When will Brighton lose

[Perseus]

Man for Man 

Carson 8 Stockdale 7
Christie 7 Bruno 7.5
Forsyth 7 Bong 7
Keogh 7 Hünemeier 6.5
Shackell 7 Dunk 7.5
Johnson 7 Rosenoir 7
Thorne 7.5 Stephens 7.5
Hendrick 7.5 Kayal 7
Russell 7 Lualua 7
Martin 7.5 Hemed/Zamora 7
Ince 7.5 March/Murphy/Baldock 7

Total 80 - 78

 

Arguable 

 

1)  Brighton are not really on top form

2)  Being throwing points away

3)  Easy start: harder games to come

 

Summer recruitment:  Bong, Hemed, Murphy, Zamora

 

Significant loss of players (sales);  Ulloa, Buckley  (season before last)

 

Seem to be three players short (even the best teams seem to be two players short) so Brighton may need to recruit a goalscorer In the Ings/Callum Wilson/Vardy mould to compare with recent automatic promotion teams. 

 

Pitch was a bit naff before the rugby. Better now. 

[Animal is a Ram]

Martin and Thorne only 7.5, now I know you're trolling.

Probably still hurting from that play off semi?

[SimonBHA]

Martin and Thorne only 7.5, now I know you're trolling.

Probably still hurting from that play off semi?

Oh no, our resident loon has found his way here. Please ignore him.

[Srg]

Oh no, our resident loon has found his way here. Please ignore him.

he does seem a little insane, not sure how Liam Rosenior is comparable to Bradley Johnson in anyway, let alone rated the same in his eyes.

[Day]

If Martin is a 7.5, Zamora must be at least a 9 surely?

[Srg]

Carson is the best player on either team on whatever scale this is.

[Perseus]

Derby v Brighton compared

Tradition and success
Derby:  Very Good
Brighton: Abysmal, top underachievers (although bigger clubs Newcastle and Sunderland have a strong case)

Debt:
Derby : manageable
Brighton: huge, Stadium and training ground shown as depreciation in accounts, and although it does not effect FFP, it does mean Brighton need Premier League football in the future. And will post losses until they do. 

Assets: both clubs have decent enough grounds and training facilities. Comparable? 

Income:
Both clubs do not have parachute payments so Match Day Income must comprise 50% of income.
Last accounts 2013-14
Income   Brighton £24 million Derby £20 million
Match Day Brighton £10 million Derby £6 million

But with successive attendance falls of 8% each season for Brighton (after the ground expansion raised the capacity), this season Derby may edge it, depending if gates pick up at Brighton, or not.
Much higher admission prices at Brighton. 

Current tactics:

Derby 4-3-3 (best)  Brighton 4-4-2 (extra man in midfield)
Not really that important but Brighton with a fractionable weaker team (on paper) may cutting the mettle to meet the cloth.

This means I can't compare the teams like for like without one match between players being awry. 

Dangerous players:

Derby seem to have the edge especially with Martin scoring freely.
However, this season Lualua and Zamora have won 12 pts between them which accounts for their lofty position, but on balance Brighton have thrown at least 3 pts away from games that should have one, less ones when they won and should have drawn (doesn't it always seem to happen that way? although top teams pinch points against the odds).

General economics:  Both Derby and the Brighton county area have the same sort of economic activity with incomes just below the national average (Unlike Reading significally above average).

Derby and Brighton seem well matched (and Forest would be if they were managed better).

I have a surmise that Reading (with their defence) may upset the applecart. They, (like Brighton) haven't got much of a tradition either. Historically (counts for **** all) both have been perenially third tier teams in football history. 

Squad depth:  Derby have a very strong case for a strong depth of squad, but Brighton are slightly stronger this year compared to when an injury crisis destroyed their play-off hopes. e.g. Butterfield has already caused Brighton to lose 2 pts this season and the season before. 

[Perseus]

NB: Best start to a season in Brighton's complete history. Not the best football though, this was in 1977-78 when Brighton were distracted by a League Cup match v Derby and fell away after a strong start (which cost us promotion on goal average).

 

 

[Bris Vegas]

It's almost word for word this thread about Bournemouth and Burnley. Wasn't that long ago we saw Blackpool showing promotion isn't won on paper.

Grinding out results with a poor performance is a sign of a good team and you can only beat what's in front of you.

They don't have to beat any top 6 side to go up automatically if you keep beating those outside it. 

And for those saying one or two injuries and that's it, in 2 months the transfer window opens. 

Brighton going up in the automatics would not surprise me one bit. Been watching the Championship for far too long to realise it's not he who spends the most goes up.

There is a clear different between Brighton and Bournemouth/Burnley.

Bournemouth were beating teams away 0-5 and 0-8, whereas Brighton are winning by the odd goal with a number of those coming via late strikes.

Burnley had better players, hence half of them are now playing in the PL.

Grinding out results with poor performances isn't signs of a good team. This is one of those annoying myths. Grinding out results with poor performances means sooner or later results will reflect your performances and you'll start losing games.

