Derby County v Blackburn Rovers

[Archied]

34 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I don't think you've emphasised how important Martin is. But still we'll get a player up front who won't be Martin and we'll bomb. 

FFS you're a bit of a male member aren't you Archied? There's a discussion going on is all.

Now now roy , you’ve been pulled on your non stop Martin mis information and you want to get into sweary name calling ??‍♂️
not sure who meant to be impressed by that hey whatever makes you feel taller?

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

...Is what you said. Yet they had 23 shots and 10 on target. Perhaps we were lucky that only Brads shots (and the others) went in?!

Well presumably you’re not actually reading what I’m putting which is oh so unlike you so we may as well leave it there. 

Both teams created two good chances. Blackburn scored theirs plus two others. We didn’t. The data based on the quality of their chances would suggest Blackburn were lucky / clinical and we were unlucky / wasteful. My suggestion is therefore that there’s been an overreaction. 

If you are going to come back again having not read or understood what I am arguing please don’t bother because it is tiresome. 

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, nottingram said:

If you are going to come back again having not read or understood what I am arguing please don’t bother because it is tiresome. 

Ooh get you. No comment on you ignoring the stats on the number of 'lucky' shots on target they had nor how unlucky they were that only 4 went in?

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Ooh get you. No comment on you ignoring the stats on the number of 'lucky' shots on target they had nor how unlucky they were that only 4 went in?

Your not off your meds again ?

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Your not off your meds again ?

Oh dear Archied you got nothing better to say.

[nottingram]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Ooh get you. No comment on you ignoring the stats on the number of 'lucky' shots on target they had nor how unlucky they were that only 4 went in?

 

22 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Again I think I will need you to clarify what you are getting at.

The point of xG is to measure the quality of a chance. It’s imperfect but adds a bit of context to shots or shots on target which are a bit meaningless. My point was both teams created two big chances, and Blackburn’s were put away. On top of that both teams created a few other fairly low quality chances, and Blackburn or specifically Johnson scored two of them while Bird and Sibley didn’t. 

My point was thus that I feel there has been an over reaction to yesterday’s performance. We have issues most notably with midfielders filling gaps correctly which maybe comes down to a mixture of age, inexperience and, as Cocu has implied, perhaps a lack of desire. Two of yesterday’s goals came from giving the ball away in midfield and not chasing back or organising well enough, and two from midfielders not closing down pot shots. 

Yes no comment at all ?. Happy to engage in debate whenever but not when you aren’t even bothering to read or understand what I’m putting but instead respond with silly “gotchas” or nonsense that only suits your point. 

You want to believe Blackburn were unlucky because they scored 4 from 10 on target (as I say, xG while imperfect adds a bit of context to these numbers which are close to useless in isolation - a team could have one million unthreatening shots on target from distance but it wouldn’t mean they played well). But can’t seem to accept Derby might have been unlucky in scoring none from 5 on target (I’m not saying Derby were unlucky to lose and have given suggestions on what I feel the root cause of the issues are). There is just no balance to your posts on pretty much any subject. 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, nottingram said:

But can’t seem to accept Derby might have been unlucky in scoring none from 5 on target (I’m not saying Derby were unlucky to lose and have given suggestions on what I feel the root cause of the issues are). There is just no balance to your posts on pretty much any subject. 

You say we were unlucky not to score any. Okay you have that. What would it have made the score?

[Rammy03]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You say we were unlucky not to score any. Okay you have that. What would it have made the score?

8-4 to Blackburn

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You say we were unlucky not to score any. Okay you have that. What would it have made the score?

Blackburn would have beaten us all day long ,they were better organised , in form , harder working and had more confidence,for me those are the issues that cocu will sink or swim on 

[nottingram]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

You say we were unlucky not to score any. Okay you have that. What would it have made the score?

 

Underlying data implies Blackburn scored more than you would expect from their quality of chance and Derby scored less. Blackburn still outperformed Derby but a fairer score line may have been 1-2 or 1-3 and we might not have seen such an overreaction. This can imply Blackburn were lucky or clinical and Derby were unlucky or wasteful but as with all data it’s hard to draw conclusions from small sample sizes. Generally speaking xG can be a useful long term performance indicator I.e. if a team continues to create at the same rate you might see performance deviate to this mean. 

