Leeds are pants

[nutty nigel 7,506]

4 hours ago, Rob Whites said:

It was a long time ago,but I also remember us staying in the promoted division for a while as well 😉

I bet you remember being champions of Europe too.....

[Il Pirata 249]

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 20:54, Rob Whites said:

22 games gone. You need to pull your socks up in defence if you are aiming for that. You are great getting goals in the last 15 mins but you cant rely on those.

I think we can rely on those late goals, actually. Since we're making a habit of doing it, we're clearly doing something that allows us to excel during late periods of games. We should have won on Saturday after a pretty torrid 70 minutes. Late goals are a sign of strong mental fortitude and belief, and I expect we will score a few more before the season is done. 

It's given us a competitive edge. Opposition players are mentally aware of our late goals, and seem to tactically regress as the game moves into the latter stages. Bristol City went from being on the front foot for most of the game, to being boxed in their own half for the last 10-15 minutes. That wasn't just Norwich upping their game, Bristol City's mentality changed and contributed. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Il Pirata

[Woodman 92]

18 hours ago, JF said:

Ah the myth that a goal scored in the final minutes is somehow less deserving and worthy than a goal scored in the first 5 minutes. Maybe something that FIFA can look into, A cut off point of 85 minutes for a real goal. Any goals scored after 85 minutes only count as half a goal, at this point 2 half goals will only count as one full goal. Goals conceded against teams that are struggling at the lower end of the table devalue the victory and therefore the higher placed team has to win by two clear goals scored between the minutes of 25-75 to claim the full 3 points. 

Don't forget Pukki's goal against QPR wasn't a 'proper' goal either.  Goals like that need to be disallowed if an ex-England manager is in charge of the opposition too...

[ron obvious 1,495]

41 minutes ago, Il Pirata said:

I think we can rely on those late goals, actually. Since we're making a habit of doing it, we're clearly doing something that allows us to excel during late periods of games. We should have won on Saturday after a pretty torrid 70 minutes. Late goals are a sign of strong mental fortitude and belief, and I expect we will score a few more before the season is done. 

It's given us a competitive edge. Opposition players are mentally aware of our late goals, and seem to tactically regress as the game moves into the latter stages. Bristol City went from being on the front foot for most of the game, to being boxed in their own half for the last 10-15 minutes. That wasn't just Norwich upping their game, Bristol City's mentality changed and contributed. 

 

 

And they get knackered chasing shadows.

Some of our football is breathtaking. Bewilderball.

 

[Petriix 2,834]

Fair play to Leeds, they are on an awesome run: won 5 in a row and deservedly top as a result. We've both got a tough run of games coming up, culminating in playing each other. Personally, I'd be more than happy if we're both still up there in 6 weeks time; even if we're still in second.

[splendidrush 698]

While what R White  says is true,  in that we conceded 2 against Bolton,  we also managed to score 3 whereas Mighty Leeds only scored once. Could it be that while we need to tighten up defensively, Leeds' should be getting more goals against lower opposition?

[Surfer 1,547]

5 hours ago, Petriix said:

Fair play to Leeds, they are on an awesome run: won 5 in a row and deservedly top as a result. We've both got a tough run of games coming up, culminating in playing each other. Personally, I'd be more than happy if we're both still up there in 6 weeks time; even if we're still in second.

Agree. They have Villa, Forest and Stoke away plus Derby at home in the next 6 games, also Hull and Blackburn at home which "should be" straightforward wins. 

[splendidrush 698]

I think we perform better against footballing teams than the lump and rush strugglers, we always have. So I feel we will get our share of points from those tough games, meanwhile Leeds may stumble but if they don't they'll be taking points from our rivals. 

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

If Leeds are pants, we'd better make sure we are pants too. Leeds are a bit ahead of us on virtually every measure that matters if the objective is automatic promotion.

[splendidrush 698]

Have you taken into account the fact that we were pants for the first six or seven games? Since then no one has come close. So while their stats may be better, they had a head start and won the 'six pointer ' at CR yet are only a point ahead.... reminds me of the League 1 days. 

[Jack Barak 46]

Leeds clearly aren't 'pants', any team that is above them come the end of the year is likely to go up automatically. 

In many ways they remind me of us, they play a similar brand of football and are trying to do it without spending some of the outrageous sums that other Championship clubs spend.  

 

The problem I see with Leeds is that if they do make it into the Premiership they really could kick on and do something. They have a big stadium and a large marketing worth that might just allow them to compete with that mid / second tier of clubs in the league. Their current manager would be a draw for players looking to make a name for themselves and he has a contacts book that most clubs and managers can only dream of. The only thing that seems to stop Leeds from living up to their potential is a stream of dreadful owners who behave awfully and who lack any form of business or footballing nous - so expect Bielsa to be sacked by Christmas if they do go up and them to sign the next Seth Johnson.

