Derby County v Hull City

[Sith Happens]

40 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Lovely analogy that encapsulates exactly what GR's plan is. Group behind the ball when out of possession, then hunt like a pack of wild hungry dogs when the ball breaks to us...speed, ruthlessness and hunger and fire and rip the opposition's flesh off their bones and drink the warm dripping blood, taste their entrails...that sort of thing. 

Sounds like a night out down Ripley in the early 90's.

[Ellafella]

12 minutes ago, Mistaram said:

Ella " Hull had the lions share of possession " To much emphasis on possession hence why were still in this division Millwall 23%possession Norwich 77% Millwall4 Norwich 0

Yes...they failed to convert 3 gold-rimmed chances that came as a result of that possession...the penalty, the diving header which the chap missed by a millimetre and the shot which shaved the bar, not forgetting the left foot ballooner that the chap should have buried. Our finishing was that much more clinical...theirs was woeful hence we won 5-0 but they created more than we did. 

 

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

There's a funny thing going on around us Rams fans at the moment and I would liken it to "Every silver lining has a cloud"

We win 5-0 yet some are still not happy, I'm not a happy clapper by any means but the constant negativity is tiring! 

Is that all there is...to a 5-0 win?

is that all there is? Is that all there is?

if thats a there is my friend then let's keep dancing, let's break out the booze and have a ball.

 

 

[ramblur]

6 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Lovely analogy that encapsulates exactly what GR's plan is. Group behind the ball when out of possession, then hunt like a pack of wild hungry dogs when the ball breaks to us...speed, ruthlessness and hunger and fire and rip the opposition's flesh off their bones and drink the warm dripping blood, taste their entrails...that sort of thing. 

Bit on the mild side,but you're on the right lines

Seriously though,I've read some scratching their heads previously and wondering what Gary's 'plan' was.I've had an inkling of it for a long time.People wondered why Vyds wasn't getting games after playing well last year.To me it was fairly simple-we were still in with an outside chance of promotion,and whilst Gary was an obvious admirer of Vyds,I don't think he thought we had the personnel to fit him in.Was it in the Fulham game that he was taken off at half time? Whilst we were playing well,it was far too open.I'm sure that Gary said at some point after this that Vyds was a bit unfortunate,but I always thought Gary was a big admirer,and was going to find a way to fit him in this year.You don't waste hours watching Watford videos if you don't rate the player.

The other thing I noticed a long time ago,when Gary was talking ahead about the type of players he was going to bring in,he once slipped in the 'unselfish' word,and I knew then that Ince was on the way out.I'm probably one of the very,very few that was glad to see him go,but I've never been afraid to go against the crowd.

Just a quick word on Will,who I loved to watch play.I remember picking him out in an U18 defeat to Sheff U years ago (via video I watched).It was always fascinating to watch him hold players off whilst he worked the ball onto his left foot,but it did hold the play up. I wonder how many times he received the ball on his right (wrong) side,and with his quick footballing brain would have been able to play an incisive pass,if only he had a half decent right foot.I remember one particular occasion where he turned up on the RW,towards the edge of the penno area (or maybe even inside) and fairly close to the byeline,having been slipped in by a peach of a pass.Dangerous position -it should have been head up,ball in to the strikers.Instead,Ince like,he had to completely turn round to get the ball onto his left foot.Impetus lost.

I've been hearing stories of how he might not have been the best trainer,and I can remember Harry imploring him to put in the extra hours,like Frank Lampard had done. Silly boy,very good player who could become great if he had a right foot.Hope he doesn't eventually look back on his career and regret it. Always cut out the regrets at source.Sorry Will,I just had to say it,and could see why he wouldn't fit into Gary's vision.If this guy gets things right,exciting times ahead,fellow Rams fans.

[Gritstone Ram]

32 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

The thing is though did hull have that many 'genuine' chances ? Bar the penalty I can only really think of the diving header (when we already comfortable 5 up). 

According to the BBC they had 18 shots and got 3 on target. 

We had 7 shots on target and scored 5.

[RiddingsRam]

1 hour ago, RamsFan10 said:

Because Wisdoms the better player. It's professional football and we should play the team most likely to win each game, which would mean Wisdom at RB for me. Having the best team out is more important than rewarding a good performance with another start.

