Derby County vs Brighton & Hove Albion *** Official Match Thread ***

[Machiavelli]

Which is what I've been saying. But they put it to WA - they said that many understand he can be recalled, and he said no, he definitely can't be. If he's wrong, then he's an idiot for claiming to be completely 100% sure when he isn't.

I think he's a good analyst and reader of the game but, how shall we put it, has a few shortcomings elsewhere.

 

[John Bumlick]

Bmouth 2-1

those dogs are really well trained

 

[Machiavelli]

I actually think Derby would have scored from the cross in anyways if the referee hadn't have blown, they had two players waiting at the back post to head in. Greer I believe was on the line so don't think it was him who committed the foul, I didn't see it myself but was told by the guy stood next to me that it was Bruno so I'm none the wiser

As several people have said: it was Greer who conceded the penalty. Others have also attributed it to Lee Mason. It was one of those two, but neither Dunk nor Bruno.

 

[Acker79]

So, is any criticism of Dunk now going to be met with "oh, the new Barnes!" and "You think you know better than [insert manager name]?!" Because that is quite lazy. There are many reasons that a team is picked, including, but not limited to, options, opponents, partnerships, philosophy (such as not wanting to change a winning side, if you've got the shirt you keep it, concerned players will be put on edge if teammates get dropped after a notable mistake etc).

Last season, any criticism of JFC was met with such comments, Hughton apparently doesn't view JFC as a regular starter, or even a regular squad player. Does he know more or less about football than Hyypia, Southgate, Garcia and Poyet? I imagine it can be argued where in that list he sits, I'm sure most people would put him top, but wherever you place him, you got the fans who didn't rate him, some managers who did and now Hughton who doesn't seem to.

Which just goes to show how complex team selection is.

Yes, Hughton is currently playing Dunk, but that doesn't mean he thinks Dunk is better than Huenemeier. It might be he felt Dunk's strengths would be better suited. It might be that Huenemeier was ill/injured when Greer returned, so Dunk automatically got the spot, and Hughton would prefer as settled a side as fitness allows.

It's also important to remember a player can have a generally good game and still have a moment or two that deserves criticism. (And vice versa, a generally poor performance with one or two key moments of great play).

To acknowledge a mistake/lapse/complete balls up, doesn't mean they're being scapegoated, it doesn't mean he can't later receive praise from commentators for his overall performance (especially when you consider those same commentators also criticised said error).

Also, when one player has in our last ten games been significantly involved in us conceding in 5 of (coincidentally, also ten) goals, conceded one penalty, should have conceded another, and has had a couple of notable moments when he has played us into trouble that we managed to avoid, it isn't really unreasonable for people to suggest replacing him with a player who is generally viewed to be of a similar skill level but who doesn't have such a record (so far) for putting his team in trouble so often in such a short run of games.



I don't know if either Dunk or Huenemeier are notably better than the other. For me, they're much of a muchness. Different strengths and weaknesses. While Uwe hasn't made as many mistakes, he was dropped because he was being outplayed in the air, and we needed that height advantage Dunk brought the team. Uwe has also had a couple of instances where things could have been worse - could have seen red in one game, could have conceded a penalty in another - but not as often as Dunk.

I don't believe it's the simple decision to bring back Huenemeier some seem to be calling. I think it should be easy enough for people to actually make the argument for picking Dunk, showing why an error or two in a particular game doesn't write off his performance for the entire game, etc.

But to meet any criticism of Dunk or his selection with "oh, you think you know better than Hughton?" or "Oh look, the boo boys have found a new Barnes" is really just... lame. There's an element of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate issues, there's the perception that you can't actually counter with salient points, so would just lazily try to dismiss a point, and I would be willing to bet there is a degree of hypocrisy in some of the people who say this. Some of those same people rolling out these fox news-style counters will have questioned team selection, contributed to those "Team for [match]" threads that pop up each week, possible even criticised a player once or twice (even sometimes in the heat of the moment then on reflection realised they were being a little harsh).


(tl:dr)
I guess to summarise, stopping spouting that "[x] if the new Barnes" or "you know better than Hughton?" lines. If you can't be bothered to properly counter criticisms of a player or a player's selection, please, just ignore it.

