation doesn’t equal causation (and have argued as such many times), I don’t think we come back into that last night or play as well with Twine in the side; because by nature he’s a pivot to slower play, and extra passing (worth noting again that the last two games we’ve done less passes and had less possession than opponents which is contra to the season stats).

At heart, it’s back to the “issue” we’ve had since Liam took over - it’s an imposition of a style of play on a squad who are better playing a different way. Twine, in a lot of ways, is the poster boy for that. He’d probably be a far better player in a different side, and by that I’d mean one where the other 10 do his work or are so much better than the opponents that it creates his space. Unfortunately we’re not that side.

 

[One Team]

26 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

Nah mate, sold as seen...

He’s given me Kasey Palmer vibes already. 

An unnecessary, indulgent, expensive signing that has one good game in ten. 

It will be really disappointing if we carry on this decent form and he comes straight back in. 

[GrahamC]

8 hours ago, The Journalist said:

The worst performance by substitute since Nicky Hunt’s infamous display at Leeds. It was that bad.

Thing is, Nahki had done all the hard work for him.

Score both goals, stay on the pitch far longer than our usual 60 minutes.

Bloke had to close down, press for just 11 minutes.

All he did was run offside & give the ball away, terrible performance.

[TDarwall]

41 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

 

 He’d probably be a far better player in a different side, and by that I’d mean one where the other 10 do his work or are so much better than the opponents that it creates his space.

 

To be fair, I'd be a half decent player in that side....

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Between him and McNally I reckon our Burnley scout spent more time in the Royal Dyche than Turf Moor!

Twine felt like Steve got him to please Manning , get the number one target even though we had filled that spot already.  McNally felt like a panic after seeing Naismith at Derby. We clearly needed a more mobile CB to play regularly , what I was surprised about is we had watched him for some time . Yes he had been improving , but I want to improve what we have already , not sure he does that. 

[glynriley]

10 hours ago, One Team said:

After some of the (largely) most boring games of football in recent times Chris Hogg has presided over two of the most entertaining games of football for ages.

How much we can really attribute to him is hard to say of course, but in terms of football entertainment it’s been really good to watch, if frustrating at times too. Not exactly purist either mind you, but far from dull! 

 

The other thing of course is the absence of Twine; for me we look so much better without him in the team, or at least trying to accommodate him. 

 

Front foot football? Not on Saturday perhaps (albeit effective) but certainly was today.

 

Well done Hogg though! 

Could Tinnion have had an influence on this? The last 2 games have looked far more like what he talks about in his interviews than what Liam produces. Maybe Hogg is willing to bend a bit more in his approach? Not convinced, just musing on the train. 

[BobBobBobbin]

One factor we're not taking into account in judging the improved performance last night and the different type of performance on Saturday is the type of opposition. We continue to struggle against low-block sides and the football becomes very attritional as we only have one answer (the wrong one) agains them (Namely, move the ball [slowly] to a wide position and cross it). 

Against sides who want to beat us there are gaps to exploit. Yesterday we did that brilliantly (aided by the absence of Twine) by moving quickly, rotating where appropriate and being quite direct in our approach. By that I mean a higher tempo rather than booting it. 

It was noticeable how Earthy was able to do the inverted left wing role without leaving Ross completely isolated. He made runs down the line and central, rotated, covered, tried. I Signing him would have been more than enough for that role in the team imo with Stokes a similar player who would have benefited from being his understudy at this level for a year. 

Wasted £4m on a bloke who makes everyone around him worse.  

[BobBobBobbin]

9 hours ago, The Journalist said:

The worst performance by substitute since Nicky Hunt’s infamous display at Leeds. It was that bad.

Not even close to O'Dowda's one where he came on as a sub and had to feign injury to excuse being subbed back off. That was the single worst individual performance I've seen and I was there for Bas tripping over the breeze. 

[Silvio Dante]

35 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Twine felt like Steve got him to please Manning , get the number one target even though we had filled that spot already.  McNally felt like a panic after seeing Naismith at Derby. We clearly needed a more mobile CB to play regularly , what I was surprised about is we had watched him for some time . Yes he had been improving , but I want to improve what we have already , not sure he does that. 

I largely agree but we signed McNally before the Derby game!

[Silvio Dante]

29 minutes ago, glynriley said:

Could Tinnion have had an influence on this? The last 2 games have looked far more like what he talks about in his interviews than what Liam produces. Maybe Hogg is willing to bend a bit more in his approach? Not convinced, just musing on the train. 