[ron obvious 1,495]

They were pants in that match, & have been unimpressive - over the course of a match - whenever I've watched them on a stream.

They rely on one or two moments of brilliance in amongst a lot of huffing & puffing, miscontrol & misplaced passing. They often win by the odd goal.

As do we. But the manner in which we achieve those wins couldn't be further apart in it's execution. It's precise, controlled, intelligent football. Farke's methods are reaping their rewards.

Our problems are down to the remaining mistakes, to which our style makes us particularly susceptible, & our insistence on playing football when defending when the row z option is required. It's a matter of learning, knowing when the situation requires a non-ideal solution. These are different problems to those of teams like Leeds.

I strongly believe our squad would make a decent fist of life in the Premiership. I think Leeds would need wholesale changes.

But who knows. These are just my opinions. And football is a funny old game.

 

[Nuff Said 5,082]

13 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

If Leeds are pants, we'd better make sure we are pants too. Leeds are a bit ahead of us on virtually every measure that matters if the objective is automatic promotion.

Eh? Only one measure matters - points.

 

Maybe I'll give you goal difference and goals scored but everything else is noise.

[ron obvious 1,495]

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Eh? Only one measure matters - points.

 

Maybe I'll give you goal difference and goals scored but everything else is noise.

There are actually 2 matters that arise other than points:

short term or long term? Tactics that get you short term points gains, or a long term strategy which means you can have long term success?

And ask Stoke fans why Pulis isn't managing them anymore...

(PS it's the same reason why I gave up supporting Arsenal in the 1960s & why Hughton was always heading for the sack).

 

 

[Nuff Said 5,082]

6 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

There are actually 2 matters that arise other than points:

short term or long term? Tactics that get you short term points gains, or a long term strategy which means you can have long term success?

And ask Stoke fans why Pulis isn't managing them anymore...

(PS it's the same reason why I gave up supporting Arsenal in the 1960s & why Hughton was always heading for the sack).

 

 

Not looking for an argument, but aren't we well ahead of Leeds on the short vs long term scale?

[westcoastcanary 173]

11 hours ago, splendidrush said:

Have you taken into account the fact that we were pants for the first six or seven games? Since then no one has come close. So while their stats may be better, they had a head start and won the 'six pointer ' at CR yet are only a point ahead.... reminds me of the League 1 days. 

Why should the fact that Leeds hit the ground running at the start of the season be counted against them? Good on them I'd say, and a pity we didn't quite manage to do likewise ("didn't quite manage" because, contrary to what you say, we weren't actually pants; we simply failed to earn the points our overall play deserved, due largely to blatant individual errors).  

[westcoastcanary 173]

4 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Our problems are down to the remaining mistakes, to which our style makes us particularly susceptible, & our insistence on playing football when defending when the row z option is required. It's a matter of learning, knowing when the situation requires a non-ideal solution. These are different problems to those of teams like Leeds .............

But who knows. These are just my opinions. And football is a funny old game.

 

Well maybe Leeds have already got the message about there being times "when the situation requires a non-ideal solution"?

We have maybe seen different matches Ron, but I agree with Jack Barak when he says Leeds try to play a similar style of football to ourselves. For all their "mis-control and misplaced passing", their average possession is still higher than ours!

[splendidrush 698]

Used the word 'pants ' in response to the OP. but I take your point. Their good start shouldn't count against them but the fact that they were so far ahead and have since been reeled in suggests that over the last 15 games or so we've outperformed them. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Eh? Only one measure matters - points. Maybe I'll give you goal difference and goals scored but everything else is noise.

Points aren't acquired miraculously; you get them by doing certain things better than other teams  -- creating chances, denying your opponents chances, converting your chances, stopping your opponents converting their chances, and so on. Other aspects of what you do, such as keeping possession and denying it to your opponents, contribute to how well you do all those essential things. You know all this Nuff, so I think you must be looking for an argument  ............ 

[westcoastcanary 173]

9 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

 .......... the fact that they were so far ahead and have since been reeled in suggests that over the last 15 games or so we've outperformed them. 

Yes, but they have had players injured, who are now coming back, so I expect them to pick up again. As for ourselves, a significant factor in amassing the points we have over the last 15 games has been outscoring our xG (the difference currently stands at +8, i.e. we have scored 8 more goals than might be expected given the number and quality of chances we've created). Leeds's total of goals scored, on the other hand,  more or less matches their xG. Are we going to be able to maintain that record of outscoring our xG? Let's see.

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

Some of the stats coming into football are completely daft. Expected goals ? You either take your chances or you don’t.