(nb, I'm not telling people what they can or can't post, just making a request - one I'm sure will be ignored, but at least I tried)

 

[warmleyseagull]

I actually think Derby would have scored from the cross in anyways if the referee hadn't have blown, they had two players waiting at the back post to head in. Greer I believe was on the line so don't think it was him who committed the foul, I didn't see it myself but was told by the guy stood next to me that it was Bruno so I'm none the wiser

Well it clearly was Greer, and his reaction said it all. Think he knew he shouldn't have dived in, it was a reckless challenge. I am not complaining, if that happened at other end I am baying for a pen.

 

[Easy 10]

It looked to me like the ball had gone out of play, Dunk had already lunged in and the Derby player (Russell I think) took the chance to throw himself down.

The ref should've considered where the ball was once Dunk made connection with the derby player. It was never a goal scoring chance, 9/10 players tend to throw themselves down when in those positions around the box.

Crap referee.

Whether it was a goalscoring chance or not is an irrelevance. Greer went to ground and wiped him out LONG after the ball had been crossed, so it was 100% a foul all day long. Stonewall pen.

 

[Acker79]

Watched the pen a few times. Reckless challenge by, Greer, I think. But the guy had already crossed it so pretty 50/50

Aspinall was saying something similar. What exactly does that mean? Are you both suggesting that if a player is fouled after crossing the ball, it doesn't count as a foul so shouldn't be a penalty?

 

[patchamalbion]

Well I bloody enjoyed that. Was a really good game of football and proved, yet again that we are up there for a reason and won't be going anywhere! Two very well taken goals and played excellently down the middle.
Still some sloppy errors could have cost us. The back pass that dunk somehow got back to block was woeful.

Not sure about the penalty. Slid in to block a cross late on and did catch him to be fair but 50/50 from my view

Pretty decent atmosphere over on the left side next to the derby lot.

Roll on Tuesday

 

[NooBHA]

This was covered earlier this week. Wilson did say that there was a recall option, and someone even quoted the loan rules for youth players (which Wilson was, aged 20, at the point the loan started) which stated that the recall option can be exercised after a month or 28 days (can't remember which).
We want to hope United's injury list doesn't keep piling up -- Lingard's just gone off -- because this, combined with Wilson banging them in with great regularity, might be bad news for us.

Yes he can be recalled. I don't know the exact details on it. I was told but I cant remember but I thought that he could be recalled right up till the end of January. If not recalled by then, the loan then converts to a season long loan and then he can't be recalled. I think this is the situation but NOT 100% certain

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes he can be recalled. I don't know the exact details on it. I was told but I cant remember but I thought that he could be recalled right up till the end of January. If not recalled by then, the loan then converts to a season long loan and then he can't be recalled. I think this is the situation but NOT 100% certain

Thanks (again). Perhaps you could cut-and-paste this and post it on the Wilson loan recall thread.

 

[NooBHA]

So, is any criticism of Dunk now going to be met with "oh, the new Barnes!" and "You think you know better than [insert manager name]?!" Because that is quite lazy. There are many reasons that a team is picked, including, but not limited to, options, opponents, partnerships, philosophy (such as not wanting to change a winning side, if you've got the shirt you keep it, concerned players will be put on edge if teammates get dropped after a notable mistake etc).

Last season, any criticism of JFC was met with such comments, Hughton apparently doesn't view JFC as a regular starter, or even a regular squad player. Does he know more or less about football than Hyypia, Southgate, Garcia and Poyet? I imagine it can be argued where in that list he sits, I'm sure most people would put him top, but wherever you place him, you got the fans who didn't rate him, some managers who did and now Hughton who doesn't seem to.

Which just goes to show how complex team selection is.

Yes, Hughton is currently playing Dunk, but that doesn't mean he thinks Dunk is better than Huenemeier. It might be he felt Dunk's strengths would be better suited. It might be that Huenemeier was ill/injured when Greer returned, so Dunk automatically got the spot, and Hughton would prefer as settled a side as fitness allows.

It's also important to remember a player can have a generally good game and still have a moment or two that deserves criticism. (And vice versa, a generally poor performance with one or two key moments of great play).

To acknowledge a mistake/lapse/complete balls up, doesn't mean they're being scapegoated, it doesn't mean he can't later receive praise from commentators for his overall performance (especially when you consider those same commentators also criticised said error).

Also, when one player has in our last ten games been significantly involved in us conceding in 5 of (coincidentally, also ten) goals, conceded one penalty, should have conceded another, and has had a couple of notable moments when he has played us into trouble that we managed to avoid, it isn't really unreasonable for people to suggest replacing him with a player who is generally viewed to be of a similar skill level but who doesn't have such a record (so far) for putting his team in trouble so often in such a short run of games.