The sign of a good team is a team which consistently plays well or outplays their opponents. Derby ground out plenty o results under BD, in reality they were rubbish and soon got found out.

There isn't a single team out there who consistently grinds out wins with poor performances who are actually a good team. They don't exist. 

[Day]

I'm not talking about playing a full season grinding out results from poor performances, just when you are not on top of your game and still coming away with a result which is a sign of a good team.

Derby wasn't on form at the start of the season but we was still picking up points, we're playing much better now with a chance to go 3rd, only because we was able to still put points on the board during the crap games.

[Thierry Ennui]

*weren't

*were

*were

[rynny]

*weren't

*were

*were

If you are gonna correct @Daveo on his grammar at least have the bottle to quote him.

[TheDeadlySaul]

Last season Bournemouth were very lucky with injuries and I fully believe if we hadn't had our injury crisis we would have been promoted. The argument about not facing any top 6 teams is also redundant as Watford had only beaten one team from the top 6 and that was Brentford. 

Hard to make a judgement now anyway, we were doing very well at this stage last season, but we all know what happened. 

[Day]

[ramsbottom]

 "Oh look at little ol' Burnley/Bournemouth/Brighton, punching above their weight, bless their little cotton socks".  

Threads like this and the Burnley/Bournemouth ones just smack of the arrogance bigger teams would apply to ourselves if we were to do well in the Prem.  We sound like our @rsehole neighbors up the road...

There's no reason to think they can't keep this kind of form up.  We did the same under Davros and we had a very average squad and style of play.  History of this league shows that a well organised team, with a savvy manager and good team spirit can prosper.  So why not Brighton???  All we can do is to keep focusing on our own games, winning as many as we can and see where we end up...

 

[SimonBHA]

There is a clear different between Brighton and Bournemouth/Burnley.

Bournemouth were beating teams away 0-5 and 0-8, whereas Brighton are winning by the odd goal with a number of those coming via late strikes.

Burnley had better players, hence half of them are now playing in the PL.

Grinding out results with poor performances isn't signs of a good team. This is one of those annoying myths. Grinding out results with poor performances means sooner or later results will reflect your performances and you'll start losing games.

The sign of a good team is a team which consistently plays well or outplays their opponents. Derby ground out plenty o results under BD, in reality they were rubbish and soon got found out.

There isn't a single team out there who consistently grinds out wins with poor performances who are actually a good team. They don't exist. 

After 12 games last season Bournemouth had scored 17 goals. Brighton have 18 goals over the same number of games this season. Long way to go yet. Might hit 4 or 5 past Preston on Saturday you just don't know.

[Thierry Ennui]

How else can a child learn if he isn't corrected when he makes a mistake? (Daveo is my son)

 

[Day]

So you're the old milkman! 

[StringerBell]

There's no sensible grammatical rule that I can think of that should prevent were and was from being interchangeable. They're basically the same word.

Edit - in fact I'm not keen on interchangeable either. Changeable will suffice.

[Perseus]

There is a clear different between Brighton and Bournemouth/Burnley.

Bournemouth were beating teams away 0-5 and 0-8, whereas Brighton are winning by the odd goal with a number of those coming via late strikes.

Burnley had better players, hence half of them are now playing in the PL.

Grinding out results with poor performances isn't signs of a good team. This is one of those annoying myths. Grinding out results with poor performances means sooner or later results will reflect your performances and you'll start losing games.

The sign of a good team is a team which consistently plays well or outplays their opponents. Derby ground out plenty o results under BD, in reality they were rubbish and soon got found out.

There isn't a single team out there who consistently grinds out wins with poor performances who are actually a good team. They don't exist. 

I tend to agree with this. The myths bit, not about Burnley being anything special.

 

The pertinent point is of Brighton can put a run together with uprouting their own record books but without playing well a half a dozen other clubs may be able to do the same thing.

 

Brighton have chosen a team with resilience and consistency rather than flair. Abolished the attractive (or slow depending on your point of view) playing the ball out of defence and getting caught in possession, swopping 4-3-3 for 4-4-2 and adopted a more % style of play that does not look very sophisticated. This is Chris Hughton with his past experience counting. 

My worry at Brighton is the resilience approach may come unstuck when they come up against a good side. 

 

But with not winning by high scores also means not losing by high scores either (less open football) and the only big score upset recently has been a depleted side losing 3-0 at Derby last season (single goal defeats were the norm last season).

 

Right now, the only thing the sets Brighton at the top is the 8 points gained by the rather intermittent flair of Lualua and the equally intermittent flair of Bobby Zamora (4 pts). Without his goals Brighton would be in with the pack, even outside the top six. That's in lieu of being without a striker being able to put the ball in the back of the net like Chris Martin (or Vardy/Callum Wilson/Ings of promotion teams).  

 

Brighton have never looked like losing this season. More like not winning when they should have done. And being hit with a few outrageously good goals, one by Butterfield. But also Lualua scoring two.