Is he the better player though? Potential to be yes, but currently better playing at right back on that performance no .

[Sith Happens]

I hate those Saturday morning feelings, when you have won 5-0 the night before and are buzzing only to come down to earth the next day and realise we were outplayed and were lucky not to lose.

[Gypsy Ram]

Who said that people don't post after we win a game?

All of this and still waiting on the return of George Thorne.

Hopefully the confidence boost needed for Weiman and Vydra, and a kick up the bum for Martin and Russell.

And Keogh is still the best CB at the club. 

 

[ramblur]

10 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

There's a funny thing going on around us Rams fans at the moment and I would liken it to "Every silver lining has a cloud"

We win 5-0 yet some are still not happy, I'm not a happy clapper by any means but the constant negativity is tiring! 

I can remember over the years several managers and many fans have said we need to be more clinical in front of goal.We get to a game where we were just that,and I get the feeling some think this was part of some 'fluke'. Amazing.

[RiddingsRam]

1 hour ago, hkrammm said:

 

I would put Wisdom back in place of Davies, who again is unimpressive as some posters have pointed out.

Baird, on the other hand, deserves to keep his shirt.

Thats a good call ! Im always Mr Positive me but i dont think Davies has quite been there this season. Good header mind last night.

[rynny]

6 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Yes...they failed to convert 3 gold-rimmed chances that came as a result of that possession...the penalty, the diving header which the chap missed by a millimetre and the shot which shaved the bar, not forgetting the left foot ballooner that the chap should have buried. Our finishing was that much more clinical...theirs was woeful hence we won 5-0 but they created more than we did. 

 

Most of their chances came when we were 4 and 5 up though. The only 2 chances they had that could have had a serious effect on the game were Dawson's header at 0-0 and the penalty at 1-0.

[sage]

23 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

The Dicko chance I'm not really counting because at that angle it'd have taken something spectacular to beat Carson and he did well just to get that on target. The grosicki chance is fair enough (I'd forgot about that) but it would have taken a good finish to score. The Dawson chance I must have missed (missed the first 10ish minutes).

The point you make about our game plan is apt though, the only times hull looked like the might hurt us was when we they broke through the press of the front 4 and the midfield didn't quite have the pace to back up the press, so the midfield ended up getting cut through because they were caught between sitting and pressing. Fortunately last night the defence was good enough to snuff most of their attacking play out and keep Hull to half chances for the most part. 

Your point about Vydra giving the ball away i think could apply to a few players last and it was the one real downside for me is that I thought at times we gave the ball away a bit cheaply or tried to force the play a bit too much (and consequently lost possession). Hopefully this improve as players get more accustomed to the playstyle.

I'm not picking out Vydra as a personal thing or necessarily saying he gives the ball away more than others, it is just that in the formation we are playing we drops deeper than the rest of the front 4 so when he loses it, it is in a more dangerous player. 

If I were the opposition I would ask my CF to stand in front of Keogh, my ACM to harass Huddlestone and whoever is closest to Vydra when he drops deep press him. 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

I can remember over the years several managers and many fans have said we need to be more clinical in front of goal.We get to a game where we were just that,and I get the feeling some think this was part of some 'fluke'. Amazing.

It was no fluke we scored 5. Missing the penalty was a fluke because Carson went the wrong way and had he not tried to hit one of the windmills on Megaloughton Lane I suspect the score line may have been closer.

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, Gritters said:

It was no fluke we scored 5. Missing the penalty was a fluke because Carson went the wrong way and had he not tried to hit one of the windmills on Megaloughton Lane I suspect the score line may have been closer.

5-1 is closer yes 

[brady1993]

11 hours ago, Andicis said:

Some of the deliveries into the box by Lawrence were absolutely pinpoint. That cross for Johnson's goal was an attackers dream. I think all of our strikers will relish the opportunity to get on to the end of Lawrence's balls .

His ball for davies' header was spot on as well. Plus he had another couple that went narrowly wide. I reckon he's going to rack up quite a few assists this season.

