[Archived] Mark Hughes - Good Choice ?

[thenodrog]

I think most of us are wondering about the twenty shots on goal - I don't know what the statos definition of a shot is but it's somewhat different from mine. Generally I'd say a shot should involve some effort by the keeper or a defender to prevent a goal.

348283[/snapback]

Doesn't that come under the heading 'shots on target' Paul?

Edited September 20, 2005 by thenodrog

[Paul]

I don't have a clue what you are referring to their thenodrog.

[philipl]

Paul, there were 21 shots on goal when I watched it again but at least 12 were utterly lacking in any conviction or confidence.

Also it is worth mentioning that after a slowish start when we allowed Newcastle far too much possession (I wonder whether that was a collective reaction to the early booking for that ridiculous Neill challenge making all the players reluctant to challenge vigorously- we got no more bookings yet Newcastle had a card fest and were very lucky Carr wasn't straight red and Taylor didn't go earlier), we were totally bossing the game right up to the moment Neill climbed all over Owen.

The Welsh comparisson is haunting me- I had thought about it before Sunday but Sparky got tactics all wrong in his last few games for Wales and definitely carries the can for the Newcastle defeat in my opinion.

We should have terrorised Taylor- one thing about Souness was he was a bully when it came to identifying a weak link on the opposition and mecilessly destroying him.

If Kuqi had a role on Sunday, surely it would have been to reduce Taylor to a quivering wreck and disorienting Boumsong. Newcastle had a defence which was there to be totally disrupted and what else are Kuqui or Dickov good for?

[John]

Hughes hits back at 'bore' claims...........

[Paul]

Paul, there were 21 shots on goal when I watched it again but at least 12 were utterly lacking in any conviction or confidence.

348349[/snapback]

In all seriousness, do we know how a "shot on goal" is defined for the purpose of these statistics?

[RevidgeBlue]

Like you Paul I'm baffled by these supposed 21 shots.

I can only recall Given making a couple of saves from set piece situations.

[jim mk2]

Hughes hits back at 'bore' claims...........

348357[/snapback]

Glad to see Hughes agrees with me after that chat I had with him last week.

Live television ultimately will kill professional football as a spectactor sport.

[thenodrog]

In all seriousness, do we know how a "shot on goal" is defined for the purpose of these statistics?

348377[/snapback]

Wouldn't it be a goal bound effort that would go in the net but for intervention by an opposing player. Reids shot for example flew over the bar and had me screaming in frustration at his profligacy until Riley's award of a corner showed that it had been deflected. S'not too hard to understand is it Paul?

[thenodrog]

Glad to see Hughes agrees with me after that chat I had with him last week.

Live television ultimately will kill professional football as a spectactor sport.

348384[/snapback]

My you are well connected. Come around to your house for tea and scones often does he Jim? Or did he come to you for advice on team selection for the mags game? If so that explains a lot..........

But I agree with the sentiments about live tele........ they've 'unpopularised' golf when that sport sold it's soul to Sky over a decade ago, currently it's footballs turn and next year cricket will be trashed too. Is it need or is it greed Jim?

Edited September 21, 2005 by thenodrog

[Paul]

Wouldn't it be a goal bound effort that would go in the net but for intervention by an opposing player.  Reids shot for example flew over the bar and had me screaming in frustration at his profligacy until Riley's award of a corner showed that it had been deflected.  S'not too hard to understand is it Paul?

348395[/snapback]

It will come as a shock to you that I don't find that difficult to understand, in fact I already knew it. Back to the question, seeing as thenodrog doesn't know the answer. What constitutes a shot at goal in match statistics? As there were clearly not 21 of the type described above.

[CAPT KAYOS]

It will come as a shock to you that I don't find that difficult to understand, in fact I already knew it. Back to the question, seeing as thenodrog, doesn't know the answer. What constitutes a shot at goal in match statistics? As there were clearly not 21 of the type described above.

