Not happy with Result tonight

[Gazwag]

Is Stevens still carrying a small injury . However I might have tried Elvis up front for last ten minutes his strength and pace may have taken a bit of pressure of the defence and rested Glen Murray who was being fouled everytime he went up for a header. Well done Glen for not punching the marker.

I agree, we had no outlet and basically gave them free run to play the game in our half for the last ten minutes. We were crying out of a second goal and when that opportunity came had it been Stephens he would have shot and maybe scored rather than play another pass right to a Wolves player.

Elvis was the right decision v Huddersfield when defending a one goal lead and it worked.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Is Stevens still carrying a small injury . However I might have tried Elvis up front for last ten minutes his strength and pace may have taken a bit of pressure of the defence and rested Glen Murray who was being fouled everytime he went up for a header. Well done Glen for not punching the marker.

[tweet]788441394281082880[/tweet]

 

[crabface]

Wolves substitues at half time certaintly helped them and made them a different attacking threat, however we didnt help ourselves at times as sat far to deep and didnt push out quick enough.

I am worried that we havent learnt from last seasons mistakes as believe we could have been a bit more positive and got another goal in the first half, however happy with the 3 points.

 

[Notters]

This is becoming a myth, can't believe so many goons are fooling for it. Was it because we put on an extra defender and one of our best players that caused Wolves to have 6 corners in succession?

No it wasn't.

Woukd Murphy's hit and hope on Saturday gone straight to Sam Baldock and prevented a Preston attack (with one less player to bypass)? Of course not.

The problem is not the hanging on, it's failing to convert our pressure to chances and goals to kill the game off early.


Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I actually think it was, at least partly. I think we invited them onto us far too much. I'm not complaining btw, it worked out in the end.

 

[NooBHA]

I understand the logic and the percentages. However, sitting back failed on Saturday and nearly did so again last night. It will be interesting to see what happens on Saturday. Out of interest why is it that Baldock is the one to get subbed ? I know he covers a lot of ground in a match. Does this mean he can't play 90 minutes ?

I don't know but my first thought would be that Murray would be better at defending corners and free kicks into the box when teams get desperate

 

[Easy 10]

I haven’t read the whole thread so maybe this point has already been made. But I think we make it extremely difficult for ourselves when we start making changes with a view to hanging on for the last few minutes. Bringing off Baldock and replacing him with Stephens left a (knackered) Murray isolated, and removed one of our outlets. Then Knocky gets hooked, replaced by Pocognoli, and pop goes another outlet. Result - the Alamo. We spend the last 10 minutes with our backs to the wall on the edge of our own box, desperately hacking the ball clear to a Wolves defender who promptly sends it right back in. All our shape had gone (albeit not helped by Bruno having to come off), and in the end we were very fortunate not to do another Preston.

Why not just stay as we are, keep our shape as far as possible, and keep doing what we were doing that got us into a winning position ? Why change the shape to try and tough it out ? They'd hardly cause us many problems as the game wore on, until we changed our tactics. Hughton obviously knows what he’s doing, but me personally, I don’t understand it. And it nearly cost us again.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Successful teams don't " click " for long periods of any season. There are many games when they just do enough to win. Successful teams normally have strong defences and so can cope with spells of pressure from the opposition. Sometimes they will " click " for 20-25 minutes in a game and that is enough to win it. Sometimes they will have a purple patch of 2-3 or more games when almost everything goes right. Most of the time, though, isn't free-flowing attacking football. Its hard graft.
For a lot of last season, right through to Feb/Mar we just did enough in a lot of games. There were spells of good play and moments of near brilliance, mixed in with a huge amount of grit and determination. Sure, the goals flowed v Bristol/LeedsFulham and QPR but this was in the minority. Boro's run of nine games without conceding showed how important a strong defence is. Even though they are struggling in the PL at the moment, they aren't conceding many and this will hold them in good stead.
We still haven't reached the regular levels of last season yet and have lost one of our most influential players. We lie 3rd, with only Newcastle bettering our goal difference and nobody will better theirs all season. We are in good shape. We will improve as the season progresses and once in a while, we will batter the odd team.
After Saturday, all we needed was a win and we got it. We move on.

 

[goldstone]

It seemed to me that we were managing the game perfectly well before Hughton made the substitutions. Then the pressure mounted as soon as Stephens came on for Baldock. Carbon copy of Saturday really and could have again resulted in two points thrown away if a Wolves player had got a touch to the ball which fizzed across the goal right at the end. I would have thought Hughton would have learned something from Saturday. Can't see why he took Baldock off, and if it was necessary then Manu on in his place would have done a lot more to keep the ball up near their goal.

And I'm in the "Norwood had a good game" camp.

 

[NooBHA]

[tweet]788441394281082880[/tweet]

Pure guess work, that post by Aspinall and a load of nonsense. Sidwell and Norwood had played well in previous matches and kept their place on merit

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Successful teams don't " click " for long periods of any season. There are many games when they just do enough to win. Successful teams normally have strong defences and so can cope with spells of pressure from the opposition. Sometimes they will " click " for 20-25 minutes in a game and that is enough to win it. Sometimes they will have a purple patch of 2-3 or more games when almost everything goes right. Most of the time, though, isn't free-flowing attacking football. Its hard graft.
For a lot of last season, right through to Feb/Mar we just did enough in a lot of games. There were spells of good play and moments of near brilliance, mixed in with a huge amount of grit and determination. Sure, the goals flowed v Bristol/LeedsFulham and QPR but this was in the minority. Boro's run of nine games without conceding showed how important a strong defence is. Even though they are struggling in the PL at the moment, they aren't conceding many and this will hold them in good stead.
We still haven't reached the regular levels of last season yet and have lost one of our most influential players. We lie 3rd, with only Newcastle bettering our goal difference and nobody will better theirs all season. We are in good shape. We will improve as the season progresses and once in a while, we will batter the odd team.
After Saturday, all we needed was a win and we got it. We move on.

