alright lads,
Hope you haven't been hammered too much at work today. I went with 'a win is a win'...
I’m a fairly positive fan in general and I have no problem with a bit of optimism/lets look for the positives etc.
Struggling to see how this 50 shots thing is being portrayed as a positive though. In this particular game it only underlined how utterly miserable and devoid of ideas we were. From my memory (willing to be proven wrong) most of the shots we had were pot shots from outside the area and I cant really remember their keeper making any great saves (a few decent ones maybe). A lot of the shots were absolutely dreadful as well, a few row Zs and a few pea rollers. It’s not as though we created 50 fine chances (or even 5?) so I don’t think this can come under the ‘strikers had an off day’ banner.
I can understand using this sort of stat against say united last season (when although I felt gutted we lost, I did take some hope from the number of fine chances that we created) but I think it is being taken out of context here. At no point during the Carlisle game did I feel aggrieved to be drawing the game.
It just seemed lazy/defeatist/disrespectful. (F it I might just hav e a shot because I cant be bothered looking for a pass/im not good enough to find a pass/their keeper is probably mince).
Why were we reduced to pot shots by Carlisle?
This isn’t supposed to be a huge moan with no point article- im just genuinely interested to see what you fellow reds think. Does the 50 shots stat (having watched the game) fill you with hope or disgust and why? Do you think pot shots were a tactic from Rodgers or was it something the players took on themselves? Also feel free to point out where im wrong and where the result has clouded my peceptions!
Whichever way you look at it the conversion of only 2% of these shots is pretty catastrophic.
Cheers,
circa 50 shots
posted on 24/9/15
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/9/15
Loco
Fair enough then - perhaps I am just being overly negative, did have a few beers as well!
I just cant remember ever really thinking ‘I cannot believe we didn’t score there’
Perhaps also because it was Carlisle I expected us to be creating more clear cut opportunities and I wouldn’t be being so critical if we created the same against say Villa
Just my overall feeling after watching (whether justified or not!) was that we did a lot of very wasteful and ineffectual shooting and I couldn’t remember unduly troubling the keeper.
How would you define a shot opportunity? Working space on the edge of the box? Being in a position where a shot is probably the best option?
Would you then put the draw down to players not having their shooting boots on? It just didn’t feel like one of those where you could say ‘on another day we would have scored 5’
posted on 24/9/15
We had 47 shots and 33 were outside the box.
So 14 shots inside the box only yielded 1 goal, and we only got 16 shots on target so 67% of the shots were off target anyway.
They are all non stats really.
You would expect us to dominate the game against a L2 side and have lots of shots.
19 corners yielded no goals also which is another damning stat about our set piece ability.
posted on 24/9/15
Usual huffing and puffing before running out of ideas and then a tame long range shot.
posted on 24/9/15
I guess that's what I am trying to say righteous- I find these sort of stats pretty meaningless- shots on/off target. they can too easily be taken out of context, I prefer a goal scoring opportunity stat but then I know this is subjective too.
in fact I don't really like stats- I think it is better to trust your judgement of the game and my personal opinion was that we didn't create enough decent chances and we were too content to have a long range shot and say 'I tried'
I must say I was relieved when Milner stopped taking the corners.
What was up with that one which ended up going all the way back to the bogdan?
Or the floater to the edge of the box? In fact all of his corners are floaters. At the weekend I remember 3 corners (may have been more) – 1 hit the first man and the other two floated into ruddys hands?
Are we worried about Milner. I was one who thought he was a great signing. Perhaps he is missing Henderson?
posted on 24/9/15
I don't think you can be too critical of any individual.
Nobody is playing well really are they?
It's the same as last season, the first half of the season was utter bilge and other than Sterling who was largely in good form then, it was tough to pick out any 'best players'.
Clyne has been good and Gomez for a kid has done well but other than that you wouldn't say anyone.
Ings has done well in his time on the pitch and Benteke has done ok with no support.
The rest are meh.
When so many players are not in individual form it's obvious where the problem lies.
posted on 24/9/15
Righteous
Where do you think the problems lies then?
posted on 24/9/15
There was a Manc today saying just about the same thing today. I am spooked out at how you use just about the exact same words the Manc did, OP.
posted on 24/9/15
Your posting history is also very sock account like to say the least.
Somebody should get TOOR.
posted on 24/9/15
im sure there will be lots of people expressing a similar view- its not that spooky mate.
dont post too often because i have a blackberry so its not really practical!
righteous- can i assume youre referring to the management/tactics?
think it must be difficult for the players to keep switching systems - would probably benefit from a sustained run in one system with a bti of tweaking game to game. rodgers seems to buy players which fit different systems as well- e.g. moreno WB, clyne RB.
think it was when we stuck with a system that we went on a run last system
i cant really see what the plan is and it doesnt look like the players can either