348403[/snapback]

In total agreement with you Paul

[philipl]

I can't remember the exact terminology but let's say attempts at goal. I think it was 7 blocked, 7 off target, 7 on target.

In the first half, Given dealt with at least four efforts which had the virtue of being on target but were otherwise hopeless, plus the free kicks.

Second half, there were four efforts I can remember which had real threat-

Reid's blast blocked for a corner after thirty seconds

The shot that passed through Bellamy's legs too quickly for him to get a deflected touch (off target)

Tugay's blast from the corner where he attempted a Fulham repeat (off target)

Jansen's header cleared off the line (on target).

Plenty other less memorable moments.

[Paul]

Thanks philip, that helps.

Amazing what you forget, Tugay's shot had passed out of my mind completely.

[John]

Hughes on our system.

People can talk about systems and formations, but we played 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 (against Newcastle), whatever you want to call it, and they played 4-4-2.

"They created four chances and scored three; we created 20 and didn't convert any of them, so who's the most positive?

"If people want to go down the road of saying it's a negative system then I'd disagree because against Newcastle, we were certainly the more positive side.

"At the end of the day, it's not about systems, it's about getting the ball in the net and we're struggling in that respect because the number of chances we are converting isn't high enough.

"But I'm not too concerned about it at this point. The important thing is we are creating chances, we just need to be a bit more clinical."

[John]

Have to admit I do not agree with Sparky on this.

We were the home side and in my view we were not that positive. We had no support up top for Bellamy. Plus the fact we were playing a side struggling on confidence.

Boumsong and Taylor must have loved to mark just Bellamy.

Anyway, time to move on. However, I have got a feeling we will be talking about this topic again in the near future (sadly).

Edited September 21, 2005 by John

[LDRover]

Hughes on our system.

People can talk about systems and formations, but we played 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 (against Newcastle), whatever you want to call it, and they played 4-4-2.

"They created four chances and scored three; we created 20 and didn't convert any of them, so who's the most positive?

"If people want to go down the road of saying it's a negative system then I'd disagree because against Newcastle, we were certainly the more positive side.

"At the end of the day, it's not about systems, it's about getting the ball in the net and we're struggling in that respect because the number of chances we are converting isn't high enough.

"But I'm not too concerned about it at this point. The important thing is we are creating chances, we just need to be a bit more clinical."

348471[/snapback]

If he honestly believes that, then we are in trouble.

How many 'stick on' chances from open play have we had this season, 4, 5 maybe ?

Or has the definition of chance changed? Does it now mean, as ProZone call it, 'penalty box entries'?

[bob fleming]

Or has the definition of chance changed? Does it now mean, as ProZone call it, 'penalty box entries'?

348480[/snapback]

Fnarr Fnarr. So all we need to do now is convert our "Penalty Box Entries" into "Onion Bag Deposits". It's so simple.

Hmmm. Is that an alarm bell ringing?

[Jim J]

Hmmm. Is that an alarm bell ringing?

348494[/snapback]

AS isn't in your neighbourhood is he?

[G Somerset Rover]

If he honestly believes that, then we are in trouble.

How many 'stick on' chances from open play have we had this season, 4, 5 maybe ?

Or has the definition of chance changed? Does it now mean, as ProZone call it, 'penalty box entries'?

348480[/snapback]

LD Rover your spot on mate. When was the last proper chance we had where you'd expect the striker to easily convert? Our ability to create one on one's with the keeper are fairly pathetic- the best chance weve had in this goaless streak was when Kuqi slided in and dinked it wide.

[blue phil]

Hughes on our system.

"If people want to go down the road of saying it's a negative system then I'd disagree because against Newcastle, we were certainly the more positive side.

"At the end of the day, it's not about systems, it's about getting the ball in the net and we're struggling in that respect because the number of chances we are converting isn't high enough.

348471[/snapback]

I hope this is the public spin on events and that privately he thinks differently - if not I despair .