I don't know if either Dunk or Huenemeier are notably better than the other. For me, they're much of a muchness. Different strengths and weaknesses. While Uwe hasn't made as many mistakes, he was dropped because he was being outplayed in the air, and we needed that height advantage Dunk brought the team. Uwe has also had a couple of instances where things could have been worse - could have seen red in one game, could have conceded a penalty in another - but not as often as Dunk.

I don't believe it's the simple decision to bring back Huenemeier some seem to be calling. I think it should be easy enough for people to actually make the argument for picking Dunk, showing why an error or two in a particular game doesn't write off his performance for the entire game, etc.

But to meet any criticism of Dunk or his selection with "oh, you think you know better than Hughton?" or "Oh look, the boo boys have found a new Barnes" is really just... lame. There's an element of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate issues, there's the perception that you can't actually counter with salient points, so would just lazily try to dismiss a point, and I would be willing to bet there is a degree of hypocrisy in some of the people who say this. Some of those same people rolling out these fox news-style counters will have questioned team selection, contributed to those "Team for [match]" threads that pop up each week, possible even criticised a player once or twice (even sometimes in the heat of the moment then on reflection realised they were being a little harsh).


(tl:dr)
I guess to summarise, stopping spouting that "[x] if the new Barnes" or "you know better than Hughton?" lines. If you can't be bothered to properly counter criticisms of a player or a player's selection, please, just ignore it.

(nb, I'm not telling people what they can or can't post, just making a request - one I'm sure will be ignored, but at least I tried)

I would disagree with that. If Chris is playing Dunk ahead of Uwe then he thinks he is a better player. He knows Dunky can be a liability and do crazy things occasionally and personally I am not Dunks biggest fan but playing out of defence and creating passing angles going forward he gives you more than Uwe does.

He is also a lot more vocal than Uwe who is surprisingly not that vocal on the pitch and in training although he is a good solid defender and the manager likes him. I think he is just pleased to be blessed with 2 very capable defenders

 

[NooBHA]

Thanks (again). Perhaps you could cut-and-paste this and post it on the Wilson loan recall thread.

I will wait and see if I can get clarification first. Might get chance to find out on Tuesday

 

[perseus]

Darren Bent didn't do anything wrong for Derby. Ten minute impact sub.

 

[Acker79]

I would disagree with that. If Chris is playing Dunk ahead of Uwe then he thinks he is a better player. He knows Dunky can be a liability and do crazy things occasionally and personally I am not Dunks biggest fan but playing out of defence and creating passing angles going forward he gives you more than Uwe does.

He is also a lot more vocal than Uwe who is surprisingly not that vocal on the pitch and in training although he is a good solid defender and the manager likes him. I think he is just pleased to be blessed with 2 very capable defenders

For seven of the first 9 games of the season, Uwe started ahead of Lewis. Does that mean Hughton used to think Huenemeier was a better player? As another example, Hemed has started ahead of Zamora in all but two league games this season. Does that mean Hughton thinks Hemed is better than Zamora?

No, of course it doesn't. Which is my point. Picking a player doesn't mean you think he's the best player out of those from which you are picking your team. Just the best option at that time.

Chris may well think Dunk is a better player. He might even think Hemed is better than Zamora.

But a decent manager, and I think Chris is one of them, will look at the big picture - the team as a whole, the partnerships between players, the opponents' strengths and weaknesses, momentum and man management - and pick a team accordingly, not just select the players he thinks are best player in each position. We've seen England struggle with successive managers picking best players instead of the best team.

Also, since I may not have made it clear, that one or a couple of managers thinking a player is better, doesn't mean all managers think a player is better (thinking of JFC here), so acting like the managers that agree with you (whoever is making the point, not specifically you) trump the fans' opinions of a player is lazy.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, is any criticism of Dunk now going to be met with "oh, the new Barnes!" and "You think you know better than [insert manager name]?!" Because that is quite lazy. There are many reasons that a team is picked, including, but not limited to, options, opponents, partnerships, philosophy (such as not wanting to change a winning side, if you've got the shirt you keep it, concerned players will be put on edge if teammates get dropped after a notable mistake etc).

Last season, any criticism of JFC was met with such comments, Hughton apparently doesn't view JFC as a regular starter, or even a regular squad player. Does he know more or less about football than Hyypia, Southgate, Garcia and Poyet?