[Ellafella]

30 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I'm not disputing that fact that Hull were poor and we're far from the finished article but, how do you define lions share? I would hardly call 58% v 42% lions share (which implies they dominated). 2. Also, more shots? only 3 more and some of those (including the penalty) were so wayward they barely count. Finally, yes they had some very good goal scoring chances and, on another day would have bagged a couple but, don't forget, we scored 5 and their keeper also pulled off a couple of fantastic saves.

So, in summary, I an generally agreeing, it could have been a different story and I'm certainly not getting carried away but some of the stats you are quoting (number of fouls?) paint a much more negative picture than is appropriate.

 

1. the lion's share, phrase of lion noun: lion's share 1.BRITISH the largest part of something. synonyms:most, the majority, the larger part/number, the greater part/number, the best/better part, the main part, more than half, the bulk, the preponderance "the lion's share of the profits".

2. Also, more shots? only 3 more.  How many beans make 5? 3 more shots is actually 1+ 2 more shots and also 2+1 more shots and also 1+1+1 more shots. However you try and disguise it, re-write it, the phrase "they had more shots than us" and "they had 3 more shots than us" are pretty much synonyms, and "some of those were so wayward they don't count" to paraphrase you. Well my point was we won 5-0 but it couldve been 5-4 or 5-5 because we allowed them really good chances. On another day, another team will take those chances...

3. but some of the stats you are quoting (number of fouls?) paint a much more negative picture than is appropriate. No they don't paint an inaccurate picture they paint an accurate picture. 5-0 sounds like we totally controlled and dominated. But we didn't. Just as we didn't play poorly at Sheffield but lost comfortably. So, to quote Kipling, "If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster,   And treat those two impostors just the same" because last night was our night BUT we need to guard against thinking, it'll be all plain sailing now, because the same issues pertain really, we are far from a finished team. 

Good to debate with you though Sir!. 

[brady1993]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

I'm not picking out Vydra as a personal thing or necessarily saying he gives the ball away more than others, it is just that in the formation we are playing we drops deeper than the rest of the front 4 so when he loses it, it is in a more dangerous player. 

If I were the opposition I would ask my CF to stand in front of Keogh, my ACM to harass Huddlestone and whoever is closest to Vydra when he drops deep press him. 

Yeah I see what you mean, I'm hoping with a bit more play time it becomes less frequent. The times he's lost the ball in iffy areas have been for the 'right' reasons usually (as much as there can be right reasons), as in he's been looking to find a teammate and spring an attack.

His general performance levels have been steadily improving in my view and hopefully after 10 games or so, these rusty errors get cut out.

[ck-]

12 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Similar to Johnson and Vydra!

Meyler had a couple of sighters having worked the space well, one clipped the bar and the other was wild.

Hull created some decent openings. They should have scored a free header, had another free header straight at Carson.

For me it was just one of those games. We didn't create any more than Hull did. Aside from Martin's late shot, I don't recall their GK making a save which illustrates just how clinical we were.

In that case frankly your whole review and analysis is void. You really can't remember or give credit to the shot Vydra had that would have given him his hatrick, but was very well saved at the near post? How can you believe you have given a balanced analysis if you can't remember that and the play that led to it?

[Ellafella]

7 minutes ago, rynny said:

Most of their chances came when we were 4 and 5 up though. The only 2 chances they had that could have had a serious effect on the game were Dawson's header at 0-0 and the penalty at 1-0.

1. Not sure how this really detracts from the argument...they are still chances. You may argue they only had them because we "let them have them" but it's a moot point really. 

2. Yes, Dawson's header flashed just cms wide and loooked to be rocketing in. The penalty was the fulcrum moment. That's the beauty of the game I suppose...penalty goes in and perhaps it finishes 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 etc but it ends 5-0. 

 

We will have sent a shivver down a few teams' backs after last night and they will be wary of us but old 'arry rednapp won't be twitching and fidgeting too much because he will have seen things to exploit. Loved our "shock and awe" raids but teams won't all fall for it. 

[ramblur]

13 minutes ago, Gritters said:

It was no fluke we scored 5. Missing the penalty was a fluke because Carson went the wrong way and had he not tried to hit one of the windmills on Megaloughton Lane I suspect the score line may have been closer.

Could be right,Gritters,but we'll never know.In some ways (well,no,not really!) it's a shame it didn't go in as it would have given us an insight into the current mental strength of the team.