Enough of this good common sense on Nsc.

Good fishing trip by the OP.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don't know but my first thought would be that Murray would be better at defending corners and free kicks into the box when teams get desperate

Fair point. I wasn't there last night but I did go to the Preston game. The radio commentator yesterday seemed surprised that it was Baldock. Seemed he expected a straight swap for Sidwell (to prevent a booking) or Murray (tiring). I would have thought it makes sense to stretch the opposition towards the end of a game which would make Baldock a prime candidate to stay on the pitch. When you are winning 1-0 the opposition will always up their pressure so I think the extent to which we sit back is
sometimes exaggerated as it would happen anyway. However, on Saturday it seemed
quite marked and 6 Wolves corners suggests more of the same.

 

[NooBHA]

Fair point. I wasn't there last night but I did go to the Preston game. The radio commentator yesterday seemed surprised that it was Baldock. Seemed he expected a straight swap for Sidwell (to prevent a booking) or Murray (tiring). I would have thought it makes sense to stretch the opposition towards the end of a game which would make Baldock a prime candidate to stay on the pitch. When you are winning 1-0 the opposition will always up their pressure so I think the extent to which we sit back is
sometimes exaggerated as it would happen anyway. However, on Saturday it seemed
quite marked and 6 Wolves corners suggests more of the same.

I didn't see the full match either time but by all accounts circumstances were the same - Well on top most of the match but got pummelled by high balls in last 10 mins - The difference to me this time is not the fact that we don't have the outlet because the opposition are always going to do the high balls thing in desperation. All clubs do it. The difference this time to me was that the defence did their job properly and more importantly, the Keeper did his job properly in the last 5 minutes

 

[smeg]

Yeah absolutely shocking result, I mean a clean sheet and three points....

Not gonna win anything with that kind of form...

Some people are never happy.

It's weird isn't it, three points and a clean sheet, not good enough

 

[Easy 10]

I didn't see the full match either time but by all accounts circumstances were the same - Well on top most of the match but got pummelled by high balls in last 10 mins - The difference to me this time is not the fact that we don't have the outlet because the opposition are always going to do the high balls thing in desperation. All clubs do it. The difference this time to me was that the defence did their job properly and more importantly, the Keeper did his job properly in the last 5 minutes

I think a lot of that was more through luck than judgement. And it wasn't just high aimless balls either. The ball was constantly fizzing across our box, and we had a few pinball sessions as well which fortunately didn't quite fall for them. Our complete lack of an outlet meant they could push right up on us, force us deep, and (crucially) KEEP us there. We had no opportunities to break out, to get up there end, make for the corners or run the clock down. It was all hands to the pump, and it just kept coming back.

We just about got away with it last night, but its already cost us once, and if we persist with seeing games out like that when we have a slender lead, its inevitably going to cost us again.

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lense]

I am normally a glass-half full reflector on games, and am a huge fan of CH, but I do think his Substitutions changed the game, and swung away from us as it did against PNE. Of course we didn't decide on 15 minutes that one goal was enough, we pushed hard for a match-sealing winner, but were pretty solid - no problem with that. But the changes with at least 14 minutes left signalled clearly our intent to Wolves and ourselves, to try and sit it out. I can see more logic in Stephens coming on vs Wolves who were trying to play through the middle/keep possession far more than PNE were, but Murray had looked so leggy throughout, the change of shape just seemed doomed to fail.. Murray was not playing well enough to hold the ball up, not quick enough to run the channels effectively, and so we gave up possession too cheaply. It was made more bizarre by pushing Sidwell further forward - is he really better at that than Stephens or Baldock? Additionally, I thought there was an opportunity to play with Goldson alongside Duffy/Dunk, and have Murphy as a rubbish right back but a good wide man.. Goldson is a rubbish right back and rubbish wide man - but a very good centre half. The Alamo in the last few minutes made it feel that Wolves deserved something, but the reality was that we were very comfortable and only struggled after CH tactical change on 80 minutes.

 

[BensGrandad]

If CH wished to replace SB for whatever reason surely the answer rather than Stephens was either Murphy or Manu and tell them to run to the corners and just hit them from defence with long balls to kill the game off. All the time the ball is in the opposition half they cannot score. This tactic of filling the midfield will cost us again.

 

[highflyer]

In general no complaints about the overall tactics. I understand the approach and while it will be stressful, and occasionally upsetting, iI can see it makes sense over the course of a season.

My one disappointment last night was not seeing Manu come on for Murray who was looking somewhat weary. I still think Manu has something to offer and would have been interesting to see him running at a tired defence.

But in Chris we trust.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I didn't see the full match either time but by all accounts circumstances were the same - Well on top most of the match but got pummelled by high balls in last 10 mins - The difference to me this time is not the fact that we don't have the outlet because the opposition are always going to do the high balls thing in desperation. All clubs do it. The difference this time to me was that the defence did their job properly and more importantly, the Keeper did his job properly in the last 5 minutes

There number 17 Costa put in some good crosses...re the last ten minutes it seems to have been a feature of most of the Amex years...apart from under SH when it was the full 90 minutes

 

[Honky Tonx]

Why? from all accounts Norwood has been playing well.

Norwood is developing nicely. reminds me of Bridcutt.

 

[BensGrandad]

Norwood is developing nicely. reminds me of Bridcutt.

He seems to be getting into a position to be the successor to Stephens when he goes in January for about £2m.