I personally don’t believe we were unlucky yesterday, we were poor in midfield and this was the root cause of our issues in performance, in my opinion.

Again, if you don’t understand xG or even care about it that is fine but please do me the respect of Reading what I am actually putting and not trying to create conclusions I haven’t even drawn myself. I believe it to be interesting and as I have said ad infinitum imperfect but can add a bit more context to shots or shots on target e.g. is one really high quality chance that an idiot striker puts wide better than five pot shots from range that dribble into the keepers arms? Probably - and this is what xG seeks to add.

[Ghost of Clough]

Don’t forget the two good penalty shouts turned down...

[RoyMac5]

8 hours ago, nottingram said:

Underlying data implies Blackburn scored more than you would expect from their quality of chance and Derby scored less. Blackburn still outperformed Derby but a fairer score line may have been 1-2 or 1-3 and we might not have seen such an overreaction.

This just shows what use xG really is. It isn't able to deal with a collapse to 0-3 that showed up glaring problems and 'coloured' all of the game. ?

[DRBee]

16 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Martin was reputedly the highest earner at the club. Cocu may have wanted to keep him , but we couldn't afford to pay him the kings ransom he was getting those days are gone.  He went elsewhere rather than take what was on the table.  How much the club offer a player in wages is the clubs decision not the managers.  They have a ceiling.

But he hasnt been replaced!!!!!!

[DRBee]

9 hours ago, nottingram said:

 

Underlying data implies Blackburn scored more than you would expect from their quality of chance and Derby scored less. Blackburn still outperformed Derby but a fairer score line may have been 1-2 or 1-3 and we might not have seen such an overreaction. This can imply Blackburn were lucky or clinical and Derby were unlucky or wasteful but as with all data it’s hard to draw conclusions from small sample sizes. Generally speaking xG can be a useful long term performance indicator I.e. if a team continues to create at the same rate you might see performance deviate to this mean. 

I personally don’t believe we were unlucky yesterday, we were poor in midfield and this was the root cause of our issues in performance, in my opinion.

Again, if you don’t understand xG or even care about it that is fine but please do me the respect of Reading what I am actually putting and not trying to create conclusions I haven’t even drawn myself. I believe it to be interesting and as I have said ad infinitum imperfect but can add a bit more context to shots or shots on target e.g. is one really high quality chance that an idiot striker puts wide better than five pot shots from range that dribble into the keepers arms? Probably - and this is what xG seeks to add.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. We all saw it was a poor performance.  - we gave the ball away, we didn't challenge, ....... XG has little value especially when trying to excuse a poor performance.

[nottingram]

4 minutes ago, DRBee said:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. We all saw it was a poor performance.  - we gave the ball away, we didn't challenge, ....... XG has little value especially when trying to excuse a poor performance.

I bet you can’t find a single post of mine that has claimed anything other than that we were poor yesterday. In fact in the post of mine you have quoted I said we were poor (in midfield most notably in my opinion) which is why we lost the game

I am not excusing a poor performance, merely hypothesising that statistically yesterday’s game might have been an outlier. If it had finished 2-1 as may have reflected better the quality of chances both teams had then we might have seen a different reaction to it. Generally over a longer period results will tend to xG but I agree over one game it is not a great measure which again I have acknowledged several times in my exchange with Roy, but still better than shots or shots on target 

Then again if me aunt had a set of balls she’d be me uncle so maybe it’s all a big waste of time.

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, nottingram said:

merely hypothesising that statistically yesterday’s game might have been an outlier.

Or of course if you'd added in the other recent games it might have been 'on curve' or whatever the statistical term is? ?

[cheron85]

10 hours ago, nottingram said:

I personally don’t believe we were unlucky yesterday, we were poor in midfield and this was the root cause of our issues in performance, in my opinion.