No. I’ve seen the bloke manage. This isn’t it. And Hogg has done well in game - just as Tinnion isn’t in Liams ear telling him to make subs on 60 minutes, he’s not in Hoggs telling him to bring Earthy on at half time.

[1960maaan]

9 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I largely agree but we signed McNally before the Derby game!

Ahh ok. My point still stands though, in as much as I don't think our Management really trust Naismith. 
I make him 5th choice ATM. Good footballer but we saw from the outset he can be a liability. 

Just looked , Dickie injured 24th August and McNally signed on 30th.  That Derby game was the day after , I wonder if he had had a few more days if McNally starts there as well. 
 

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, 1960maaan said:

Ahh ok. My point still stands though, in as much as I don't think our Management really trust Naismith. 
I make him 5th choice ATM. Good footballer but we saw from the outset he can be a liability. 

Just looked , Dickie injured 24th August and McNally signed on 30th.  That Derby game was the day after , I wonder if he had had a few more days if McNally starts there as well. 
 

Probably does - I think the Dickie injury, combined with the fact that Atkinson hasn’t really got consistent time for the 23s due to a few niggles so we can’t be sure when he’ll be back - and at what kind of level as we’re talking nearly two years out by the time he plays again - was the driver of the McNally signing.

Debate/discuss whether you pay that money or use a combination of Roberts (fit at the time), Naismith (as you say not trusted) and the academy (pfffffffft) until Dickie is fit.

From what I’ve seen so far from him, he’s not a player I’d have been falling over myself to sign given fit with the squad, likely place in pecking order and fee, but clearly, early days

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, TDarwall said:

Absolutely.

The argument has been made that the good run last season was despite, not because of Twine.

People are now saying the last 2 results are because Twine didn't play.

Truth is, we could have played exactly as we did the last 2 games & lost both. 

Yes we created loads of chances last night, but we did v Millwall when Twine came on.

I don't think anything has massively changed; we're creating chances but take a low % of them, but we give up loads of chances at the back. I think the outcomes are more predicated on how good the opposition are at taking their chances - which gives me the collywobbles for Sat!

My take on Twine is that he plays well when the team do. He's not necessarily good enough to drive the performance himself. 

Personally I think Birds best games have been at 10 & he does seem adept at making chances (his run/pass for the equalizer).

 

I think @BobBobBobbin has covered some of the things I was gonna add, and that our performances are (generally) still influenced too much by our opponents.  It’s us having to react (and sometimes we don’t, we just keep ploughing the sane furrow), rarely our opponents.

Boro was a great result, but it wasn’t a great performance.

Last night just earned us a point, but it was a much better performance (overall).

Agree re Twine.  We need him to be a “difference-maker”, someone to lift us from 6/10.  But he onky really performs at the same level as the team.

2 hours ago, bexhill reds said:

Nah mate, sold as seen...at least 30-40 times.

Fixed.

[Topper 123]

11 hours ago, Topper 123 said:

How on earth we didn’t batter them I don’t know apart from first 5 minutes where I think we’re still in changing rooms and a keeper who had a worldly that should have been 2-6 easily COYR onto sat 

THATS ENTERTAINMENT as the jam would say 

28 shots away from home 

[Silvio Dante]

3 hours ago, bexhill reds said:

Nah mate, sold as seen...at least 30-40 times

 

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fixed.

The irony here in that “fix” is that Twine was the one player that we had seen 30-40 times and we still appear to have got that one wrong!

Maybe just sitting in the pub might have been a better scouting mission!

[DaveInSA]

I’m curious as to whether we have a consensus????….?????

• With Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly don’t perform better (results wise) and are dull as  to watch.
• Without Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly perform to a similar level as with Twine in the team (results wise), and are way more  to watch.

I know which one I prefer.

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

The irony here in that “fix” is that Twine was the one player that we had seen 30-40 times and we still appear to have got that one wrong!

Maybe just sitting in the pub might have been a better scouting mission!

You have to ask yourself the question about the recruitment? I think the Technical Director and CEO should have drawn the line at not buying Twine - that’s their ACTUAL JOB. And instead, turned their attention to buying a proven goalscorer to replace Nahki Wells 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

I’m curious as to whether we have a consensus????….?????

• With Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly don’t perform better (results wise) and are dull as  to watch.
• Without Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly perform to a similar level as with Twine in the team (results wise), and are way more  to watch.

I know which one I prefer.