[Nuff Said 5,082]

1 hour ago, westcoastcanary said:

Points aren't acquired miraculously; you get them by doing certain things better than other teams  -- creating chances, denying your opponents chances, converting your chances, stopping your opponents converting their chances, and so on. Other aspects of what you do, such as keeping possession and denying it to your opponents, contribute to how well you do all those essential things. You know all this Nuff, so I think you must be looking for an argument  ............ 

But is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?

[westcoastcanary 173]

35 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Some of the stats coming into football are completely daft. Expected goals ? You either take your chances or you don’t.

So I'm at a coconut shy at the local fairground. One of the targets is a five foot diameter disc, the other a six inch diameter disc. I have one shot and will get a tenner if I hit either of them. Should I aim for the big disc or the much smaller one? Oh, wait a minute, there's no difference; whichever I choose, I'll either take my chance or I won't. Right?

[splendidrush 698]

Sorry westcoast but your claim that Leeds have had injuries doesn't hold up.... haven't we had injuries too?

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

14 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

So I'm at a coconut shy at the local fairground. One of the targets is a five foot diameter disc, the other a six inch diameter disc. I have one shot and will get a tenner if I hit either of them. Should I aim for the big disc or the much smaller one? Oh, wait a minute, there's no difference; whichever I choose, I'll either take my chance or I won't. Right?

Sorry but that’s a poor comparison, how good is the opposition keeper ? How good is your striker ?  You would aim for the big disc but give the ball to a baseball pitcher and tell him he could only aim for the small disc and he’ll still beat you won’t he ?

[westcoastcanary 173]

40 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Sorry but that’s a poor comparison, how good is the opposition keeper ? How good is your striker ?  You would aim for the big disc but give the ball to a baseball pitcher and tell him he could only aim for the small disc and he’ll still beat you won’t he ?

The point is that quality of chance -- in this case probability of hitting the fairground target, or probability of scoring -- matters. That holds even for the baseball pitcher, or the clinical striker. The baseball pitcher has a higher probability than me of hitting the smaller disc, but even he has a better chance of hitting the larger disc than the smaller one. As regards the keeper, just as a clinical striker may convert a chance that another wouldn't, so an exceptional keeper will make saves that another wouldn't. Neither means that measuring the quality of chances is meaningless or useless, just that it is possible to defy the probabilities if you are fortunate enough to have that quality of player. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

1 hour ago, splendidrush said:

Sorry westcoast but your claim that Leeds have had injuries doesn't hold up.... haven't we had injuries too?

With respect, I think you need to do some research. Just to illustrate, the Leeds side who played at Carrow Road included five first choice players all of whom have been sidelined for varying periods since (Ayling, Berardi, Jansson, Roofe, Hernandez, the first two being serious  injuries involving months of absence). Additionally, two of Leeds's major signings, Chelsea loanee Izzy Brown, and Patrick Bamford, have been badly injured, with Bamford only just returning and Brown making his comeback only recently in the U23s. Added to which, Leeds's captain Liam Cooper was injured at the start of December and is out for several months following surgery. 

Yes we have had injuries too, but nothing like on the scale that Leeds have suffered. 

[splendidrush 698]

With respect westcoast I'll leave the research to you.  Clearly you rely on it to back up your opinion. From memory, and I'm sure you'll correct me, we've lost Klose, Hanley, Hernandez, Leitner, Thompson and Tettey at various stages we've hardly seen Marshall or McLean,  Morris and Jarvis haven't featured at all but it's not how many injuries you have but how you deal with them. 

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

So how is the quality of this chance ?

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&source=hp&ei=wbgbXKuRJIeYsgGeyaigCw&q=ronnie+rosenthal+miss+gif&oq=ronnie+rose&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.1.46j0l2j46j0.3163.8204..11141...1.0..0.166.1226.7j5......0....1.......5..41j0i131j46i131.Mvkp6kTirpY#imgrc=zOgTMdpW7LLoPM:

Edited December 20, 2018 by FenwayFrank

[westcoastcanary 173]

7 hours ago, splendidrush said:

With respect westcoast I'll leave the research to you.  Clearly you rely on it to back up your opinion. From memory, and I'm sure you'll correct me, we've lost Klose, Hanley, Hernandez, Leitner, Thompson and Tettey at various stages we've hardly seen Marshall or McLean,  Morris and Jarvis haven't featured at all but it's not how many injuries you have but how you deal with them. 

No, it's not just how many but who exactly and for how long. That's what influences how well you can deal with the situation. For example, Tettey and Klose have started all but two of the 22 league games we've played so far, Leitner all but five. And on the subject of research, how much information about Leeds do you have stored in your memory? We can argue this out but the proof of the pudding will be in what happens as Leeds's missing first choice players return from injury.