I think it was a little of both - We weren't unlucky (we were poor) but we weren't 4-0 poor

We opened brightly and looked half decent - If Bird had struck that shot a bit better we might have taken an early lead

Then a stupid mistake from Rooney, coupled with lack of desire to track back by him and Bird plus Buchanan being out of position and not tracking his man and we're suddenly 1-0 down

Now's the crunch point - Head's completely dropped - This is the moment you need your leaders on the pitch to pull everyone together - You need your captain screaming at everyone, geeing them up, getting the adrenaline pumping - You need the GK and Defence to fix up, look sharp and be aware of the danger - You need your attackers running people down and making the oppositions lives hard

None of this happened

4 mins later we're 3-0 down and the game is pretty much over - Lack of desire to close down Johnson has let him get 2 goals from half chances

Heads drop further and it takes the rest of the half for a proper mental recovery - after half time we're better but chasing the game - Let's be honest the final goal was a classic breakaway when a team is trying to get forward to get a goal but was also a daft mistake

I see this as a 2-0 loss - Yes it looks worse and it's still not a great result but that 3 goals in 5 mins was nuts and (in my head) is essentially 1 goal - It's just that when you concede 3 like that it can destroy a side

I would imagine we'll see changes ahead of the next game - And I think Rooney and Bird will be VERY lucky if they keep their places - It seems clear Clarke and Fozzy were made responsible for the defeat at Luton and I would like to think the same standards will be applied to Bird and Rooney

Finally - I'm sure people have mentioned this already - Last season we beat Blackburn solidly and looked good without Rooney - We don't have him as a player long term - We shouldn't be building a team around him - So let's be brave and bold and try a side which doesn't revolve around fitting him in

[RamNut]

9 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Then a stupid mistake from Rooney, coupled with lack of desire to track back by him and Bird plus Buchanan being out of position and not tracking his man and we're suddenly 1-0 down

Watch it again. There is no lack of effort from Bird.

 

[cheron85]

Just now, RamNut said:

Watch it again. There is no lack of effort from Bird.

 

I have - Replied to you in the other thread - I'd be very surprised if that was a full on sprint by Bird - He covers a lot of ground but he's doing it at a pretty leisurely pace

[nottingram]

1 minute ago, cheron85 said:

I think it was a little of both - We weren't unlucky (we were poor) but we weren't 4-0 poor

We opened brightly and looked half decent - If Bird had struck that shot a bit better we might have taken an early lead

Then a stupid mistake from Rooney, coupled with lack of desire to track back by him and Bird plus Buchanan being out of position and not tracking his man and we're suddenly 1-0 down

Now's the crunch point - Head's completely dropped - This is the moment you need your leaders on the pitch to pull everyone together - You need your captain screaming at everyone, geeing them up, getting the adrenaline pumping - You need the GK and Defence to fix up, look sharp and be aware of the danger - You need your attackers running people down and making the oppositions lives hard

None of this happened

4 mins later we're 3-0 down and the game is pretty much over - Lack of desire to close down Johnson has let him get 2 goals from half chances

Heads drop further and it takes the rest of the half for a proper mental recovery - after half time we're better but chasing the game - Let's be honest the final goal was a classic breakaway when a team is trying to get forward to get a goal but was also a daft mistake

I see this as a 2-0 loss - Yes it looks worse and it's still not a great result but that 3 goals in 5 mins was nuts and (in my head) is essentially 1 goal - It's just that when you concede 3 like that it can destroy a side

I would imagine we'll see changes ahead of the next game - And I think Rooney and Bird will be VERY lucky if they keep their places - It seems clear Clarke and Fozzy were made responsible for the defeat at Luton and I would like to think the same standards will be applied to Bird and Rooney

Finally - I'm sure people have mentioned this already - Last season we beat Blackburn solidly and looked good without Rooney - We don't have him as a player long term - We shouldn't be building a team around him - So let's be brave and bold and try a side which doesn't revolve around fitting him in

This is what I’ve been trying to say but much much better. 

I saw people saying it could’ve been more than 4 but I was just trying to offer some perspective that it wasn’t even close to that sort of game, and that for Blackburn’s couple of long rangers that went in we had Bird’s cleared off the line and Sibley’s header well saved, for example. A fairer result like you say may have had one goal in it in Blackburn’s favour and we’d not have seen the same overreaction, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean it was good enough on Saturday.

With you on Rooney too. My hope is that when Bielik is fit he is able to play as a lone defensive midfielder in a 4-3-3, allowing Bird to knit play together further forward. Rooney should earn his place like anyone else, at the moment he is giving the ball away too often and can’t / won’t (I think and hope it is can’t) track back with enough vigour to make amends. This is causing us some real problems. I’m probably in a minority that thought he looked decent further forward in the second half with energetic runners around him