Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Brighton & Hove Albion vs Wolverhampton Wanderers *** Official Match Thread ***



maltaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
13,431
Zabbar- Malta
Add Welbeck and Lallana to Milner & Gross and we must have played our slowest side ever.

Within five minutes of coming on Lallana was desperately waving his hands trying to slow things down as we charged forward on the attack down the left trying to catch them on the break. I don't get his late inclusion as he adds nothing except a few side ways passes.
Another substitution that seemed pointless was Ferguson. He is a shadow of the player who got a hatrick back in September.
 




SeagullsoverLondon

......
NSC Patron
Jun 20, 2021
3,943
I really like Billy but he did give the ball away too much last night. (He wasn´t alone in that though.)
I think they allowed us to play through the middle, knowing we had no pace out wide. Then we were reduced to playing slide rule passes to get through their block. As often as not, it broke down at that point 25 to 30 yards out.
I think Pedro was more guilty of playing the wrong pass at that point.
 


maltaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
13,431
Zabbar- Malta
WBG and Dunky were a level above anyone else.

Milner left the field really frustrated, snatched his jacket off the coach holding it before he sat down and I don't blame him. He did literally dozens of attempts at running in behind and almost no service to him. Especially in the second half he was left unmarked for large portions of the match but not played in when he had acres of space. Lots of sideways and back passing without the incisive through balls that he was wanting. If Mitoma was on the pitch, I'm sure he'd have been fed a couple of passes but we seemed to ignore Millners runs for some reason.
I thought it was a cunning plan to have him out so wide last night. Watching on TV the advertising at the pitch side was often blue and I wondered why the ball was kicked there, only to eventually realise Milner was camouflaged.
 


Oh_aye

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2022
2,161
We did go 3 at the back when Perv went off, and it could easily have cost us. Webster was left exposed, he got no help when Neto and friends started charging down our left at will. The subs we made tonight made us weaker, albeit I appreciate RDZ's hand may have been forced as Perv was labouring.
Was that a 3?? It just looked like Webster being clumsy at left back in front of Pedro.

I meant a slightly more organised version from the start with Perv in front and dunk on the left side of a 3 etc. Just to consider where we could get some pace out wide.

It felt like for much of the game we were doing our usual short passing to create the trap. Them when we sprung the trap our attack was too slow. So we inevitable turn back and start all over again.
 








DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,436
Been thinking about this game tonight. Looking at the stats and past form, I’m getting more convinced. I think whoever scores more on the night will nick this. But - and this is the thing - if the scores are level I can see both sides taking a point.
Thank you for your stunning and incisive analysis. Very informative and thought provoking.
 






Swegulls

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2023
1,346
Stockholm
Annoying result last night. Lots of possession and hardly any real chances. Back and forth around the box, left, middle, left, middle, Steele, occasionally right. Must be a nightmare for the likes of Welbeck and Ferguson, fighting against 6-8 well organized opponents. No wonder it looks so static at times. Passing, passing, passing. Pretty boring, like watching Spain playing around without getting anywhere. I know we missed our wingers but don't think that's the whole truth. Another thing is set pieces. Had a bunch of corners in the second half and with strong players like Dunk, Webster, Fergie, JPvH we should do better.
On the bright side Gilmours first half was top notch, Facundo looks like he's manned up, no rolling around and getting better and better for each game. Steele made some good saves last night (and all the Bart-lovers are of course quiet about that, we would probably have won with Bart in goal - no?) I'm glad Pervis is back.
All in all, feels like another 2 points dropped.
 


portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
18,030
portslade
Well the morning after what was an uninspired aimless home game against Wolves. We had loads of possession behind the halfway line because wolves never pressed us and that seemed to stump us. No real width with Milner or Pedro being square pegs in round holes and because of this we wanted to play through the middle which they packed.
I expect Palace to play the same way, we need a plan B
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,021
Surrey
I'm not sure we deserved more than a point (although we were the better side), but that's because we were poor in the final third. We played below our standard and dropped points.

We were 5/3 on with the bookies. If drawing that isn't 2 points dropped, then I don't know what is.
I 100% agree with your first sentence.

To explain the second (where I disagree), the bookies have no idea how well the teams are going to play, nor how the game is going to play out. It's not our fault if Wolves play better than expected and I did think they looked decent. And our bench was far stronger than theirs - so if Neto had picked up an injury after 10 mins, they'd have struggled.