The Newcastle game , tactics wise and team selection , was for me the most depressing game since the opener a couple of seasons back against WBA(?) . Souness learnt nothing from that . Hopefully Hughes will .

[LDRover]

Fnarr Fnarr. So all we need to do now is convert our "Penalty Box Entries" into "Onion Bag Deposits". It's so simple.

Hmmm. Is that an alarm bell ringing?

348494[/snapback]

fnarr fnarr indeed.

During the ashes series I had the same reaction whenever Geoff Boycott talked about 'probing the corridor of uncertainty.'

[Flopsy]

oh that still makes me laugh.

His utterly disgusted "Oh what are they doing?" when england took the light at the Oval still makes me smirk - this from Mr "30 Runs in 4 sessions" Boycott

[krislu]

4-5-1 was spot on against Newcastle, whats wrong with people?! We won't win more football matches playing 4-4-2, 3-4-3, 4-3-3 or whatever.

Our team lacks quality, and putting the likes of Jansen upfront with Bellamy is NOT going to get us any more goals.

We need another attacker who can do this week in week out:

Pedersen's brillant lob against slovenia

Edited September 21, 2005 by krislu

[Blue blood]

Let's not forget that under Souness, bar the Man Utd 1-1 draw last season, we had looked very unconvincing for some time. Now I'm not saying that we look all too convincing at the moment, but it's a hell of a lot better than when Hughes came in.

Last season we'd have taken survival by goal difference on the last day of the season. As it was, the team avoided relegation in a fairly comfortable manner. In some ways this has gone against hughes as people's expectations have become much higher. Had we survived by the manner discribed above fans may be less critical and look on this season's performances in a more optimistic light and focusing more on the positives.

A team takes time to build, just as it takes time to destroy. Hughes hasn't been given too much to work with. Very few managers can turn things round in a season, especially with the resources at Hughes' disposal. Even the mighty Benitez had a league form that was less than impressive last year.

So far Hughes has taken some signifcant steps forward. We've finally got a class striker on the books again, and old veterans like Short and Flitty, hugely influential players in their day, have been replaced for peanuts. A very leaky defence has been tightened up, and Rovers are beginning to look like a team as oppose to a collection of players again. In such a short space of time such progress is pleasing. It's by no means a finished job but it's a good start.

The other thing with Rovers is the boring football lable, which again is somewhat harsh that it has fallen on Rovers, and largely due to the fact we upset Chelsea. Bolton play #### football but win, and thier fans aren't complaining. Nor are Chelsea fans despite the club being criticised for it's long ball style. Hughes has to try blocking this out and provide winning, rather than entertaining football. Sometimes this will come through trying to play football, other times it will come through scrapping. The big test for Hughes in this regard is not to bow to pressure and alter winning game plans, and know when to apply each of the two. In the Newcastle game, the cautious approach was foolhardy, but hey which manager doesn't get it wrong occassionally? Hopefully Hughes will learn from this, and realise when to scrap and when to play entertaining football. Chelsea are great because they can play breathtaking stuff but also grind out the points - we're halfway there.

My biggest worry is that we're still lacking offensively, Dickov's aging, there's question marks over Kuqi and Jansen, and the midfield isn't getting up to support the front man/men enough. However frustrating this is, we're still in a better position to rectify this then when Hughes took over. Reid, MGP, Bentley, Jansen, Emerton, Bellamy, Dickov and Kuqi are all theoretically capable of helping bellamy lift our offensive problems. Perhaps it's because we've more potential there it's more frustrating then last season, but with time I'm sure that Hughes can get this lot with a few more inspired signings to be offensively capable as we are defensively sound. Progress is often best done slowly and steadily so let's not panic yet. We're not far off a good team and with a bit more time in which the potential can be sorted into the haves and have nots Rovers under Hughes could be a force to reckon with again.

[John]

Excellent post Blue Blood.