You have to ask yourself the question about the recruitment? I think the Technical Director and CEO should have drawn the line at not buying Twine - that’s their ACTUAL JOB. And instead, turned their attention to buying a proven goalscorer to replace Nahki Wells 

Not aimed at you Dave, but I think the Twine “correlation or causation” debate is clouded by the Boro win. Because I would say on that singular game we were pretty crap with the ball.  And I don’t think we blocked well, just triggered a press twice and scored twice.  So you could argue we missed Twine for that game.  Last night was different though.

My August view, especially after Earthy’s signing on loan, hadn’t changed.  I’d have “moved on”.  That’s not to say he’s been shit, far from it, but I don’t think he’s gonna be a value signing.

[TDarwall]

1 hour ago, BobBobBobbin said:

Not even close to O'Dowda's one where he came on as a sub and had to feign injury to excuse being subbed back off. That was the single worst individual performance I've seen and I was there for Bas tripping over the breeze. 

I'll raise you Ryan Kent at Oakwell a few Easter Mondays back.

1st touch, an 80 yd cross field ball that almost out THEM clean through on goal.

2nd touch a 3 yard pass into touch.

Don't think there was a 3rd touch as he (wisely) hid for the remainder of the game.

[Northern Red]

It wasn't even as bad as Mebude v QPR last season.

[beaverface]

10 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What often gets over looked is that whilst there may be an overall more positive intent that has come at the expense of being less positive in defence. 

When we go forward it looks like we could score but on the defence it looks like we might concede. 

We need to get that balance right. 

It does make you wonder whether we could still keep the same attacking intent, but with Dickie at the back mopping everything up. He's been a big miss for us.

[beaverface]

36 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

I’m curious as to whether we have a consensus????….?????

• With Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly don’t perform better (results wise) and are dull as  to watch.
• Without Twine in the team, we create chances, seemingly perform to a similar level as with Twine in the team (results wise), and are way more  to watch.

I know which one I prefer.

You have to ask yourself the question about the recruitment? I think the Technical Director and CEO should have drawn the line at not buying Twine - that’s their ACTUAL JOB. And instead, turned their attention to buying a proven goalscorer to replace Nahki Wells 

I think the recruitment over all has to be questioned.  

We needed a goal scorer due to Nahki's age, and yet he's now he's first on the team sheet above the two strikers we signed in Armstrong and Mayulu, and we also sent Stokes out on loan after impressing during preseason as a number 10. The Twine situation has been highlighted throughout this thread. So that's four signings over the summer that hasn't made much of a difference.

 

The remaining signings in McNally, Bird, and Yu hasn't exactly set the World alight. I suppose at best you could call then inconsistent.

Overall, I don't fee we've improved the squad, just bulked out numbers instead.

 

[DaveInSA]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not aimed at you Dave, but I think the Twine “correlation or causation” debate is clouded by the Boro win. Because I would say on that singular game we were pretty crap with the ball.  And I don’t think we blocked well, just triggered a press twice and scored twice.  So you could argue we missed Twine for that game.  Last night was different though.

My August view, especially after Earthy’s signing on loan, hadn’t changed.  I’d have “moved on”.  That’s not to say he’s been shit, far from it, but I don’t think he’s gonna be a value signing.

Maybe I'm trying to use what I'm seeing with my eyes and cherry picking my stats to reinforce my opinion that Twine was an overpriced waste of money...

[Davefevs]

Just now, DaveInSA said:

Maybe I'm trying to use what I'm seeing with my eyes and cherry picking my stats to reinforce my opinion that Twine was an overpriced waste of money...

It’s definitely a view that holds some water, Dave, certainly based on the games he’s played.  Always difficult to judge a value when he doesn’t play.  Although he could be the first player who fans hadn’t got better by not playing!

[Shauntaylor85]

£3.75M on Twine was excessive when we had Earthy signed. I am really struggling with the fact that around £8/9M was spent on three players to improve our goals ratio, yet all three for me have been underwhelming. Albeit Fally has not been given a fair run. Questions for Tinnion. 

[downendcity]

14 hours ago, One Team said:

After some of the (largely) most boring games of football in recent times Chris Hogg has presided over two of the most entertaining games of football for ages.

How much we can really attribute to him is hard to say of course, but in terms of football entertainment it’s been really good to watch, if frustrating at times too. Not exactly purist either mind you, but far from dull! 

 

The other thing of course is the absence of Twine; for me we look so much better without him in the team, or at least trying to accommodate him. 