Ultimately only three points separate the sides in our favour, and that looked about right - so maybe the odds on a home win simply represented poor value.
 




amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,916
First of all credit to Wolves. Looked a good side. Outplayed in first half but defended well. 2nd half because like West Ham game we give no thought to defending. Just throw players forward and they looked more like getting the winner. Strange going to 3 at back with Webster up against Neto who is quickest player I have seen for some time. and dont think Dunk will want to see him again. Just didnt understand why when we are desperate for a goal why Pedro seemed to be playing wide left when we needed him in box. Ferguson was not capable of retaining the ball.. Milner had a lot of ball in 1st half in one to one situations which just made you think If only Mitoma was playing. Also hard to understand in last 20mins continually played to Pedro out left and not get Lampty in game.
Unlike other dropped points at home at least felt Wolves were a good side and desrved a point.
 


Insel affe

HellBilly
Feb 23, 2009
24,497
Brighton factually.....
Also hard to understand in last 20mins continually played to Pedro out left and not get Lampty in game.
To be fair, the few times the ball was given to Lampty, he seemed hesitant to take anyone on.
Unlike other dropped points at home at least felt Wolves were a good side and deserved a point.
Agreed
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,468
Location Location
Was that a 3?? It just looked like Webster being clumsy at left back in front of Pedro.

I meant a slightly more organised version from the start with Perv in front and dunk on the left side of a 3 etc. Just to consider where we could get some pace out wide.

It felt like for much of the game we were doing our usual short passing to create the trap. Them when we sprung the trap our attack was too slow. So we inevitable turn back and start all over again.
It was definitely a 3. Webster, Dunk and JPvH, with Hinsh and Milner pushing on. GAPING spaces in behind us, just waiting to be exploited. Neto just hung around near the halfway line, so as soon as our super slow-mo attacks broke down, a simple ball down the line and its a 1 on 1 with a frantically backpeddling Webster. We got away with it more through luck than judgement, but I wouldn't blame Webster for that. He wasn't clumsy, he was just left exposed.

It was our chronic lack of pace last night that was killing us. We had absolutely no outlet.
 




Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
24,526
Sussex
I actually quite enjoyed the first half. Should of had at least 1 goal. Wolves did look dangerous but I thought we looked set to really push on second half.

Wolves missed a sitter 2nd half and we had a really good 10 ish mins just after. When the goal didn't come we started to look predictable and it was pretty obvious we'd lost any momentum we needed . We were playing the clock and Wolves. I've seen us lose so so many games like that.

The subs didn't help us. Lamptey was in loads of space but just wasn't used.

It was frustrating but in the cold light of day when weighed up v players out , its not a terrible point.

Last year has spoilt us. Top 10 for a club of our size is monumentous . We have no divine right to beat another mid table ish premier league side.

I think us and Wolves are pretty even. 7th to 12th is about right for now........ and thats more than alright for me

edit ... How good was Neto . Would welcome him here
 






Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
32,520
Brighton
It was our chronic lack of pace last night that was killing us. We had absolutely no outlet.
Agreed except Tariq Lamptey.

Attempted numerous runs in behind and none of them were picked out.
 




maltaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
13,431
Zabbar- Malta
It was definitely a 3. Webster, Dunk and JPvH, with Hinsh and Milner pushing on. GAPING spaces in behind us, just waiting to be exploited. Neto just hung around near the halfway line, so as soon as our super slow-mo attacks broke down, a simple ball down the line and its a 1 on 1 with a frantically backpeddling Webster. We got away with it more through luck than judgement, but I wouldn't blame Webster for that. He wasn't clumsy, he was just left exposed.

It was our chronic lack of pace last night that was killing us. We had absolutely no outlet.
Agreed which makes it more difficult to understand why Lamptey was a spectator for most of the 2nd half.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,629
Goldstone
To explain the second (where I disagree), the bookies have no idea how well the teams are going to play, nor how the game is going to play out. It's not our fault if Wolves play better than expected and I did think they looked decent.

I think we're interpreting the 'point gained or 2 dropped' question differently. Is it supposed to be based on who were playing (that's what I thought it meant) or is it based on how the game played out and who deserved to win (which I think is your interpretation).
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here