Watford v Burnley

[hogesar 9,740]

2 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Good start by Watford . They will be top three . Not sure luck has much to do with it . 

With the way they've been dominated in games, it is luck. Like I say, there's not really an example of a team who has less possession, less shots, less passes, less chances, more chances against, on a regular basis who get positive results. It doesn't happen in football. Their performances have to drastically improve, their results have been lucky. 

Essentially, if that game last night was played with the same stats,  Burnley would win 75% of the time (roughly).

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,449]

53 minutes ago, hogesar said:

With the way they've been dominated in games, it is luck. Like I say, there's not really an example of a team who has less possession, less shots, less passes, less chances, more chances against, on a regular basis who get positive results. It doesn't happen in football. Their performances have to drastically improve, their results have been lucky. 

Essentially, if that game last night was played with the same stats,  Burnley would win 75% of the time (roughly).

Let’s pop back at the end of the season  , and see. 
 

One of the oldest philosophies in the game . Getting points when playing badly is what mangers love . 

[Mason 47 1,396]

Last Champ run Watford were 10 points off autos in January, and finished the season very nearly pipping us to the post.

Nothing is decided after 3 games 

[hogesar 9,740]

44 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Let’s pop back at the end of the season  , and see. 
 

One of the oldest philosophies in the game . Getting points when playing badly is what mangers love . 

Of course, but like I say that requires their performances to drastically improve. They won't pick up points playing badly for the entire season, that doesn't happen.

[Petriix 2,853]

I'm not sure I've seen many being unfair towards Dean Smith. It's simply that he hasn't built up any credit at all. It's a similar situation to Farke after his first season then the poor start to his second - many of us were questioning his methods and wondering if results would ever improve. 

By 10 games into that season, it was clear that things were starting to click. Smith obviously gets the same opportunity. We're rightly asking questions at this point and we're waiting to see if he has the answers.

Farke's team had some glaring deficiencies at that moment, and they were largely only glossed over by our ability to outscore teams. Of course it remains possible that Smith could achieve similar. Lightning, after all, does sometimes strike in the same place multiple times...

Aside from one fairly irrational post, most people are simply saying that we need to see things turn a corner in the near future. Most of us aren't assuming he will fail, just stating that he hasn't achieved anything yet. 

But I am seeing quite a few people who seem to be assuming that it's only a matter of time before it all falls into place. I'd suggest it's pretty arrogant to believe this league is easy. It will take something pretty special to recreate our previous success at this level. If he does it then Smith will rightly be lauded.

[Moosebadge 28]

Watfords championship home form since they last dropped points in this league is

WWWWWWWWWWWW - 12 wins in a row

For 24

Against 1

Cleansheets 11 out of 12

Championship cheat mode otherwise known as Ismaila Sarr 5 goals, 4 assists, 1 pen won and 4 key passes in 12 home championship games.

This division is about grinding out a clean sheet and nicking a goal.

 

 

[Canaries north 151]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

With the way they've been dominated in games, it is luck. Like I say, there's not really an example of a team who has less possession, less shots, less passes, less chances, more chances against, on a regular basis who get positive results. It doesn't happen in football. Their performances have to drastically improve, their results have been lucky. 

Essentially, if that game last night was played with the same stats,  Burnley would win 75% of the time (roughly).

Leicester 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,800]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

Your opinion, certainly not Webber's, nor the board's, or many City fans. Perhaps you have have some privileged access to knowledge of the future, in which case I suggest you pick today's winning lottery numbers and keep doing so until you can afford to buy Delia out and employ a manager who will guarantee the PL title within a couple of years.

Btw, Hughton got Newcastle promoted, and achieved a higher PL position with Norwich than Lambert. Replacing managers does not guarantee success; just how many examples of clubs getting demoted after changing their manager do you want me to cite? We are two games into the season, Weber is not stupid enough to sack the manager after two games just because a section of irrational fans don't like Smith's character. He will act if and when there is sufficient evidence that Smith can't achieve the club's objectives. In the meantime why not get behind the team and show some support, or at least show the honesty of Canary Bubbles and admit your hatred of Smith is personal and not rational.

My evidence is based on my own eyes...how many games are you giving this turkey?