 

Front foot football? Not on Saturday perhaps (albeit effective) but certainly was today.

 

Well done Hogg though! 

Front foot going forward, but two left feet when defending.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Not aimed at you Dave, but I think the Twine “correlation or causation” debate is clouded by the Boro win. Because I would say on that singular game we were pretty crap with the ball.  And I don’t think we blocked well, just triggered a press twice and scored twice.  So you could argue we missed Twine for that game.  Last night was different though.

My August view, especially after Earthy’s signing on loan, hadn’t changed.  I’d have “moved on”.  That’s not to say he’s been shit, far from it, but I don’t think he’s gonna be a value signing.

Twine strikes me as being an "icing on the cake" type player - he shines when the rest of the team is in sync and firing on all cylinders.

Unfortunately we are not that team (yet?) and I my concern is that Twine isn't the type of player that will make us so.

 

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, beaverface said:

I think the recruitment over all has to be questioned.  

We needed a goal scorer due to Nahki's age, and yet he's now he's first on the team sheet above the two strikers we signed in Armstrong and Mayulu, and we also sent Stokes out on loan after impressing during preseason as a number 10. The Twine situation has been highlighted throughout this thread. So that's four signings over the summer that hasn't made much of a difference.

 

The remaining signings in McNally, Bird, and Yu hasn't exactly set the World alight. I suppose at best you could call then inconsistent.

Overall, I don't fee we've improved the squad, just bulked out numbers instead.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

£3.75M on Twine was excessive when we had Earthy signed. I am really struggling with the fact that around £8/9M was spent on three players to improve our goals ratio, yet all three for me have been underwhelming. Albeit Fally has not been given a fair run. Questions for Tinnion. 

I think the thing for me on the recruitment front is that the lens you put on it alters through the window.

To use the phrase I had again, we did in the early part of the window buy a lot of punts. If you include the January buys who joined in the summer, the only one you could argue as proven at this level in any way was Bird. Armstrong with experience but very much a project.

The need to play Armstrong from the start may not have been there when he joined though as we had Conway, who whether people like him or not was an established striker at this level.

So, early part of the window, load of punts to supplement the squad. Nothing wrong in that - we all thought we were in a window where we were buying potential and if 1-2 come off, it all looks good.

The window tipping point for a lot of reasons does come with Twine, and there is also there a question of at what point we accepted Conway was going. Conway leaving gave us an “experienced striker” vacancy and also some extra cash. We spent that extra cash on probably our least needed signings of the window in Twine (as we had Earthy, Stokes) and McNally. I know timing is everything but if we knew Conway was going we knew that money was likely available at an earlier stage.

So, for me, you divide the window into two parts. The fact we spent (for us) significant money in the latter part of the window on vanity signings makes the frugality and “punt” nature of the early part of the window look worse in hindsight - when again, at the time, it looked reasonable business considering the squad balance.

The question for me over the window is therefore planning. Did we think Conway would sign the deal and the funds became available “in window”?

If the answer is yes, we misjudged but you can understand the first half of the window dealings (but the usage of the funds we got is questionable) If the answer no, it’s a pretty poorly executed window overall.

But I do think the planning here sits with Tinnion.

[SecretSam]

Is Twine injured or simply not being picked? 

Stoke's keeper was next level

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

Is Twine injured or simply not being picked? 

Stoke's keeper was next level

Injured. Same injury he had last season, possibly weeks, possibly months.

Dave Rennie says hi.

[38MC]

4 hours ago, glynriley said:

Could Tinnion have had an influence on this? The last 2 games have looked far more like what he talks about in his interviews than what Liam produces. Maybe Hogg is willing to bend a bit more in his approach? Not convinced, just musing on the train. 

He'll be claiming it in any case

[grifty]

12 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Twine missing has been the key. Frustrating not to win, still concerning that we don’t convert chances but a big improvement tonight. Albeit they were poor, one of the worst defensive sides in the league I’ve seen for a while. 

One of the worst defensive sides in the league I’ve seen for a while since us in the first 15 minutes of yesterdays game!

[grifty]

14 hours ago, GrahamC said:

His contribution was to repeatedly stray offside & pass the ball to the opposition.

Woeful.

The weird thing was his first action was good! Ran onto a through ball, held off his man, waited for support and found a player in space.

He spent the rest of the game offside!

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, beaverface said:

It does make you wonder whether we could still keep the same attacking intent, but with Dickie at the back mopping everything up. He's been a big miss for us.

If only it was that simple!

I seriously doubt it will be.