I think you're missing the point. Those other managers don't have the same choice of players as Hughton does. Hughton doesn't think JFC is the right player for what he wants. Today, Hughton thought Dunk was the right choice for what he wanted, and I imagine he has good reason to make that call, and I trust his judgement on the call a lot more than any fan's opinion.

Yes, Hughton is currently playing Dunk, but that doesn't mean he thinks Dunk is better than Huenemeier. It might be he felt Dunk's strengths would be better suited. It might be that Huenemeier was ill/injured when Greer returned, so Dunk automatically got the spot, and Hughton would prefer as settled a side as fitness allows.

Exactly.

To acknowledge a mistake/lapse/complete balls up, doesn't mean they're being scapegoated

But that's not the problem here. Some are saying he shouldn't play, Uwe should, but as you've said there could be many reasons why Hughton chose one over the other, and if you've (one's) got any sense at all you'll respect Hughton's decision.

 

[Acker79]

I think you're missing the point. Those other managers don't have the same choice of players as Hughton does. Hughton doesn't think JFC is the right player for what he wants. Today, Hughton thought Dunk was the right choice for what he wanted, and I imagine he has good reason to make that call, and I trust his judgement on the call a lot more than any fan's opinion.

Exactly.

I haven't missed the point. It is the same point you agree with on my second quote - JFC was being picked because he was the best option at the time (due to a lack of options) yet people who criticised him were told they were wrong on the basis those managers had picked him, as if his selection meant they thought he was a great player. Selection doesn't mean the manager thinks you're the best player, just that in that given situation they are the best option (for any number of reasons).

But that's not the problem here. Some are saying he shouldn't play, Uwe should, but as you've said there could be many reasons why Hughton chose one over the other, and if you've (one's) got any sense at all you'll respect Hughton's decision.

Do you not think it's possible to respect his decision while also disagreeing with it? Isn't team selection one of those things fans like to debate all the time?

Can I expect to see you pop up in the "team for QPR" thread telling them all if they have any sense they will respect Hughton's decision? Should the people who shout down fans with the dismissive "you think you know better than Hughton?" also pop into that thread?

 

[NooBHA]

For seven of the first 9 games of the season, Uwe started ahead of Lewis. Does that mean Hughton used to think Huenemeier was a better player? As another example, Hemed has started ahead of Zamora in all but two league games this season. Does that mean Hughton thinks Hemed is better than Zamora?

No, of course it doesn't. Which is my point. Picking a player doesn't mean you think he's the best player out of those from which you are picking your team. Just the best option at that time.

Chris may well think Dunk is a better player. He might even think Hemed is better than Zamora.

But a decent manager, and I think Chris is one of them, will look at the big picture - the team as a whole, the partnerships between players, the opponents' strengths and weaknesses, momentum and man management - and pick a team accordingly, not just select the players he thinks are best player in each position. We've seen England struggle with successive managers picking best players instead of the best team.
Also, since I may not have made it clear, that one or a couple of managers thinking a player is better, doesn't mean all managers think a player is better (thinking of JFC here), so acting like the managers that agree with you (whoever is making the point, not specifically you) trump the fans' opinions of a player is lazy.

When I have had a discussion about players I would never quote anyone because that discussion is not for me to play journalist and quote anyone; however I posted what I did to enlighten you on someone's thoughts. If you choose to dismiss what I posted then that's up to you

 

[Acker79]

When I have had a discussion about players I would never quote anyone because that discussion is not for me to play journalist and quote anyone; however I posted what I did to enlighten you on someone's thoughts. If you choose to dismiss what I posted then that's up to you

It reads to me like you are getting too fixated on whether or not Chris thinks Lewis is better than Uwe and missing my point that his team selection is based on the best team (or the best options for a given game), not the best individuals.

 

[Ceej]

https://youtu.be/fxr43YqM5aA

Decent match report from Derby Telegraph's chief football reporter. "Best side he's seen at Derby all season". Sorry if it's already been posted up.

 

[NooBHA]

It reads to me like you are getting too fixated on whether or not Chris thinks Lewis is better than Uwe and missing my point that his team selection is based on the best team (or the best options for a given game), not the best individuals.

If you read my response. I was not commenting on every point in your post. I actually highlighted that point and commented solely on that aspect of what was a lengthy post by yourself initially