Jump to content

Derby County v Hull City

Leicester Ram

By Leicester Ram
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 757
  • Created
  • Last Reply
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sage said:

He did say Hull were the better team 'between the 2 boxes' which isn't the same as saying they were the better team. Whilst I don't agree with that but there is an argument for it, and the difference in finishing/defending was stark, certainly exaggerating the score if not the result.

I don't mind a post that provokes a debate, as long as it is rational and not repeated ad nauseam. I welcome it even if I disagree with it. 

My post was not specifically aimed at Bris. There were a few intimating that due to Hull having more possession that actually meant something.

Yes debate is good and sometimes it will help you see things that you have missed but if the first thought on Friday night was to do anything other than come on and congratulate the manager and players then I seriously wonder bother following Derby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellafella

Ellafella

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

My post was not specifically aimed at Bris. There were a few intimating that due to Hull having more possession that actually meant something.

Yes debate is good and sometimes it will help you see things that you have missed but if the first thought on Friday night was to do anything other than come on and congratulate the manager and players then I seriously wonder bother following Derby.

I think they were intimating a number of things, not just possession:

shots, possession, fewer fouls, 

I think it was an attempt by some to stem the exaggerated claims being made in the opposite direction. ie that we totally dominated Hull when actually it wasn't quite all one-sided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gritstone Ram

Gritstone Ram

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, sage said:

He did say Hull were the better team 'between the 2 boxes' which isn't the same as saying they were the better team. Whilst I don't agree with that but there is an argument for it, and the difference in finishing/defending was stark, certainly exaggerating the score if not the result.

I don't mind a post that provokes a debate, as long as it is rational and not repeated ad nauseam. I welcome it even if I disagree with it. 

I think you can tell the difference between a post that is purely there to create conflict and arguments rather than one that is a genuine observation and point of view that may not have been seen by a lot of people in all the excitement and which people may not agree with.

I'm not getting carried away just yet. The one swallow doesn't make a summer springs to mind but I am encouraged by the goals we scored however I feel we lack a ball winner/blocker in midfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

I think they were intimating a number of things, not just possession:

shots, possession, fewer fouls, 

I think it was an attempt by some to stem the exaggerated claims being made in the opposite direction. ie that we totally dominated Hull when actually it wasn't quite all one-sided. 

Well if they had more possession and more shots it shows they are not as good as people may be suggesting.

If their middle of the park were so good where were they for goals 1, 2 and 5?

I read how their midfield were cutting through our midfield 2 with ease, yet our quick counter attacks looked like leading to something every time we went forward...so why were their midfield so good?

How many good chances did they actually 'create'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DcFc Dyycheee

DcFc Dyycheee

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Im a little surprised to see him on there but I did think he played well. Defended well, decent distribution and scored. 

His passing was woeful near the end of the game in my opinion. Just passed it to a Hull player at least 3-4 times, bit sloppy. Thought he defended well though, got his body in front of the attackers and was really dominant, something he's not done in his other games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellafella

Ellafella

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well if they had more possession and more shots it shows they are not as good as people may be suggesting.

If their middle of the park were so good where were they for goals 1, 2 and 5?

I read how their midfield were cutting through our midfield 2 with ease, yet our quick counter attacks looked like leading to something every time we went forward...so why were their midfield so good?

How many good chances did they actually 'create'?

6 in total. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sage

sage

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DcFc Dyycheee said:

His passing was woeful near the end of the game in my opinion. Just passed it to a Hull player at least 3-4 times, bit sloppy. Thought he defended well though, got his body in front of the attackers and was really dominant, something he's not done in his other games. 

He got Injured about 20 mins from the end and try to run it off. However Rowett (in his own words) didn't know he was injured when he made the 3rd and final sub on 77? mins. Therefore he struggled late on when ideally he would have come off. I thought his improved performance was a key part of the team's improved performance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brady1993

brady1993

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ellafella said:

I think they were intimating a number of things, not just possession:

shots, possession, fewer fouls, 

I think it was an attempt by some to stem the exaggerated claims being made in the opposite direction. ie that we totally dominated Hull when actually it wasn't quite all one-sided. 

Whilst I see your point and I think a few may have been making that point. It did feel like some were implying Hull were the better side. Plus some of the arguments about Hulls superior statistics are quite shallow and don't consider a few factors. 

For example, yes Hull had more shots total but half of those shots were from outside of the area and only three were on target. Whereas Derby had 67% of their 15 shots inside the box with 7 on target and not to mention scored 5 would suggest that Derby had better scoring opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellafella

Ellafella

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

6 good chances? 

 

Yes. Check out the highlights:

1. The missed penalty

2. Dawson's header from the corner

3. Diving header at the far post 2nd half

4. Point-blank header 2nd half which Carson tipped over

5. Ballooned over left-footer from 10 yrds 2nd half

6. Scraped the bar with Carson beaten 2nd hlf shot from 15 yards.

Fine margins in football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellafella

Ellafella

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Whilst I see your point and I think a few may have been making that point. It did feel like some were implying Hull were the better side. Plus some of the arguments about Hulls superior statistics are quite shallow and don't consider a few factors. 

For example, yes Hull had more shots total but half of those shots were from outside of the area and only three were on target. Whereas Derby had 67% of their 15 shots inside the box with 7 on target and not to mention scored 5 would suggest that Derby had better scoring opportunities.

Agree. Quality versus quantity debate. Derby had less but it was of better quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...